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.
Our first line of defense,” Mr. Barnes, the Connecticut official, said, “is to take back Congress for Democrats.
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.
The high tax blue states subsidize the low tax red states. If you live in one, you are the one taking money from the liberals.
While it is interesting to hear Democrats demand an ever more progressive taxation system at the individual level and then scream about how unfair it is at the state level...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 - nor does it mean that Florida is "taking" money from blue states.
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.
A good read on the issue:
Are Red States Tax Takers And Blue States Tax Makers?
The American Revolution came about due to taxation without representation. Today, we have have taxation with under-representation. The Senate is dominated by red states since all states, regardless of population, receive two Senators. Meanwhile, red states complain about taxation while accepting Medicaid and other programs used by their poor, paid by blue states. West Virginia has a relatively old population, so 22% of its residents are on Medicare, versus 16.7% for the nation as a whole. It’s also a state that has benefited hugely from Obamacare, with the percentage of the population lacking health insurance falling from 14% in 2013 to 6% in 2015; these gains came mainly from a big expansion of Medicaid.It was somewhat arbitrary for the red state Congress to decide to negate a blue state exemption and at the same time increase a standard deduction that would benefit red states. Since the tax bill was rammed through with no congressional interaction, it seems reasonable for blue states (and their millions of taxpaying citizens) to question the fairness of all of this. Most of the defense of the tax bill is of the nah nah nah nah nah variety .
But this is a horse that has been beaten more than dead here over the past month or two I've been around, so not expecting any new insight. Maybe I'll be surprised.
the standard deduction benefits blue states as well as there are middle income and lower income people all over the place.It was somewhat arbitrary for the red state Congress to decide to negate a blue state exemption and at the same time increase a standard deduction that would benefit red states. Since the tax bill was rammed through with no congressional interaction, it seems reasonable for blue states (and their millions of taxpaying citizens) to question the fairness of all of this. Most of the defense of the tax bill is of the nah nah nah nah nah variety .
But this is a horse that has been beaten more than dead here over the past month or two I've been around, so not expecting any new insight. Maybe I'll be surprised.
The American Revolution came about due to taxation without representation. Today, we have have taxation with under-representation. The Senate is dominated by red states since all states, regardless of population, receive two Senators. Meanwhile, red states complain about taxation while accepting Medicaid and other programs used by their poor, paid by blue states. West Virginia has a relatively old population, so 22% of its residents are on Medicare, versus 16.7% for the nation as a whole. It’s also a state that has benefited hugely from Obamacare, with the percentage of the population lacking health insurance falling from 14% in 2013 to 6% in 2015; these gains came mainly from a big expansion of Medicaid.
It’s true that the nation as a whole pays for these health care programs with taxes. But an older, poorer state like West Virginia receives much more than it pays in -- and it would have received virtually none of the tax cuts Trumpcare, if it passed, would have lavished on the wealthy. Republicans’ red-state bias may seem like just more of the same. After all, their last big legislative drive — the Senate health bill, Graham-Cassidy, which failed in September — also sought a major transfer of resources from blue states that had done a good job expanding health insurance to red states that hadn’t. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, derided that bill as “petty politics” — “just taking the Obamacare money, keeping it and taking it from Democratic states and giving it to Republican states.”
Novelist Ayn Rand is cherished by Paul Ryan. As Ayn put it, under democracy “one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority.” That gang is the Republican majority which legitimizes this exploitation; itself an engine of injustice.
So, the blue states, that have the smartest tax lawyers and accountants, are responding to the GOP's rushed law that was incompletely thought through. Had there been hearings and time spent going over details, they would have closed the loopholes. Now, blue states will figure out how to shield themselves, resulting is less revenue than anticipated.
and up until a few years ago it was dominated by blue states because regardless of population blue states receive two senators.
there is a reason for that. all states no matter the size are equal in power. the senate does not represent the population of the state but the state itself.
yes and WV has a democrat population of 2:1.
what you said of ayn rand can be said of any majority not just republicans.
i do believe that obamacare was rammed down everyone's throat by that same majority that you speak of.
no judge in their right mind would allow them to make forced charitable donations to the state and not take it as at tax.
obama tried that same nonsense with obamacare in calling it a penalty yet it was implemented under tax law.
The American Revolution came about due to taxation without representation. Today, we have have taxation with under-representation. The Senate is dominated by red states since all states, regardless of population, receive two Senators. Meanwhile, red states complain about taxation while accepting Medicaid and other programs used by their poor, paid by blue states. West Virginia has a relatively old population, so 22% of its residents are on Medicare, versus 16.7% for the nation as a whole. It’s also a state that has benefited hugely from Obamacare, with the percentage of the population lacking health insurance falling from 14% in 2013 to 6% in 2015; these gains came mainly from a big expansion of Medicaid.
