Democrats in High-Tax States Plot to Blunt Impact of New Tax Law

[BigRob]

Found this article quite interesting...

Per NY Times: Democrats in High-Tax States Plot to Blunt Impact of New Tax Law

I found this comment particularly telling:

I suppose the rational response for us is to lower our taxes,” said Benjamin Barnes, who heads the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, “but we have a public that has shown again and again that they expect high levels of service.

If the public is in clear support of maintaining various programs, then being up front about the fact that the public has to pay for them shouldn't be an issue. While some of the ideas are intriguing the bottom line appears to be that Democrats at the state level seem to recognize that their taxes are too high when no longer fully subsidized by the Federal government. If the public truly supports these programs as claimed, there shouldn't be a pressing need to figure out a way to "game the system" to try to hide the impact on a person's overall tax bill.

The same Connecticut person follows up with this:

Our first line of defense,” Mr. Barnes, the Connecticut official, said, “is to take back Congress for Democrats.

In other words, the argument here is that it is imperative that Democrats retake Congress so that local Democrats don't have to confront their high tax policies now that they will no longer be fully subsidized by the Federal government.

 

[Openmind]

Found this article quite interesting...

Per NY Times: Democrats in High-Tax States Plot to Blunt Impact of New Tax Law

I found this comment particularly telling:


If the public is in clear support of maintaining various programs, then being up front about the fact that the public has to pay for them shouldn't be an issue. While some of the ideas are intriguing the bottom line appears to be that Democrats at the state level seem to recognize that their taxes are too high when no longer fully subsidized by the Federal government. If the public truly supports these programs as claimed, there shouldn't be a pressing need to figure out a way to "game the system" to try to hide the impact on a person's overall tax bill.

The same Connecticut person follows up with this:


In other words, the argument here is that it is imperative that Democrats retake Congress so that local Democrats don't have to confront their high tax policies now that they will no longer be fully subsidized by the Federal government.

Once again, you are totally beside your boots! The new tax law is obviously bad for Blue States. . .but in fact, it is the BLUE STATES who have been GIVERS and the RED STATES who have been TAKERS! That is, the Blue states, historically, have contributed a LOT MORE in taxation than the Red States. And because of the new monstrosity of the new tax law, this inequality in contribution to federal will INCREASE

Red states more dependent on federal government - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/red-states-more-dependent-on-federal-government-2015-7
Jul 21, 2015 -

Robbing Blue States to Pay Red - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/tax-plan-states-gop.html
Nov 13, 2017
.
Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid? - Tax Foundation
https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/
Jan 11, 2017 -

Are Red States Tax Takers And Blue States Tax Makers?
thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/
Nov 17, 2017 .

Blue states face steep cuts under Graham-Cassidy. Red states reap ...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and.../graham-cassidy-rewards-anti-obamacare-states
Sep 20, 2017 -

'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share ...
www.politifact.com/.../statements/.../red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state...
Jan 26, 2012 -

Now. . .what would happened if those wealthier BLUE States get tired of dropping money in the federal pot to support RED states?

And. . .another point: Isn't it amazing that it is the States that apply more "BLUE" economic and social policies who are wealthier? Why, if the "trickle down" and "let's cut the taxes of the top 1% the most" RED policies worked so well, why are red states consistently the poorest?

DUH!

 

[BigRob]

Now. . .what would happened if those wealthier BLUE States get tired of dropping money in the federal pot to support RED states?

Maybe they will do something radical...like support tax reform at the federal level....

 

[BigRob]

You also might want to read your own links - this one (that you posted) argues that your premise is incorrect, misleading, and flawed.

To take your logic an extra step - why should those "rich" taxpayers (states) have to subsidize those "poor" taxpayers (states)? You apparently support it at the State level but not the individual level....why? Or do you really just oppose a progressive taxation system in general?

 

[Openmind]

Maybe they will do something radical...like support tax reform at the federal level....

Tax for the wealthy? NO way!

 

[Openmind]

You also might want to read your own links - this one (that you posted) argues that your premise is incorrect, misleading, and flawed.

To take your logic an extra step - why should those "rich" taxpayers (states) have to subsidize those "poor" taxpayers (states)? You apparently support it at the State level but not the individual level....why? Or do you really just oppose a progressive taxation system in general?

I do support a progressive taxation system, and have never complained about the wealthier states helping the poorest states. The point I was making is that the states that have been run by GOP types, by the "capitalist is king" principle, and the "trickle down" theories ARE and CONTINUE to be the poorest and the more in need of subsidies, while states who use more leftist policies, including better safety nets for their citizens are the wealthiest and are POSITIVELY contributing to the well being of the red states.

