3 ms·

"We"--and, err, California and New York are still amongst the highest federal payers, as is Massachusetts where I live--subsidize our social services and commun

"We"--and, err, California and New York are still amongst the highest federal payers, as is Massachusetts where I live--subsidize our social services and community investments because they actually have them to counterbalance the federal government's general indifference towards the ideas thereof (unless you're old and thus a reliable voter). "You" can, too, do the same. Or we, rather than "we", can do it at a federal level. Economies of scale exist, of course, and there's an efficiency argument to doing it (which is generally thwarted by spittle-flecking about federalism and states' rights, which, fine, but you don't get to have it both ways!). To a nontrivial degree this already happens; low-tax states generally rely on the particularly-bad implementations of many programs, including social safety nets, provided by the federal government. This is one reason why, to use the terms of art often favored by...certain populations, the taker states are low-tax and generally hew center-right to right-wing in policy, while the maker states are often more high-tax and generally more center-left in policy: because they will be backstopped by the systems that exists federally even as they campaign to gut it in their "little laboratory" of a state. There exist approaches that don't penalize places that actually act as a more-or-less civic society for spending money to make that happen. Assuming one actually wants civic society to exist. Which I do. But I recognize that there are rather large forces in America who are upset by the idea.

NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> Assuming one actually wants civic society to exist. Which I do. That's clearly not true: you're making ad hominems at people who disagree on tax policy. Which is common of the entitled people from those states: receive massive subsidies which pay off, and then refuse to return that wealth to the rest of the nation at an equitable tax rate, pretending you're some virtuous self-starters who through your benevolent policies created all that wealth -- hoarding it for special privileges for yourselves, while harping about how others should pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Perhaps if California and New York stopped hoarding the benefits of federal investments, the federal government could afford to make large Silicon-Valley-starting style investments in other regions of the country, and help them recover. The entitlement to think you deserve to buy yourself nice things with the ROI on federal money, rather than having to pay back so the federal government can help other regions is staggering. No wonder people from California and New York talk about "equitable" so often: their entire society is designed around their inherent entitlement from the rest of the country, and it's a Freudian admission that needs to end.
- eropple 8y ago
  I'm not saying your argument is incredible because you are X, I'm saying that I am fairly certain I have you dead to rights that you believe X, and that X is bad and you should feel bad. That isn't an ad hominem, that is an opinion. It is an important distinction. Please keep it in mind. Anyway. What "right to entitlement from the rest of the country"? As a generality, states with high state/local taxes net out as significantly greater federal contributors than states with low state/local taxes, significantly, and deductions for state/local taxes have already been recently capped in a way to throw red meat to the resentful base. "We", in this formulation, are already pulling our weight. "We" have also recently increased what weight we are pulling. Should not the states of the party of personal responsibility maaaybe show some good faith on this one and do a little moving on their own?
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    > I'm not saying your argument is incredible because you are X, I'm saying that I am fairly certain I have you dead to rights that you believe X, and that X is bad and you should feel bad. Yes, except the thing you claimed people believed has nothing to do with what anyone claimed. You're baldly asserting that people who disagree with you on tax policy additionally hold this bad belief, and hence are bad people. That's a gussied up ad hominem, and is extremely common in certain political groups. > "We", in this formulation, are already pulling our weight. "We" have also recently increased what weight we are pulling. ...with a tractor paid for by collective money. Your whole position is that California or New York created this wealth on their own, through their own policies, and that's factually incorrect. What you describe as "pulling our weight" is merely hoarding the returns on others' investments into your state -- the exact kind of hoarding wealth frequently decried as disequity by people within those very states.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago
  There are only about a dozen states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back — all of the states you're referencing are on that list. California specifically has been a donor state for more than 30 years. I'm not sure how this is hoarding in any sense of the term. California is something like 40th when it comes to the ratio of federal assistance received to federal tax paid. California is also in the top 15 states when it comes to tax paid per capita. I guess if you wanted to complain you could pick on California's federal tax revenue ratio to Gross State Product — which is middle-of-the-road compared to other states. And even then, you're talking about 25 states that are worse off... and I think only 1 or 2 of those states are so-called "donor states." If you're looking for personal biases... I don't even live in California. Outside of the weather I really kind of hate it there... but I'm having a really hard time finding any information to support your argument. I'd like to rag on California here... but if taxation is your primary concern then there are 30+ states that are larger priorities. I'm not sure what your source is, or which numbers you're looking at specifically — but it feels like you're picking cherries to grind your axe. I'm also curious about which state you think is setting the ideal example in this regard. If California is doing so poorly in your eyes... who is getting it right?

