4 ms·

Why? California, New York etc are net donor states that contribute tens of billions more to the federal government than they get back, while other states like A

Why? California, New York etc are net donor states that contribute tens of billions more to the federal government than they get back, while other states like Alabama get $2 for every dollar contributed. SALT was part of tax code since the introduction of federal income tax in 1913. For all the right wing complaining about welfare and redistribution of wealth, and states rights, they're more than happy to accept it when they take blue state dollars. I'm pretty upset at this because despite the relatively high rates of state and local taxes in New York, i have no qualms paying them. Services such as the Department of Environmental Conservation, social services, state parks, education, arts and culturals are effective and well funded compared to most states. I don't think we should be punished for this.

throwahey 9y ago
I'd like a citation on your first statement. All things considered, I don't believe either state is contributing more than they get back. If you like to contribute to those services, you are more than welcome to, but they should not be mandatory contributions. My own view is the smaller the government, the better. Federal and State governments have their place, but it should be up to citizens to decide what matters to them.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2017-09-28_Balance%20of%20Payments%20Report.pdf http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2017-09-28_Ba... It's been analyzed by many groups, multiple times. New York contributes more than it recieves. The Rockefeller Institute of Government report linked above estimated a deficit of 47 billion dollars in FY 2017 alone. It should come as no surprise considering these states are home to the some of the most successful economic regions in the country. Your second point doesn't jive with support of this tax plan. It's forcing a tax hike on productive populated blue states to pay more to the federal government which are less represented in how it's spent compared to rural states. I'd love more state and local control, the last thing I want my taxes going to is more GOP funded military pork.

throwahey 9y ago

I'd like a citation on your first statement. All things considered, I don't believe either state is contributing more than they get back. If you like to contribute to those services, you are more than welcome to, but they should not be mandatory contributions. My own view is the smaller the government, the better. Federal and State governments have their place, but it should be up to citizens to decide what matters to them.

dashundchen 9y ago
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2017-09-28_Balance%20of%20Payments%20Report.pdf http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2017-09-28_Ba... It's been analyzed by many groups, multiple times. New York contributes more than it recieves. The Rockefeller Institute of Government report linked above estimated a deficit of 47 billion dollars in FY 2017 alone. It should come as no surprise considering these states are home to the some of the most successful economic regions in the country. Your second point doesn't jive with support of this tax plan. It's forcing a tax hike on productive populated blue states to pay more to the federal government which are less represented in how it's spent compared to rural states. I'd love more state and local control, the last thing I want my taxes going to is more GOP funded military pork.