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.
I live in a blue state with NO income tax. This will not affect me.
I know that and it should be quite evident by the question I asked of you that you avoided. What I asked was how you can justify paying more federal income tax than someone in California making the exact same thing you do?
Quote:
But blue states have been subsidizing red states for decades and red states have never complained about that. They are just fine with sucking up all the federal dollars. Here are the states most federally dependent:
This has been gone over numerous times in this forum and debunked each and every time. While the raw numbers you cite may fool the simple minded they aren't going to fool someone that realizes this is a very complex calculation. So complex it may be impossible to do...
I know that and it should be quite evident by the question I asked of you that you avoided. What I asked was how you can justify paying more federal income tax than someone in California making the exact same thing you do?
This has been gone over numerous times in this forum and debunked each and every time. While the raw numbers you cite may fool the simple minded they aren't going to fool someone that realizes this is a very complex calculation. So complex it may be impossible to do...
Debunked how? If you say it’s a complex calculation and may be impossible to do so mm
How is a state with low income, low taxes, high unemployment rate, low salaries, are able to fund infrastructure, education, and low income programs on a STATE level?
They can’t because they barely bring money in, yet receive a whole bunch of federal subsidies.
I know that and it should be quite evident by the question I asked of you that you avoided. What I asked was how you can justify paying more federal income tax than someone in California making the exact same thing you do?
This has been gone over numerous times in this forum and debunked each and every time. While the raw numbers you cite may fool the simple minded they aren't going to fool someone that realizes this is a very complex calculation. So complex it may be impossible to do...
It's not that complex. This seems to a thing where when red states are benefitting, "it's very complex!" so their answer it to "let red states benefit more!" All this while blue state votes count less. It's all a recipe for an eventual civil war.
Republicans like Peter King are saying such a vote is impossible, since he would be voting to penalize his own constituents.
“To me it’s about the most obvious message you can get. I just hope people listen,” he said, imploring GOP leaders to rethink the contours of the tax bill. “It’s just common sense. These aren’t [just] tough votes, they’re votes that go right against our constituents.”
Conversely, why should low tax states receive more money than they put into federal taxes?
The problems with these "studies" is they are using a very basic number without accounting for many of the variables as to why that might be. For example NM always tops these lists by a huge margin. Sandia and Los Alamos by themselves add approximately $2600 in per capita federal spending there.
As another example I-80 which runs from SF to NYC has it's longest section going through Nebraska, the conga line of trucks traveling through Nebraska would actually be a drain on their tax dollars.
As another example here in PA a lot of the companies drilling gas are from Texas, the taxes they and their employees pay from Texas are attributed to Texas.
As another example the state of Florida has a lot of retirees move there....
This is the tip of the iceberg, this would be a very complex calculation and you would need to account for these an many other things. As I said it may be impossibly complex.
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-09-2017 at 06:53 PM..
It's like the GOP no does not want to appeal to suburbs:
"...Republicans hold nine of the 20 districts with the most people reliant on SALT deductions, and seven of those who’d be hardest hit by the percentage of their income."
Yes it is. How much of the federal funding going to Nebraska to maintain I-80 do we attribute to the benfit of Nebraska, NYC, SF and all the other destinations in between? When you have adequately answered that we will move onto the next variable.
You are still avoiding the question I asked.
What I asked was how you can justify paying more federal income tax than someone in California making the exact same thing you do?
Yes it is. How much of the federal funding going to Nebraska to maintain I-80 do we attribute to the benfit of Nebraska, NYC, SF and all the other destinations in between? When you have adequately answered that we will move onto the next variable.
You are still avoiding the question I asked.
What I asked was how you can justify paying more federal income tax than someone in California making the exact same thing you do?
I feel I already pay more than many other states. It's that simple. I already do. Republican Darrell Issa said:
“If we had stuck just to things that generated economic growth and left all the other so-called reforms out we’d have a cleaner bill that’d be easier to pass,” he said. “Once we got into telling people how much we were going to cut their taxes we got into a question of how we’re going to pay for it, and we’re paying for it by raising other people’s taxes, and it happens that it is not evenly distributed by state.”
You are not answering my question, you should be a politician.
What I asked was how you can justify paying more federal income tax than someone in California making the exact same thing you do?
Quote:
we’re paying for it by raising other people’s taxes, and it happens that it is not evenly distributed by state.”
LOL, it's not evenly distributed because it wasn't evenly distributed to begin with. They are rectifying a situation where someone in one state was paying more than someone in another state.
I live in a blue state with NO income tax. This will not affect me. But blue states have been subsidizing red states for decades and red states have never complained about that. They are just fine with sucking up all the federal dollars. Here are the states most federally dependent:
And then we look at how the vote in blue states counts for less, while the blue states contribute more federally than red states:
For complicated reasons — some of which have to do with rural poverty, some of which have to do with the basic physics of supporting infrastructure in low-density regions — a disproportionate amount of per capita federal spending and benefits now flow down to the low-density states. According to a study by the Tax Foundation conducted several years ago, for every dollar New Jersey pays in federal taxes, it receives 61 cents in benefits and other federal spending. For the same dollar of taxes Wyoming spends, it gets $1.11 back.
People in NJ like to complain about taxes but deep down they enjoy paying them. They just elected a new Governor yesterday that ran on a platform of raising state taxes 1.3 billion dollars more.
Since you suggest this is so easy to calculate who is paying what this is this the next question to answer:
How much of the federal funding going to Nebraska to maintain I-80 do we attribute to the benefit of Nebraska, NYC, SF and all the other destinations in between?
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.