3 ms·
It isn't that small. And the swing between states depending on how it's measured can be QUITE large. As someone from a state that puts in a hell of a lot more
by ilc 1y ago
It isn't that small.
And the swing between states depending on how it's measured can be QUITE large.
As someone from a state that puts in a hell of a lot more than it gets out. I'd be glad for you to reduce my tax load, and let my state improve its services all at once! I can't speak of how happy I'd be.
Even if it is 10-20%, that's nice phat cut. Which isn't far off in the more extreme cases.
- potato3732842 1y agoSee that's the thing. Even the states that turn out ten cents on the dollar (in terms of tax money, not necessarily GDP) poorer would still likely consider themselves better off because they don't have to cater to fed regulations that are at best a compromise and at worst a capitulation to other states. Those losing states still get to reap all sorts of savings by not doing things that are done at the behest of the feds. Like for example California has dragged its dick all over every policy involving indoor water and plumbing and outdoor rainwater and runoff management in just about the worst ways. Pretty much every state east of the Mississippi could stain to instantly gain more bang for their buck in every expenditure of that nature by simply creating their own (perhaps in cooperation with nearby states) sensible rules on the subject. It's just pants on head retarded that we've got desert states and wet states using the same rule book in this area. Repeat for all sorts of other subject where the sensible policy scoping level is something other than "the entire nation".