4 ms·

It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. What happens instead is I pay exorbitant federal taxes, then that ge

by surge 5y ago

It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. What happens instead is I pay exorbitant federal taxes, then that gets given back to my state/local governments as grants/title X funding with stipulations to fix the roads, etc. At least the taxes I pay to local government I have more direct control of as an individual voter. Instead I'm just funding a massive military and protection of countries overseas and our oil interests. Also even though you get less room, the cost of living inside a city is insane. The trade offs don't make any sense. You can often live a much better QoL, for half as much anywhere else. Address the cost of living issues, then more people might be interested in the city lifestyle. The truth is even those that live in suburbs or rural areas that are interested living in the city simply can't afford it. If they work there they're paid just enough that they have to commute an hour or more to afford to live somewhere.

kd913 5y ago
>It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. It really wouldn't. I don't think there is a mechanism for making the above infrastructure sustainable short of tearing it down. In some places, the debt payments exceed total annual incomes for residents. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa&index=4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...
- undersuit 5y ago
  I'm from Montana. The only thing keeping our infrastructure as good as it is is the current arrangement of payments. Our current political climate in the state would not raise taxes on residents to compensate for the costs of our developed lifestyle being shifted fully onto us. I think this does need to change, but I'm the minority here. Most people "need" to drive because of the weather.
  - karmelapple 5y ago
    Here's a fun interactive map showing which states pay out more than they receive: https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-... Note that 2020 is an outlier year due to COVID, so probably best to look at 2019 or before. In 2019, 9 states paid more than they got back. And wow do some states make a lot of money: Virginia and Kentucky both have a per capita "more money than they take in" that's 3X that of Montana. But Montana still is raking in ~$4000 per capita than they pay out, whereas each Massachusetts resident sent out ~$2100. I grew up in North Dakota, so can I get a free day ski pass next time I come out west and swing by Montana? :)
- surge 5y ago
  That's absolutely my point though. If the local governments got the bulk of taxes instead of the federal government, they wouldn't need to apply for federal grants or special money to cover their debts and infrastructure.
shkkmo 5y ago
> It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. What happens instead is I pay exorbitant federal taxes, then that gets given back to my state/local governments as grants/title X funding with stipulations to fix the roads, etc. At least the taxes I pay to local government I have more direct control of as an individual voter. Instead I'm just funding a massive military and protection of countries overseas and our oil interests. This is is opposite of how things actually work. Generally, rural areas are fairly heavily subsidized by urban ones. The more taxes become localized, the less money from urban areas gets funneled to rural ones and the poorer the rural areas become.
phil21 5y ago
> It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. Perhaps in your exact individual case this is true, but statistically speaking it is not. Rural areas as a general rule receive (in many cases far) more federal tax dollars than their residents remit. Many rural areas would simply not be tenable much less solvent if they did not receive these dollars to assist with infrastructure. This is one of the most pervasive myths my rural family members believe in.

by surge 5y ago

kd913 5y ago

>It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. It really wouldn't. I don't think there is a mechanism for making the above infrastructure sustainable short of tearing it down. In some places, the debt payments exceed total annual incomes for residents. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa&index=4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...

undersuit 5y ago
I'm from Montana. The only thing keeping our infrastructure as good as it is is the current arrangement of payments. Our current political climate in the state would not raise taxes on residents to compensate for the costs of our developed lifestyle being shifted fully onto us. I think this does need to change, but I'm the minority here. Most people "need" to drive because of the weather.
- karmelapple 5y ago
  Here's a fun interactive map showing which states pay out more than they receive: https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-... Note that 2020 is an outlier year due to COVID, so probably best to look at 2019 or before. In 2019, 9 states paid more than they got back. And wow do some states make a lot of money: Virginia and Kentucky both have a per capita "more money than they take in" that's 3X that of Montana. But Montana still is raking in ~$4000 per capita than they pay out, whereas each Massachusetts resident sent out ~$2100. I grew up in North Dakota, so can I get a free day ski pass next time I come out west and swing by Montana? :)
surge 5y ago
That's absolutely my point though. If the local governments got the bulk of taxes instead of the federal government, they wouldn't need to apply for federal grants or special money to cover their debts and infrastructure.

shkkmo 5y ago

> It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. What happens instead is I pay exorbitant federal taxes, then that gets given back to my state/local governments as grants/title X funding with stipulations to fix the roads, etc. At least the taxes I pay to local government I have more direct control of as an individual voter. Instead I'm just funding a massive military and protection of countries overseas and our oil interests. This is is opposite of how things actually work. Generally, rural areas are fairly heavily subsidized by urban ones. The more taxes become localized, the less money from urban areas gets funneled to rural ones and the poorer the rural areas become.

phil21 5y ago

> It'd be economically viable if what I pay in local/state versus federal taxes were flipped. Perhaps in your exact individual case this is true, but statistically speaking it is not. Rural areas as a general rule receive (in many cases far) more federal tax dollars than their residents remit. Many rural areas would simply not be tenable much less solvent if they did not receive these dollars to assist with infrastructure. This is one of the most pervasive myths my rural family members believe in.