4 ms·

There’s a lot to unpack there, but TN has no income tax, a moderate sales tax and low property taxes. That said, they don’t offer much (which is fine). Infrast

There’s a lot to unpack there, but TN has no income tax, a moderate sales tax and low property taxes. That said, they don’t offer much (which is fine). Infrastructure is not really expensive compared to social programs. Maintaining infrastructure is often way cheaper than building new infrastructure. Where as maintaining social programs are massive year-over-year. Look at California's expenses: https://open.fiscal.ca.gov/transparency.html https://open.fiscal.ca.gov/transparency.html Most is healthcare (>=50%), followed by education (~25%) Compare that to Tennessee https://www.tn.gov/transparenttn/state-financial-overview.html https://www.tn.gov/transparenttn/state-financial-overview.ht... If you look at Tennessee education is (>=40%) and healthcare is second (~25%). From what I’ve seen the massive church network in TN combined with targeted social programs work well for TN.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
The point is Tennessee’s model doesn’t work without subsidies from California, Texas and New York.
- lettergram 3y ago
  lol those states aren’t subsidizing, the federal government is. The distinction is important because they literally print the money and distribute it. That said, often those funds are allocated based on defense contracts, military bases present, assistance for the poor, education grants, etc. for instance, the federal government grants funds for roads based on drinking age (among other things). Even if that was your argument, California is granted more than it pays in. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid... Texas actually has more of its budget come from federal funds than from Tennessee (and New York only has 1-2% less than TN). The Tennessee model works because they don’t spend as much money, so they tax less.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > those states aren’t subsidizing, the federal government is This is accounting. The production of one provides for the other. > California is granted more than it pays in Whoops, my bad. New York and New Jersey, then. > Tennessee model works because they don’t spend as much money, so they tax less This is part of the story. Without those other states wealth redustribution, Tennessee would have to tax more or provide less.
    - lettergram 3y ago
      > This is accounting. The production of one provides for the other. Again, that’s not how the system actually works. The federal government quite literally prints the money. No work was done, no taxes collected, funds are just handed over. Later taxes are collected and the “accounting” is “done” (ie bonds issued for the deficits) The US government is currently running a >$1T deficit per year (more than all states receive combined btw). > This is part of the story. Without those other states wealth redustribution, Tennessee would have to tax more or provide less. It’s not part of the story really. All states effectively receive 30-50% (with TN right in the middle at 40%) of their state budget from the federal government. It’s kind of a moot point because they receive those funds often for unrelated things (such as military bases). Every state simply wouldn’t provide services that aren’t being funded. I really don’t see the argument, particularly as many of the reasons states receive these funds are because the federal government provides them (many are healthcare services, distributed based on population). New York may reject some funds based on the desire not to issue some program, for instance. I think the fact it’s assumed California pays more into the system (without research) is just highlighting the lack of knowledge on the topic. It’s not really highlighting how TN doesn’t work, when NY received a similar percentage of funds for their states budget (~40%).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

The point is Tennessee’s model doesn’t work without subsidies from California, Texas and New York.

lettergram 3y ago
lol those states aren’t subsidizing, the federal government is. The distinction is important because they literally print the money and distribute it. That said, often those funds are allocated based on defense contracts, military bases present, assistance for the poor, education grants, etc. for instance, the federal government grants funds for roads based on drinking age (among other things). Even if that was your argument, California is granted more than it pays in. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid... Texas actually has more of its budget come from federal funds than from Tennessee (and New York only has 1-2% less than TN). The Tennessee model works because they don’t spend as much money, so they tax less.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > those states aren’t subsidizing, the federal government is This is accounting. The production of one provides for the other. > California is granted more than it pays in Whoops, my bad. New York and New Jersey, then. > Tennessee model works because they don’t spend as much money, so they tax less This is part of the story. Without those other states wealth redustribution, Tennessee would have to tax more or provide less.
  - lettergram 3y ago
    > This is accounting. The production of one provides for the other. Again, that’s not how the system actually works. The federal government quite literally prints the money. No work was done, no taxes collected, funds are just handed over. Later taxes are collected and the “accounting” is “done” (ie bonds issued for the deficits) The US government is currently running a >$1T deficit per year (more than all states receive combined btw). > This is part of the story. Without those other states wealth redustribution, Tennessee would have to tax more or provide less. It’s not part of the story really. All states effectively receive 30-50% (with TN right in the middle at 40%) of their state budget from the federal government. It’s kind of a moot point because they receive those funds often for unrelated things (such as military bases). Every state simply wouldn’t provide services that aren’t being funded. I really don’t see the argument, particularly as many of the reasons states receive these funds are because the federal government provides them (many are healthcare services, distributed based on population). New York may reject some funds based on the desire not to issue some program, for instance. I think the fact it’s assumed California pays more into the system (without research) is just highlighting the lack of knowledge on the topic. It’s not really highlighting how TN doesn’t work, when NY received a similar percentage of funds for their states budget (~40%).