7 ms·
> On the other hand I have always lived in Northern Italy, and around half of my taxes go to the poorer regions of Italy Everybody says that, Catalonia that it
by 21 8y ago
> On the other hand I have always lived in Northern Italy, and around half of my taxes go to the poorer regions of Italy
Everybody says that, Catalonia that it pays more to Spain that it receives back, California and New York to the rest of US...
But it's the only way to have nation states, otherwise we'd have to go back to city states (which some people like Taleb actually advice).
- jessaustin 8y agoIt's inevitable given the political structure. Since votes are distributed by area and population rather than by wealth, wealthier political divisions will necessarily bribe poorer ones into political compromises that are closer to the wealthier divisions' preferences than they would have been without bribery. The only way to prevent that would be for the overall polity to have much lower taxes and thus much less money to divert to interdivisional bribery. (In many polities, this would be very much against the preferences of the wealthier divisions, so this "solution" is never seriously contemplated.) Of course, TFA describes a different way to come to substantially the same result. Tokyo still makes the important decisions.
- overdrivetg 8y agoWait - are you claiming that New Jersey is somehow bribing New Mexico for policy concessions? https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-state-a-net-payer-or-a-net-taker/356 https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-state-a-net-payer-or-a-net...
- innocentfelon 8y agoSeems plausible. 1000mi of mostly rural interstate highways (how NJ gets its goods from points west), plus nuclear weapons development, testing, and disposal are popular enough with the NM locals, as are anti-poverty programs, but yank the federal funding, and the locals would be far less friendly to NJ telling NM to supply or pay for these things on its own.
- jessaustin 8y agoNew Mexico may be a bit of an outlier since they aren't deep red like some other western states? I would certainly say that New Jersey is bribing e.g. Montana, North Dakota, etc. If the residents of those states had their way, the Department of Interior would be run differently, entitlements would be lower, Israel wouldn't get so much support, etc.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago> entitlements would be lower That's just the political rhetoric. Red-staters love their entitlements just so long as they go to the "right" people.
- jessaustin 8y agoThe red states are not a monolith. You might get a majority of support for some entitlements in Georgia or West Virginia. You won't get that in Wyoming or the Dakotas. Maybe those aren't the entitlements you're talking about, though. This "right people" entitlement: which one is that? Which entitlement goes to white males but not minority females? If you mean some boondoggle for rich people, I already mentioned the military and Drug War spending upthread. Besmirching all entitlements by association with that crap would be dishonest.
- simias 8y ago"Bribe" is way too loaded, you could also call it social justice and redistribution, a way to give poorer areas better chances to improve their life. Saying that redistribution is bribery is about the same level of discourse as saying that taxes are theft and prison kidnapping.
- jessaustin 8y agoThose who pay attention to our "justice" system might go along with part of that... Besides lots of these transfers have nothing to do with "social justice"; they're military spending or Drug War stupidity or similar. The point is, if Kansas were run the way that actual Kansans would democratically choose to run it, it would be even more awful than it already is. (It would also be better, in some ways, but we don't need to argue about that.) Those sweet federal dollars convince them to make different political decisions than they would have made otherwise.
- gknoy 8y ago> Saying that redistribution is bribery is about the same level of discourse as saying that taxes are theft and prison kidnapping I have friends who say literally that (taxes are theft). How does one argue against that? I have a hard time finding a way that it's technically wrong. I mean, taxation is literally the state taking your money (whether you want it or not, voted against it or not, etc). I can't help but feel that there's some difference, but I can't find what it is. Do you have suggestions on readings that would inform me better on the issue?
- jlawson 8y agoThieves usually don't give you something in return. It's more like "a deal you can't refuse". You get something back, but it's probably not just what you wanted. But it's something. Taxation is much more like "protection money" than theft.
- blattimwind 8y agoTax redistribution inside nations or in nation unions (like the EU) is pretty much an investment. It generally generates more money than spent on it. E.g. Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU, but guess what would happen if Germany decided to stop putting out those few billions a year. Yeah, not so good for the economy (not just of Germany, pretty much everyone). Turns out, those few billions spurred trade much greater than that. It's literally "one stick, alone, weak — many sticks, together, stronk". Just that the bundle is stronger than its constituents. (I've heard the UK is working earnestly on an experiment confirming this.)
- thaumasiotes 8y ago> It's literally "one stick, alone, weak — many sticks, together, stronk". I can't wait for tax redistribution to be renamed "fascism". :D
- barrow-rider 8y agoFor the uninitiated: Italian Fascism was so named as a reference to classical Roman Fasces, which was a bundle of sticks or rods wrapped around an axe that symbolized authority.
- labster 8y ago> It's literally "one stick, alone, weak — many sticks, together, stronk". So that's why they say those people are living in the sticks.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoCalifornia and New York are the size of countries. Why couldn't they function on their own as countries? I think a lot of states would be better served if they operated more autonomously and the federal government managed less of their business. I get that in certain cases that's not the optimal situation for resource allocation but freedom has a price.
- pantonia 8y agoThey are the size of countries like Italy. Read above, they too are annoyed at the freeloaders they have to support. Why should the Bay Area have to subsidize Bakersfield?? Make them city-states and Manhattan will resent the Bronx (not that they don't now).
- dmurray 8y agoThey could function as independent countries, for better or worse. But it generally looks like states don't want more autonomy: over 240 years the US federal government has taken on more and more power at the expense of the states, facing minimal resistance apart from a single bloody civil war where the heroes are universally agreed to be the side fighting for more powers for the federal government.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> civil war where the heroes are universally agreed to be the side fighting for more powers for the federal government. The Union wasn't fighting for more powers for the federal government, just for the integrity of the existing federal government and it's powers. The war resulted in some expansion of federal power, but that wasn't what motivated the Union.
- dmurray 8y agoSure, that's a reasonable way to look at it, and the only way consistent with having the victors write the history books. In the same way that the Commerce Clause always allowed the federal government to regulate growing wheat for personal consumption, the Constitution already allowed the federal government to forbid slavery - it just took a civil war or a supreme court hearing to make sure everyone agreed on that. Under that view, the 13th Amendment was legally redundant, but was passed just to leave absolutely no room for doubt.
- DrJokepu 8y agoEconomic inequalities exist on every level. In a sovereign city state, the wealthier neighborhoods would subsidize the less wealthy neighborhoods.