3 ms·

Yeah corruption is weird in the US, I live in Arizona, I see adverts paid by the monopoly utility where police and fire fighters in uniform declare themselves a

Yeah corruption is weird in the US, I live in Arizona, I see adverts paid by the monopoly utility where police and fire fighters in uniform declare themselves against some environmental measure. Will they retaliate against the zones that don’t vote their way?

metalliqaz 8y ago
Yes. The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most pain on blue states.
- rrggrr 8y ago
  How much should the federal government subsidize the continued gentrification, inequality and inflation in home prices? On the one hand liberals decry inequality. On the other hand they rage against tax reform that made it MORE costly for wealthy homeowners to create regions where housing is less available and affordable. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the recent tax bill.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    My post didn't say a whole hell of a lot, yet it seems to have triggered you quite a bit. Ask yourself why that is. In response, I would just say that, yes, I do understand the recent tax bill. At it's core, it's part of a long term plan to reduce government by starving it for money, at the same time it is a giveaway to large campaign donors. These are not speculation, but directly acknowledged by the spineless and craven Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan.
  - tdb7893 8y ago
    I know I don't really understand the most recent tax bill but I've heard that red states will get more of the benefit from the changes in it. Is that not true or is there a good reason for it?
    - metalliqaz 8y ago
      It's not so much benefit but less pain. There are many changes, but one of the most significant is the removal of the deduction for state taxes paid. Blue states tend to spend a lot more money on government services, especially education. This makes the taxes higher, but it was evened out somewhat by a reduction in federal tax burden. With that gone, it adds a lot more pressure to tax payers in states with higher property taxes. Those states tend to be blue. When evaluating the wisdom of this change, keep in mind that those states also tend to be net payers into the federal system, while red states tend to be net takers from the federal system. There are exceptions but the trend is clear.
  - FactolSarin 8y ago
    Considering the tax bill is yet more theft from blue states (you know, the states that actually create most of the wealth) and gifts to red states, this is kind of laughable.
- mac01021 8y ago
  Is that true? Don't blue states tend to have a lot of people with low 6-figure incomes? Didn't all such people get a substantial cut in their effective tax rate?
  - ojbyrne 8y ago
    Nope. Those same states have high state taxes, which the tax package made non-deductible.
  - FactolSarin 8y ago
    Blue states tend to have higher income or property taxes to pay for the social services they provide. That has always (literally, since income tax was first enacted) been tax-deductible on the Federal level. That deduction was removed as part of the recent tax bill.
    - extra88 8y ago
      The deduction wasn't eliminated, it was capped. Because the standard deduction was increased, most people aren't worse off but people not just in blue states but in blue cities, where property values are much higher, are worse off. I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities. The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        That "strategy" hasn't ever worked before - at least, it has not resulted in significant numbers of programs being cut. (Or, rather, it hasn't resulted in significant dollars worth of programs being cut.)
- refurb 8y ago
  Blue states have a higher concentration of wealth. I thought high taxes on the wealthy is what we want?
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Read how it impacted the upper middle class but only in Blue states, by reducing/eliminating federal deductions for state income tax.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Yeah, but the states with no state income tax usually have high property taxes that are also capped in terms of deductions, no?

metalliqaz 8y ago

Yes. The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most pain on blue states.

rrggrr 8y ago
How much should the federal government subsidize the continued gentrification, inequality and inflation in home prices? On the one hand liberals decry inequality. On the other hand they rage against tax reform that made it MORE costly for wealthy homeowners to create regions where housing is less available and affordable. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the recent tax bill.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  My post didn't say a whole hell of a lot, yet it seems to have triggered you quite a bit. Ask yourself why that is. In response, I would just say that, yes, I do understand the recent tax bill. At it's core, it's part of a long term plan to reduce government by starving it for money, at the same time it is a giveaway to large campaign donors. These are not speculation, but directly acknowledged by the spineless and craven Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan.
- tdb7893 8y ago
  I know I don't really understand the most recent tax bill but I've heard that red states will get more of the benefit from the changes in it. Is that not true or is there a good reason for it?
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    It's not so much benefit but less pain. There are many changes, but one of the most significant is the removal of the deduction for state taxes paid. Blue states tend to spend a lot more money on government services, especially education. This makes the taxes higher, but it was evened out somewhat by a reduction in federal tax burden. With that gone, it adds a lot more pressure to tax payers in states with higher property taxes. Those states tend to be blue. When evaluating the wisdom of this change, keep in mind that those states also tend to be net payers into the federal system, while red states tend to be net takers from the federal system. There are exceptions but the trend is clear.
- FactolSarin 8y ago
  Considering the tax bill is yet more theft from blue states (you know, the states that actually create most of the wealth) and gifts to red states, this is kind of laughable.
mac01021 8y ago
Is that true? Don't blue states tend to have a lot of people with low 6-figure incomes? Didn't all such people get a substantial cut in their effective tax rate?
- ojbyrne 8y ago
  Nope. Those same states have high state taxes, which the tax package made non-deductible.
- FactolSarin 8y ago
  Blue states tend to have higher income or property taxes to pay for the social services they provide. That has always (literally, since income tax was first enacted) been tax-deductible on the Federal level. That deduction was removed as part of the recent tax bill.
  - extra88 8y ago
    The deduction wasn't eliminated, it was capped. Because the standard deduction was increased, most people aren't worse off but people not just in blue states but in blue cities, where property values are much higher, are worse off. I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities. The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        That "strategy" hasn't ever worked before - at least, it has not resulted in significant numbers of programs being cut. (Or, rather, it hasn't resulted in significant dollars worth of programs being cut.)
refurb 8y ago
Blue states have a higher concentration of wealth. I thought high taxes on the wealthy is what we want?
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  Read how it impacted the upper middle class but only in Blue states, by reducing/eliminating federal deductions for state income tax.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Yeah, but the states with no state income tax usually have high property taxes that are also capped in terms of deductions, no?