3 ms·

"Lowering their effective national tax rate as a reward for giving their residents back tax money via services." So it's bad that these states are providing se

by moate 8y ago

"Lowering their effective national tax rate as a reward for giving their residents back tax money via services." So it's bad that these states are providing services for their residents in exchange for tax funds? I don't understand any of your points here. These states consume less federal aid (yay!) but have higher state taxes (boo!) but provide more services (yay!) but those services "only" benefit locals (boo?). So they're paying less in taxes, because they're instead focused on taking care of their own. Is this just a really weird "Only Federalism" argument? I mean, I'm fine with this proposal if we stripe away all states and just act as a single unified country, where everyone has to play by the same rules but good luck getting Delaware and Mississippi agreeing to that one. I think you should really commit to your handle and just stay out of this whole argument. You don't seem to be making any kind of point other than "Rich states aren't doing enough to pull up poor states" which is a pretty hard sell. (edited for typo)

eropple 8y ago
You're very right in that the third rail here is federalism. Mostly that, at a certain scale and with certain kinds of heterogeneity, it stops working, and you start getting bizarre situations where the have-nots are not angry that they have not, but rather that the haves have. As one of those haves, I am very in-favor of spreading that around. The solution, however, is to not discourage the having, but to actually spread it around. That spread is not created by punitively punishing those who, as one of those "civic society" things, decide that it's a good idea to do things to help the people who live in it. I mean, let's be real for a sec (and I have a feeling you know this, I'm not trying to lecture, it's just a convenient jumping-off point): the only impact of the pseudopolicy proposed here is to damage states with the temerity to have a functioning economy and social safety net and to damage their implementations thereof, not to provide better implementations in places that currently lack. After all--the federal appetite for tax cuts and military spending seems to know few bounds. As such, framing it as either equity or equality for the poor, benighted Kansases of the world and their Sam Brownbacks rings more than a little hollow.

by moate 8y ago

eropple 8y ago

You're very right in that the third rail here is federalism. Mostly that, at a certain scale and with certain kinds of heterogeneity, it stops working, and you start getting bizarre situations where the have-nots are not angry that they have not, but rather that the haves have. As one of those haves, I am very in-favor of spreading that around. The solution, however, is to not discourage the having, but to actually spread it around. That spread is not created by punitively punishing those who, as one of those "civic society" things, decide that it's a good idea to do things to help the people who live in it. I mean, let's be real for a sec (and I have a feeling you know this, I'm not trying to lecture, it's just a convenient jumping-off point): the only impact of the pseudopolicy proposed here is to damage states with the temerity to have a functioning economy and social safety net and to damage their implementations thereof, not to provide better implementations in places that currently lack. After all--the federal appetite for tax cuts and military spending seems to know few bounds. As such, framing it as either equity or equality for the poor, benighted Kansases of the world and their Sam Brownbacks rings more than a little hollow.