3 ms·

Maybe I'm in the minority but I would feel absolutely fine. Income tax is just one part of the pie. In fact, many states (such as Texas, Washington, and Florida

Maybe I'm in the minority but I would feel absolutely fine. Income tax is just one part of the pie. In fact, many states (such as Texas, Washington, and Florida) have no income tax at all, yet they manage. Property taxes will go to fund schools and state governments, not to mention localized sales tax and cash infusion.

tjr225 5y ago
> In fact, many states (such as Texas) have no income tax at all, yet they manage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis Now do California. Clearly high taxation doesn't correlate to stable electrical power. There's a handful of states without income taxes. They mostly manage just fine. Or about as fine as the states with income taxes. They raise similar revenues in other ways.
  - tjr225 5y ago
    > Now do California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_California_ele... All I could find was this, the wikipedia article doesn't mention any deaths however, whereas it appears 70 people died during the Texas crisis this year. I'm aware of the rolling blackouts in the bay area least year as my employer was impacted but it seemed more or less livable due to their rolling nature. I live in a state without income tax. Its actually quite a shit show: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2020/10/22/mark-harmsworth-west-seattle-bridge-repair.html https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2020/10/22/mark-har...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Believe it or not that was not due to taxes.
  - tjr225 5y ago
    If there was a greater tax base in Texas a more robust energy infrastructure could have been in place. However; their votership preferred to keep things as is. They suffered the consequences. This is very, very simple.
wolverine876 5y ago
> many states (such as Texas) have no income tax at all, yet they manage That's debatable. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
elliekelly 5y ago
What if $company, for whatever reason, decided every employee in $state would have their salary reduced by X% across the board and $state announced they would step in and use taxpayer money to make up the difference in $company employee paychecks. Would you be absolutely fine with your taxpayer money being used to subsidize labor in that way? What if $company is highly profitable and sitting on more cash than $state government has available? What if you're a business owner in $state and have to compete in the market for labor where one big player with tons of money gets to pay less for the same work? It's not about income tax so much as it is about the government subsidy being granted and whether or not it's the best use of the government's limited financial resources.
nrmitchi 5y ago
Texas, rather than having income taxes, just has relatively high property taxes compared to other states. It's not like you don't pay any taxes living in Texas. In fact, I would consider high property taxes with zero income tax to be a rather regressive form of taxation that strongly benefits high income earners.
piva00 5y ago
> Property taxes will go to fund schools and state governments, not to mention localized sales tax and cash infusion. And poor areas become poorer because the local municipality collects less taxes than the one with more affluent residents. Ultra-locality of spending isn't efficient, it just maintains the status quo, it makes counties compete between each other for companies or residents and not all can attract the rich people or companies to fund themselves. Schools should be equally funded regardless of how rich the people who live in the area are. This is the most basic component for an equitable society: a level playing field on education.

tjr225 5y ago

> In fact, many states (such as Texas) have no income tax at all, yet they manage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis Now do California. Clearly high taxation doesn't correlate to stable electrical power. There's a handful of states without income taxes. They mostly manage just fine. Or about as fine as the states with income taxes. They raise similar revenues in other ways.
- tjr225 5y ago
  > Now do California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_California_ele... All I could find was this, the wikipedia article doesn't mention any deaths however, whereas it appears 70 people died during the Texas crisis this year. I'm aware of the rolling blackouts in the bay area least year as my employer was impacted but it seemed more or less livable due to their rolling nature. I live in a state without income tax. Its actually quite a shit show: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2020/10/22/mark-harmsworth-west-seattle-bridge-repair.html https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2020/10/22/mark-har...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_-david-_ 5y ago
Believe it or not that was not due to taxes.
- tjr225 5y ago
  If there was a greater tax base in Texas a more robust energy infrastructure could have been in place. However; their votership preferred to keep things as is. They suffered the consequences. This is very, very simple.

wolverine876 5y ago

> many states (such as Texas) have no income tax at all, yet they manage That's debatable. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

elliekelly 5y ago

What if $company, for whatever reason, decided every employee in $state would have their salary reduced by X% across the board and $state announced they would step in and use taxpayer money to make up the difference in $company employee paychecks. Would you be absolutely fine with your taxpayer money being used to subsidize labor in that way? What if $company is highly profitable and sitting on more cash than $state government has available? What if you're a business owner in $state and have to compete in the market for labor where one big player with tons of money gets to pay less for the same work? It's not about income tax so much as it is about the government subsidy being granted and whether or not it's the best use of the government's limited financial resources.

nrmitchi 5y ago

Texas, rather than having income taxes, just has relatively high property taxes compared to other states. It's not like you don't pay any taxes living in Texas. In fact, I would consider high property taxes with zero income tax to be a rather regressive form of taxation that strongly benefits high income earners.

piva00 5y ago

> Property taxes will go to fund schools and state governments, not to mention localized sales tax and cash infusion. And poor areas become poorer because the local municipality collects less taxes than the one with more affluent residents. Ultra-locality of spending isn't efficient, it just maintains the status quo, it makes counties compete between each other for companies or residents and not all can attract the rich people or companies to fund themselves. Schools should be equally funded regardless of how rich the people who live in the area are. This is the most basic component for an equitable society: a level playing field on education.