Posted on 05/17/2018 4:17:01 PM PDT by re_tail20
Before the ink was dry on our new tax bill, outraged blue states were screaming about the cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes. Their governments were also frantically seeking ways around it, and small wonder. For decades, high-tax states with a lot of wealthy residents enjoyed a hefty subsidy from the rest of America. Legislators were understandably panicked over what voters might do when handed the rest of the bill.
That panic generated some desperate ideas. The most popular, currently, is allowing people to convert tax payments above the $10,000 cap into a "charitable donation." New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have already passed laws to allow this.
While charmingly innovative, this approach is likely to fall afoul of tax courts, as will the other proposed tactics. Blue-state taxpayers may finally have to confront the full cost of the government they want. And Democrats will finally have to confront the tension between what those voters want government to do and what they're willing to pay for.
That reckoning is long overdue.
Remember the Bush tax cuts, first passed in 2001? A heartless giveaway to the rich that did nothing for the middle class, Democrats said. But when their expiration date approached, President Barack Obama called for raising taxes only on families making more than $250,000 annually — that being, apparently, what it now takes to call yourself "rich."
This absurdity is no accident. It's a function of the ideological beliefs of the Democratic activist base clashing with the geographic and demographic distribution of their voters.
Over the past few decades, the United States has undergone "the Big Sort," the clumping of the electorate into demographically, professionally and politically homogeneous neighborhoods. Hillary Clinton voters have their ZIP codes, and Donald Trump voters theirs, and ever more rarely do...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
“A lot of reasons for that” aside, it’s still a subsidy.
2. A comparison based on raw numbers is pointless. That's why all of these reports are based on per-capita spending, taxes, etc. Otherwise, California would rank #1 in the U.S. by every measure -- positive AND negative. Most food stamp recipients, most taxpayers, most criminals, most police officers, most white people, most minorities, etc.
I'll post some other links tomorrow when I'm back at my desk.
Baloney. See Post #40. The taxpayers in these high-tax states that were allegedly being subsidized were already paying far more in Federal taxes than their low-tax counterparts even WITH the state tax deduction still in place.
Conflating again.
I don’t think you even know what you’re talking about. That post references Federal taxes only.
Nope!..make them do it themselves..with their “secret vote”.....Everyone does whats in their own best interest when push comes to shove..
they might still talk liberalism...but they dammed sure wont support it with their own money...lol..I know lots of liberals...tighter then a screw when it comes to taxes they pay
The subsidies referred to state taxation that was correctly stated in the article. Which you have yet to prove false.
What you're going to find is that these liberal cities that get a lot of Federal money also have a lot of taxpayers -- and in cities these taxpayers are in higher tax brackets than their rural counterparts. That's why small, densely populated states pay a disproportionate amount of Federal taxes. They have a lot of middle-class people paying in upper-income tax brackets because wages and the cost of living are higher.
And two of the biggest factors in the gap between Federal taxes paid and Federal expenditures received are military bases and Indian reservations ... because these places get a lot of Federal money but don't have wealthy taxpayers.
That last point explains why rural states like New Mexico and Oklahoma proportionally have a lot of people on food stamps, by the way.
I did prove it false. See Post #40. If you’re going to claim that a state where the average resident pays less than $5,000 in Federal taxes is subsidizing a state where the average resident pays $12,000 in Federal taxes, then I’m not sure what kind of math you’re using.
P.S. — West Virginia, which has no big cities at all, is one of the biggest welfare states in the U.S. Every other road and building in that state is named after former Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) because the place would have been completely depopulated years ago without massive Federal government support.
OK..lets give you that point for arguments sake..Tell me why they pay more then their fair share then?
How can you prove it false when keep talking about federal taxation when the article was clearly demonstrating that state taxes are subsidized?
How are the state taxes subsidized? The author claims that allowing state taxes to be deducted on Federal tax returns is a “subsidy” ... but even with that state tax deduction those high-tax states still paid far more in Federal taxes than other low-tax states. That’s what I demonstrated in Post #40.
If I pay $12,000 in Federal taxes and you pay $5,000 I’d say one of us is paying more than his fair share ... and it ain’t you.
High populated states sure do pay more FEDERAL taxes. But that has nothing to do with state taxes or who is responsible for paying state taxes. Nothing.
Nothing to do with state taxes.
p
Anyway, off to bed. Thanks for debate. Talk again sometime.
Nobody in Alabama, for example, pays state taxes in Connecticut ... so how exactly does this "subsidy" work?
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.