Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, so, how about this? You take away our federal funding, and we'll stop sending our tax dollars to DC. Guess who wins if that happens. Hint - it's not Trump and the rabid bigots who want deport people who've been here since they were infants.
If only more Trumpers, and Trump himself, would open books...
Classic attempt at deflection.
This thread is not about what you would like it to be, but instead about how much the taxpayers are pumping into the madness of supporting illegal aliens and the cities that flout federal law.
It is time not only to drain the DC swamp, but to also cut off all federal funding of cities that refuse to obey the law.
This thread is not about what you would like it to be, but instead about how much the taxpayers are pumping into the madness of supporting illegal aliens and the cities that flout federal law.
It is time not only to drain the DC swamp, but to also cut off all federal funding of cities that refuse to obey the law.
That is what I'm talking about. Low income populations and socialism.
This list is the one I find the most humorous when used to justify this argument because you can see right through it with some basic understanding of math. What this list exposes is that conservative states have low cost state governments.
Suppose you have a high tax liberal state that is collecting $2 per capita in state tax and gets $1 per capita in federal funding. In the low tax conservative state they are collecting $1 per capita in state tax and $1 per capita in federal funding.
33.333~% of the liberal states budget is from federal funding, the conservative state is 50%.
Quote:
Also, I wouldn't expect PA to get credit for the work done by Texans.
You are missing the point, that revenue is generated in PA. The headquarters for that company is only relevant to the taxes.
This list is the one I find the most humorous when used to justify this argument because you can see right through it with some basic understanding of math. What this list exposes is that conservative states have low cost state governments.
Suppose you have a high tax liberal state that is collecting $2 per capita in state tax and gets $1 per capita in federal funding. In the low tax conservative state they are collecting $1 per capita in state tax and $1 per capita in federal funding.
33.333~% of the liberal states budget is from federal funding, the conservative state is 50%.
It's hardly 50/50 ratio. Further, too many of these low cost states are managing poorly with substandard education (which costs the tax payer more down the road via subsidizing), pollution/environment care, and over all poverty. It's a costly mess.
Quote:
You are missing the point, that revenue is generated in PA. The headquarters for that company is only relevant to the taxes.
Aren't the PA workers generating revenue for PA? No? As far as headquarters go this is common everywhere. I see it in MA all the time.
I have no idea. I would consider which of these funds I could legally encumber, if I was serious about getting control of immigration. One of many ways to 'build a wall', as I have said. The report simply identifies federal funds, their sources and destinations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
So, is trump going to cancel funding to "sanctuary" cities or what?
Well, I'll disagree. When you or anyone make it a red/ble/purple argument than you digress from a discussion of immigration and how to better control our borders and protect our country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
The common retort and objection to the government taking federal monies paid out by the tax payer is this argument. It's a sound argument, not a hijack.
Further, too many of these low cost states are managing poorly with substandard education (which costs the tax payer more down the road via subsidizing), pollution/environment care, and over all poverty. It's a costly mess.
Meaningless rant to save face.
Quote:
Aren't the PA workers generating revenue for PA? No? As far as headquarters go this is common everywhere. I see it in MA all the time.
Yes they are but the federal tax revenue from those operations is not attributed to PA. It's not the pencil pushers in Texas that are the assets generating tax for that company at least as far as their PA operations go. This is only one example.... On the other end of the spectrum Comcast headquartered in PA has assets and service in Texas.
Getting back to the point of this if you want to calculate where the tax revenue is generated from it's an extremely complex calculation.
Save face for what? You note low cost states as if that some how balances the books. It doesn't. It costs other states more and I noted why.
Quote:
Yes they are but the federal tax revenue from those operations is not attributed to PA. It's not the pencil pushers in Texas that are the assets generating tax for that company at least as far as their PA operations go. This is only one example.... On the other end of the spectrum Comcast headquartered in PA has assets and service in Texas.
Getting back to the point of this if you want to calculate where the tax revenue is generated from it's an extremely complex calculation.
I think many would argue that those pencil pushers deserve quite a bit of the credit for that revenue. The science, engineering, investment capital, etc is rooted in them, not PA. PA does not have that investment, so I don't see what the problem is. Anyhow, it doesn't negate level of poverty, housing aid, welfare aid, level of education, quality of life by state. I mean, if unemployment is high, poverty is high, education is poor, etc. this kind of sale you are trying to make is pretty weak.
Well, I'll disagree. When you or anyone make it a red/ble/purple argument than you digress from a discussion of immigration and how to better control our borders and protect our country.
Well, it makes no difference what color they are called. Ignore the elephant in the room (has there ever been a more appropriate pun? lol) There is disagreement on how to handle this and as I mentioned up thread, and you'll notice someone started a thread in this forum, we have a bill moving forward for MA to become a sanctuary state. If that happens the ?X$% is going to hit the fan and there is no way MA will take a substantial financial hit from the federal government. It won't happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