It’s true that the nation as a whole pays for these health care programs with taxes. But an older, poorer state like West Virginia receives much more than it pays in -- and it would have received virtually none of the tax cuts Trumpcare, if it passed, would have lavished on the wealthy. Republicans’ red-state bias may seem like just more of the same. After all, their last big legislative drive — the Senate health bill, Graham-Cassidy, which failed in September — also sought a major transfer of resources from blue states that had done a good job expanding health insurance to red states that hadn’t. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, derided that bill as “petty politics” — “just taking the Obamacare money, keeping it and taking it from Democratic states and giving it to Republican states.”
Novelist Ayn Rand is cherished by Paul Ryan. As Ayn put it, under democracy “one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority.” That gang is the Republican majority which legitimizes this exploitation; itself an engine of injustice.
So, the blue states, that have the smartest tax lawyers and accountants, are responding to the GOP's rushed law that was incompletely thought through. Had there been hearings and time spent going over details, they would have closed the loopholes. Now, blue states will figure out how to shield themselves, resulting is less revenue than anticipated.
The high tax blue states subsidize the low tax red states. If you live in one, you are the one taking money from the liberals.
You are just reciting the way things are, regarding Senate representation. I am saying that it is fundamentally unfair that one state has equal power to another state with dozens of more people.
Obamacare was debated for a year; had numerous hearings; Republicans had input and amendments. In no rational world could it be considered "rammed" the way the GOP rammed through their tax law.
And yet, the SCOTUS agreed with Obama.
The American Revolution came about due to taxation without representation. Today, we have have taxation with under-representation. The Senate is dominated by red states since all states, regardless of population, receive two Senators. Meanwhile, red states complain about taxation while accepting Medicaid and other programs used by their poor, paid by blue states. West Virginia has a relatively old population, so 22% of its residents are on Medicare, versus 16.7% for the nation as a whole. It’s also a state that has benefited hugely from Obamacare, with the percentage of the population lacking health insurance falling from 14% in 2013 to 6% in 2015; these gains came mainly from a big expansion of Medicaid.
It’s true that the nation as a whole pays for these health care programs with taxes. But an older, poorer state like West Virginia receives much more than it pays in --
...
Not exactly. Millionaires in states like Florida get a benefit that millionaires in states like New York do not.In other words, the system works exactly as Democrats want the Federal tax system to work, i.e. the people with the money fund the programs for the people without the money.
Do you not understand how our government is setup? I question this because this statement shows that you really don't understand or don't want to understand.
...
You are stating what the policy is, while I am arguing why the policy is unfair.
Not exactly. Millionaires in states like Florida get a benefit that millionaires in states like New York do not.
That may have worked well in 1789, when the biggest state was Virginia, at 747,610 people compared to the smallest state, Delaware, at 59,094. Now, the it's far out of wack, with Vermont’s 625,000 residents having 30 times the voting power in the Senate of New York’s 19 million. The nation’s largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that.no the policy isn't unfair. you remember that thing about equal rights?
all states are equal. your opinion of what is fair or not is irrelevant.
and am not stating the policy i am stating the constitution.
That may have worked well in 1789, when the biggest state was Virginia, at 747,610 people compared to the smallest state, Delaware, at 59,094. Now, the it's far out of wack, with Vermont’s 625,000 residents having 30 times the voting power in the Senate of New York’s 19 million. The nation’s largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that.
That may have worked well in 1789, when the biggest state was Virginia, at 747,610 people compared to the smallest state, Delaware, at 59,094. Now, the it's far out of wack, with Vermont’s 625,000 residents having 30 times the voting power in the Senate of New York’s 19 million. The nation’s largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that.
That may have worked well in 1789, when the biggest state was Virginia, at 747,610 people compared to the smallest state, Delaware, at 59,094. Now, the it's far out of wack, with Vermont’s 625,000 residents having 30 times the voting power in the Senate of New York’s 19 million. The nation’s largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that.
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.
Not exactly. Millionaires in states like Florida get a benefit that millionaires in states like New York do not.
You are stating what the policy is, while I am arguing why the policy is unfair.
the standard deduction benefits blue states as well as there are middle income and lower income people all over the place.
The federal government really just set the base income in the US at 24k dollars.
and 15k respectedly.
that doesn't include doubling the child tax credit.
then there is a the EIC credit as well that has to be factored in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?