NotAnEconomist 8y ago

> Assuming one actually wants civic society to exist. Which I do. That's clearly not true: you're making ad hominems at people who disagree on tax policy. Which is common of the entitled people from those states: receive massive subsidies which pay off, and then refuse to return that wealth to the rest of the nation at an equitable tax rate, pretending you're some virtuous self-starters who through your benevolent policies created all that wealth -- hoarding it for special privileges for yourselves, while harping about how others should pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Perhaps if California and New York stopped hoarding the benefits of federal investments, the federal government could afford to make large Silicon-Valley-starting style investments in other regions of the country, and help them recover. The entitlement to think you deserve to buy yourself nice things with the ROI on federal money, rather than having to pay back so the federal government can help other regions is staggering. No wonder people from California and New York talk about "equitable" so often: their entire society is designed around their inherent entitlement from the rest of the country, and it's a Freudian admission that needs to end.

eropple 8y ago
I'm not saying your argument is incredible because you are X, I'm saying that I am fairly certain I have you dead to rights that you believe X, and that X is bad and you should feel bad. That isn't an ad hominem, that is an opinion. It is an important distinction. Please keep it in mind. Anyway. What "right to entitlement from the rest of the country"? As a generality, states with high state/local taxes net out as significantly greater federal contributors than states with low state/local taxes, significantly, and deductions for state/local taxes have already been recently capped in a way to throw red meat to the resentful base. "We", in this formulation, are already pulling our weight. "We" have also recently increased what weight we are pulling. Should not the states of the party of personal responsibility maaaybe show some good faith on this one and do a little moving on their own?
- NotAnEconomist 8y ago
  > I'm not saying your argument is incredible because you are X, I'm saying that I am fairly certain I have you dead to rights that you believe X, and that X is bad and you should feel bad. Yes, except the thing you claimed people believed has nothing to do with what anyone claimed. You're baldly asserting that people who disagree with you on tax policy additionally hold this bad belief, and hence are bad people. That's a gussied up ad hominem, and is extremely common in certain political groups. > "We", in this formulation, are already pulling our weight. "We" have also recently increased what weight we are pulling. ...with a tractor paid for by collective money. Your whole position is that California or New York created this wealth on their own, through their own policies, and that's factually incorrect. What you describe as "pulling our weight" is merely hoarding the returns on others' investments into your state -- the exact kind of hoarding wealth frequently decried as disequity by people within those very states.
thisisweirdok 8y ago
There are only about a dozen states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back — all of the states you're referencing are on that list. California specifically has been a donor state for more than 30 years. I'm not sure how this is hoarding in any sense of the term. California is something like 40th when it comes to the ratio of federal assistance received to federal tax paid. California is also in the top 15 states when it comes to tax paid per capita. I guess if you wanted to complain you could pick on California's federal tax revenue ratio to Gross State Product — which is middle-of-the-road compared to other states. And even then, you're talking about 25 states that are worse off... and I think only 1 or 2 of those states are so-called "donor states." If you're looking for personal biases... I don't even live in California. Outside of the weather I really kind of hate it there... but I'm having a really hard time finding any information to support your argument. I'd like to rag on California here... but if taxation is your primary concern then there are 30+ states that are larger priorities. I'm not sure what your source is, or which numbers you're looking at specifically — but it feels like you're picking cherries to grind your axe. I'm also curious about which state you think is setting the ideal example in this regard. If California is doing so poorly in your eyes... who is getting it right?