3 ms·

Good. I don't understand why the federal government was subsidizing New York and California's insane tax rates.

• skh 8y ago
  California sends quite a bit more to the federal government than it receives from the federal government. In fact, in 2014 it was primarily Republican leaning states that received the greatest subsidies. The facts show that the federal government subsidizes not insanely high tax rates but rather tax rates that are too low. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s... https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
  • ng12 8y ago
    This is referring to federal income tax. If anything, these states should have lower taxes because their taxable base is significantly higher hence the lower "ROI" from individual's federal income taxes.
    • skh 8y ago
      Despite the evidence presented you continue to think that California, Minnesota, New York, etc. are not subsidizing states like Mississippi, Alabama, etc. Perhaps no amount of factual evidence will dissuade you from your current belief.
      • ng12 8y ago
        I didn't say that -- it's obvious when you consider that a large chunk of the federal budget is entitelement spending. You're confusing two separate concepts. The relative ROI of federal income tax has no bearing on the federal government subsidizing state income/property taxes. Both can be true: the federal government can be subsidizing the state budget while simultaneously taking more than it gives from taxpayers.