By the way, I purposely included that ONE differing opinion. . .because it is obvious that it came from a RIGHT WING propaganda outlet!

 

[Openmind]

You also might want to read your own links - this one (that you posted) argues that your premise is incorrect, misleading, and flawed.

To take your logic an extra step - why should those "rich" taxpayers (states) have to subsidize those "poor" taxpayers (states)? You apparently support it at the State level but not the individual level....why? Or do you really just oppose a progressive taxation system in general?

I do support a progressive taxation system, and have never complained about the wealthier states helping the poorest states. The point I was making is that the states that have been run by GOP types, by the "capitalist is king" principle, and the "trickle down" theories ARE and CONTINUE to be the poorest and the more in need of subsidies, while states who use more leftist policies, including better safety nets for their citizens are the wealthiest and are POSITIVELY contributing to the well being of the red states.

By the way, I purposely included that ONE differing opinion. . .because it is obvious that it came from a strongly RIGHT WING leaning outlet!

The Federalist - Media Bias/Fact Check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

 

[BigRob]

I do support a progressive taxation system, and have never complained about the wealthier states helping the poorest states. The point I was making is that the states that have been run by GOP types, by the "capitalist is king" principle, and the "trickle down" theories ARE and CONTINUE to be the poorest and the more in need of subsidies, while states who use more leftist policies, including better safety nets for their citizens are the wealthiest and are POSITIVELY contributing to the well being of the red states.

This is a misrepresentation of the data. You make it sound like "red" states are failing due to their economic policies and therefore the federal funds that flow to them are needed to offset this policy failure. The reality is somewhat different.

These claims never account for cost of living differences between various states and never get into the weeds of just what a lot of this federal money coming to the states actually is. Included in the overall spending to justify "red" states "mooching" (not your word but used in print by others) off of "blue" states is things like defense spending, social security and medicare payments (allegedly "earned" benefits), agricultural subsidies and a myriad of other programs of course.

If someone works in New York for example and then opts to retire in Florida - in a vacuum Florida will show additional federal funds flowing to them simply due to social security and medicare payments. That doesn't mean that New York should be entitled to an offset for those funds.

It is nowhere near as cut and dry as just "blue states subsidize red states" and therefore blue state policies - whatever they happen to be - are superior. There is no provable causal link there.

By the way, I purposely included that ONE differing opinion. . .because it is obvious that it came from a strongly RIGHT WING leaning outlet!

The Federalist - Media Bias/Fact Check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

Per your link:
Factual Reporting: HIGH

Methodology: Factual Reporting: HIGH = a score of 1 – 3, which means the source is almost always factual, sources to mostly credible low biased information and makes immediate corrections to incorrect information.

I'm less interested in "bias" (as all sites will have it - left, right etc) and more on if the facts presented are true.

 

[Openmind]

This is a misrepresentation of the data. You make it sound like "red" states are failing due to their economic policies and therefore the federal funds that flow to them are needed to offset this policy failure. The reality is somewhat different.

These claims never account for cost of living differences between various states and never get into the weeds of just what a lot of this federal money coming to the states actually is. Included in the overall spending to justify "red" states "mooching" (not your word but used in print by others) off of "blue" states is things like defense spending, social security and medicare payments (allegedly "earned" benefits), agricultural subsidies and a myriad of other programs of course.

If someone works in New York for example and then opts to retire in Florida - in a vacuum Florida will show additional federal funds flowing to them simply due to social security and medicare payments. That doesn't mean that New York should be entitled to an offset for those funds.

It is nowhere near as cut and dry as just "blue states subsidize red states" and therefore blue state policies - whatever they happen to be - are superior. There is no provable causal link there.



Per your link:
Factual Reporting: HIGH

Methodology: Factual Reporting: HIGH = a score of 1 – 3, which means the source is almost always factual, sources to mostly credible low biased information and makes immediate corrections to incorrect information.

I'm less interested in "bias" (as all sites will have it - left, right etc) and more on if the facts presented are true.

However you want to look at it, the Red States and their mentality (Republican mentality, Evangelical hypocrisy, racism) have kept these states from attracting new industries and becoming competitive.

And. . .I am happy to hear that reliability and factual reporting is a priority for you. . .I hope this means that you do realise what the disastrous BIASED and FAKE reporting by Fox News, RightsAlert, Breibart, etc. . .are doing to this country, especially the least educated people in this country. . .especially in the Red States (once again!)