Posted on 02/26/2023 3:57:05 PM PST by SeekAndFind
If it were up to me, the red states would adopt a new constitution that would codify no law can be enacted to reduce or restrict the amount of CO2 emitted for any reason. Carbon emission taxes are not allowed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
That alone would increase the GDP 20-10%.
The whole thing is non sense. You cannot apply static analysis on what is the most dynamic of all situations, the secession of many states.
Static analysis and extrapolation regarding economics is useless ( and stupid ) here.
Exactly.
Should there be a divorce, instantly all items currenlty imported through the west coast would no longer be able to be shipped to red states without potential for tariffs and other taxes.
NY Financing would no longer benefit from Red State activity as this would be moved “in house”.
You’d likely see the Gulf States gain the port economic activity that now goes to the the West Coast, if the red states were a separate nation.
All financing of Red State activity would relocate to the A red State financial Hub and out of NY etc.
Blue States would have to start paying taxes on imported raw materials and foods from red states where they are actually produced, etc etc etc.
PEOPLE LISTEN UP: Secession wipes the slate clean - GET IT????
This analysis omits two of the three big ares of Federal expenditure, and gets the third wrong.
I don’t have current numbers, but, from the most recent numbers I’ve seen, the three big areas of Federal expenditure are: Redeeming Federal bonds, food stamps, and social security/medicare.
Since buying Government bonds is not a tax, in an assessment of taxation, it wouldn’t count. However, redeeming Government bonds is an expenditure. If these were included in a comparison of taxation with expenditure, it would create the illusion that people who buy government bonds are a pure drain on the system. Actually, people who buy Government bonds are helping to hold the roof up. So some care would be needed to include this. However, without it, you can’t get a picture of the Government’s cash flows.
Food stamps are a pure payment by the Federal Government, which go into an area. If you’re going to look at Government cash flows, this has to be included.
This analysis includes, apparently, both Social Security taxes, and SS payments. But (mostly) the taxes come from the place where someone lived while he worked, the payments go to where he retired. If someone works in New York, but retires to Alabama, the revenue come from New York, and the payments go to Alabama. That doesn’t make Alabama a beneficiary of New York, it makes it a retirement community for New Yorkers. I’ve heard a lot of stories of people retiring to places with low taxes, low crime, and a low cost of living. This mostly means that people either retire in place, or retire to red states. To claim that the red states are supported by the states where people don’t want to retire, is to create an illusion. What this actually means is that red states are better places to live.
So, “divorce” means secession? Ridiculous.
There's already a separation happening, people are voting with their feet and tax dollars.
The top immigration outflow states are BLUE, led by California, NY and Illinois. Not a coincidence, they're also three of the highest taxed states in the country and were lockdown havens for the nanny state nattering naybobs.
There doesn't have to be any such formal "national divorce" as it's happening all on its own.
As it damn' well should!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.