14 ms·

When the federal government gives high tax states tax cuts, that means those areas give less to the federal government, meaning those generally rich states end

When the federal government gives high tax states tax cuts, that means those areas give less to the federal government, meaning those generally rich states end up getting federally subsidized by the poorer states. How does _that_ make sense? Shouldn't the richer areas help pay for the poor? Why not do something about the high taxes in your state instead?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> When the federal government gives high tax states tax cuts, that means those areas give less to the federal government, meaning those generally rich states end up getting federally subsidized by the poorer states. Except those generally rich states are, in fact, currently net federal tax subsidizers of the rest of the country; this tax reform will actually reduce that because the rich people who are concentrated on those states will get huge tax cuts, whereas poorer people in the rest of the country will get big tax increases. > Shouldn't the richer areas help pay for the poor? So, what you are saying is we shouldn't adopt a tax “reform” that massively reduces progressivity transferring tax burden from the rich too the poor? If so, on that much we agree.
mullen 9y ago
We do subsidize poor states. You speak as though Red states contribute anything to the federal government. With the exception of Texas, Georgia and some oil rich states, all of the Red states are takers and just about all of the Blue states are givers.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Red states also tend to have a lot more poverty and less economic development. Why should rich areas of the country receive just as much federal aid as poor areas? It makes sense that different states receive different aid.
  - mullen 9y ago
    They don't. For every dollar we send the Federal government, we (California) gets back 88 cents. Mississippi gets something like $4 for every $1 it sends to the Federal government.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> When the federal government gives high tax states tax cuts, that means those areas give less to the federal government, meaning those generally rich states end up getting federally subsidized by the poorer states. Except those generally rich states are, in fact, currently net federal tax subsidizers of the rest of the country; this tax reform will actually reduce that because the rich people who are concentrated on those states will get huge tax cuts, whereas poorer people in the rest of the country will get big tax increases. > Shouldn't the richer areas help pay for the poor? So, what you are saying is we shouldn't adopt a tax “reform” that massively reduces progressivity transferring tax burden from the rich too the poor? If so, on that much we agree.

mullen 9y ago

We do subsidize poor states. You speak as though Red states contribute anything to the federal government. With the exception of Texas, Georgia and some oil rich states, all of the Red states are takers and just about all of the Blue states are givers.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Red states also tend to have a lot more poverty and less economic development. Why should rich areas of the country receive just as much federal aid as poor areas? It makes sense that different states receive different aid.
- mullen 9y ago
  They don't. For every dollar we send the Federal government, we (California) gets back 88 cents. Mississippi gets something like $4 for every $1 it sends to the Federal government.