4 ms·

so why should people in texas pay for the stupid budget decisions of san francisco when they didn’t waste their money? it’s moral hazard

sanp 6y ago
And why should NY or CA residents fund most of the federal budget?
- danielrpa 6y ago
  Because they are richer. This is the very same principle employed by both states for their internal taxation - the idea that the more you make, the less you get from your taxes relatively speaking ("the rich" pay higher tax rates in both states). It's just progressive taxes applied to the entire country, where NY and CA are "the rich" among the states.
  - eskaytwo 6y ago
    But if the Republican approach is a regressive tax (eg the big tax cut favouring the big end of town) then shouldn’t CA/NY also receive similar treatment? That’s essentially the discrepancy going on here.
    - danielrpa 6y ago
      I'm just saying that if CA/NY believe in "from each according to its ability, to each according to their needs", as they appear to given their tax laws and public policies, people should be fine with them being donor states. After all, a staunchly republican poor individual in CA/NY still gets the same benefits as a poor democrat, because need (not opinions) dictates how much you get. Of course, Texas isn't exactly poor, my point is more relevant to states like South Carolina, Louisiana etc.
hjonb 6y ago
They aren't paying for pensions. They are paying for a massive lack of tax revenue due to COVID. Funny I never hear the argument from red states "We don't want your federal money for all the poor, sick, disabled, in our state!" considering CA and NY pay WAY WAY more out than they get back in federal money
- hiram112 6y ago
  These red state takers idea has propagated throughout social media, and become a talking point used anytime some fiscal argument breaks out between left and right. And it's mostly absurd, because it just looks at net transfers between the states and Feds without realizing who is actually benefitting from that money. How many small family farms do you think are left in much of the Midwest, who are living high on the hog with government subsidies, as the left likes to imagine? Is it a transfer to Iowa or Nebraska when the federal government pays out a few billion in farm subsidies, which then goes straight into the pocket of fund managers in Manhattan, sovereign wealth funds, or megacorps who actually own the farms How bout when Wall Street got bailed out in 2009 to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? Do we count that as a subsidy to New York, Jersey, and Connecticut? Even if the money was paid back, there's no way to calculate the trillions of dollars citizens of other states lost due to perpetually low interest rates or propping up houses in coastal areas at the expense of people living in low COL areas. There's a dozen other ways we can measure these types of back door transfers, and I guarantee you, it ends up that those blue coastal states are getting a lot of extra subsidies that the silly stats that you guys use ignore.
adrr 6y ago
Texas is a taker state so California has been paying to support texas for a very long time. Why the moral hazard now? I’ll be fine if we distribute federal expenditures based on tax collections by state. Means California could lower taxes. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/ https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  Texas was and still is a net contributor to the union. California is no longer a net contributor to the union[1], since SALT reform. 1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mcconnells-offensive-comments-on-states-receiving-federal-aid/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mc...
  - adrr 6y ago
    I don't think you understand that article or how the new tax bill ripped off a million Californians by making them pay tens of thousands extra in taxes. I paid an extra $30k in taxes this year because of that bill. Only being able to deduct $10k taxes made Californias pay more federal taxes. We didn't get anything in return. Thanks for making my point how California pays for everyone else but get nothing in return. Also for 4 of the 5 top employers in Texas are oil companies. Oil production is subsidized by the feds. Texas is a taker. They also will all go bankrupt unless bailed out with California tax money.
    - diebeforei485 6y ago
      Any tax break being taken away makes people feel like they're paying "extra" with nothing new in return. There is no reason for people in other states to subsidize your California state tax payments with a federal tax break.
    - alkibiades 6y ago
      why should you have gotten a federal tax break in the first place just because your state decided to have high taxes? maybe think before electing politicians who raise them if youre upset

sanp 6y ago

And why should NY or CA residents fund most of the federal budget?

danielrpa 6y ago
Because they are richer. This is the very same principle employed by both states for their internal taxation - the idea that the more you make, the less you get from your taxes relatively speaking ("the rich" pay higher tax rates in both states). It's just progressive taxes applied to the entire country, where NY and CA are "the rich" among the states.
- eskaytwo 6y ago
  But if the Republican approach is a regressive tax (eg the big tax cut favouring the big end of town) then shouldn’t CA/NY also receive similar treatment? That’s essentially the discrepancy going on here.
  - danielrpa 6y ago
    I'm just saying that if CA/NY believe in "from each according to its ability, to each according to their needs", as they appear to given their tax laws and public policies, people should be fine with them being donor states. After all, a staunchly republican poor individual in CA/NY still gets the same benefits as a poor democrat, because need (not opinions) dictates how much you get. Of course, Texas isn't exactly poor, my point is more relevant to states like South Carolina, Louisiana etc.

hjonb 6y ago

They aren't paying for pensions. They are paying for a massive lack of tax revenue due to COVID. Funny I never hear the argument from red states "We don't want your federal money for all the poor, sick, disabled, in our state!" considering CA and NY pay WAY WAY more out than they get back in federal money

hiram112 6y ago
These red state takers idea has propagated throughout social media, and become a talking point used anytime some fiscal argument breaks out between left and right. And it's mostly absurd, because it just looks at net transfers between the states and Feds without realizing who is actually benefitting from that money. How many small family farms do you think are left in much of the Midwest, who are living high on the hog with government subsidies, as the left likes to imagine? Is it a transfer to Iowa or Nebraska when the federal government pays out a few billion in farm subsidies, which then goes straight into the pocket of fund managers in Manhattan, sovereign wealth funds, or megacorps who actually own the farms How bout when Wall Street got bailed out in 2009 to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? Do we count that as a subsidy to New York, Jersey, and Connecticut? Even if the money was paid back, there's no way to calculate the trillions of dollars citizens of other states lost due to perpetually low interest rates or propping up houses in coastal areas at the expense of people living in low COL areas. There's a dozen other ways we can measure these types of back door transfers, and I guarantee you, it ends up that those blue coastal states are getting a lot of extra subsidies that the silly stats that you guys use ignore.

adrr 6y ago

Texas is a taker state so California has been paying to support texas for a very long time. Why the moral hazard now? I’ll be fine if we distribute federal expenditures based on tax collections by state. Means California could lower taxes. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/ https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/

diebeforei485 6y ago
Texas was and still is a net contributor to the union. California is no longer a net contributor to the union[1], since SALT reform. 1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mcconnells-offensive-comments-on-states-receiving-federal-aid/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mc...
- adrr 6y ago
  I don't think you understand that article or how the new tax bill ripped off a million Californians by making them pay tens of thousands extra in taxes. I paid an extra $30k in taxes this year because of that bill. Only being able to deduct $10k taxes made Californias pay more federal taxes. We didn't get anything in return. Thanks for making my point how California pays for everyone else but get nothing in return. Also for 4 of the 5 top employers in Texas are oil companies. Oil production is subsidized by the feds. Texas is a taker. They also will all go bankrupt unless bailed out with California tax money.
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    Any tax break being taken away makes people feel like they're paying "extra" with nothing new in return. There is no reason for people in other states to subsidize your California state tax payments with a federal tax break.
  - alkibiades 6y ago
    why should you have gotten a federal tax break in the first place just because your state decided to have high taxes? maybe think before electing politicians who raise them if youre upset