5 ms·

I think you can in good conscious be opposed to new taxes. This tax is being introduced in a way that only affects the most privileged portion of the population

I think you can in good conscious be opposed to new taxes. This tax is being introduced in a way that only affects the most privileged portion of the population but that's how the Federal income tax was introduced many years ago too. People who oppose the tax are looking forward to a future where the tax burden in Washington might be as oppressive as it is in California or New York.

ambicapter 7mo ago
States with massive, growing populations? Must not be as oppressive as stated.
- cma256 7mo ago
  Both California and New York have shrinking populations according to Wikipedia. And even if the estimates are wrong and they do have growing populations you still need to consider the fact that the Southern states are growing much faster. Federal power is shifting south. If you like the politics of New York and California that's a long-term problem that needs to be resolved.
  - ambicapter 7mo ago
    California has a "Neutral Decrease" in population and New York has a "Neutral Increase" according to Wikipedia. I'm gonna go with the 5 year trendline, which is up. > And even if the estimates are wrong Nice, covering all your bases. > Southern states are growing much faster Yeah, smaller states grow faster than larger ones.
    - cma256 7mo ago
      I'm talking specifically about this phenomena[1]. I wasn't agreeing with the GP that these policies are "oppressive". I'm only informing you that these states are not experiencing "explosive growth" and the downstream effects of that fact. 1. https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-forecast-2025/ https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-for...
    - pc86 7mo ago
      You'll have a much better time here if you take others' arguments with the assumption that they're made in good faith.
  - verdverm 7mo ago
    CA and NY are both expected to lose 4 seats next census, based on current trends. Saw this in an HN submissions yesterday about gerrymandering and how it might be a losing strategy for Dems looking out into the 2030s.
- jobs_throwaway 7mo ago
  California and New York are the opposite of growing, and Washington thus far hasn't taxed anyone, so this statement makes no sense
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- hagbard_c 7mo ago
  Let's not quibble over the population growth rates of these states which provide welfare to everyone. Instead, let's talk about te tax base which provides this welfare and you'll notice that tax base does not grow nearly as fast and might in fact be shrinking - actual reliable numbers are hard to come by. How many of the newcomers to these states will end up being net providers to the tax base and how many will end up being net consumers? If you provide more benefits, more people will come. If you raise the net tax rates to provide those benefits to a growing number of consumers more net payers will leave. The total population may remain the same or may even grow but a larger fraction of that total population will never become net providers, remaining net consumers. What is the end game here? This is a question which has already been answered in many European countries with similarly structured social benefit systems. There the end game is called 'austerity measures', the reduction of state services to keep the state from getting even deeper in debt. A cynical take on this situation is that the current crop of politicos in these states launch these ever-increasing benefit systems in the knowledge that this attracts voters from a few segments of the population as well as 'future voters' who will move to these places because they promise to provide them with (more) benefits than their current domiciles. Once the costs of the whole system become too high the system will no longer be tenable but the current crop of politicos will by that time have moved on to greener pastures, probably golf courses in some nice shielded and guarded areas. The 'other party' will end up winning the elections after having been out of power for a long time but this will end up being a Pyrrhic victory since they inherit a state on the verge of financial collapse. OK, they say, "we need to fix this mess and the only way to achieve that is to cut spending because we can not raise taxes above where they've been raised by our predecessors" - in fact this promise was one of the factors which made them win the elections. They do just that, lower benefits, lower some taxes - but not that much because they do need money to pay off all those debts and all the running contracts entered by their predecessors - and they manage to pull the state away from the brink of financial ruin. At the next election round the party which put in place all those benefit programs portrays the current incumbents as "inhumane penny-pushers who only want to appease the rich" with organised - and paid - protests by all the right groups, long media campaigns about the threat of *-ism and *-phobia, the works. The current incumbents try to defend their record stating that they're just cleaning up the mess left by the previous leadership who are financially irresponsible spendthrifts but that message is not nearly as emotionally appealing as the video clips of poor single mothers who now have less to feed their poor children, about the cancelled school trips because the state no longer had the funds to pay for them. The elections are won by the party which put in place the programs which nearly bankrupted the state, the new leadership undoes part of what the previous leadership did to save the state from financial ruin and as a result the process is set to repeat in a few years. Enough years at least to make sure they get to retire to greener pastures, probably golf courses in nice shielded and guarded neighbourhoods. They don't have to worry about such silly things as financial responsibility, they know they can get the other side to clean up the mess and they also know they'll be able to use the measures the others need to take to clean up the mess to launch a campaign against them which is nearly sure to regain them the leadership in one or two election cycles. As the label on the shampoo bottle says: rinse, repeat.

ambicapter 7mo ago

States with massive, growing populations? Must not be as oppressive as stated.

cma256 7mo ago
Both California and New York have shrinking populations according to Wikipedia. And even if the estimates are wrong and they do have growing populations you still need to consider the fact that the Southern states are growing much faster. Federal power is shifting south. If you like the politics of New York and California that's a long-term problem that needs to be resolved.
- ambicapter 7mo ago
  California has a "Neutral Decrease" in population and New York has a "Neutral Increase" according to Wikipedia. I'm gonna go with the 5 year trendline, which is up. > And even if the estimates are wrong Nice, covering all your bases. > Southern states are growing much faster Yeah, smaller states grow faster than larger ones.
  - cma256 7mo ago
    I'm talking specifically about this phenomena[1]. I wasn't agreeing with the GP that these policies are "oppressive". I'm only informing you that these states are not experiencing "explosive growth" and the downstream effects of that fact. 1. https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-forecast-2025/ https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-apportionment-for...
  - pc86 7mo ago
    You'll have a much better time here if you take others' arguments with the assumption that they're made in good faith.
- verdverm 7mo ago
  CA and NY are both expected to lose 4 seats next census, based on current trends. Saw this in an HN submissions yesterday about gerrymandering and how it might be a losing strategy for Dems looking out into the 2030s.
jobs_throwaway 7mo ago
California and New York are the opposite of growing, and Washington thus far hasn't taxed anyone, so this statement makes no sense
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
hagbard_c 7mo ago
Let's not quibble over the population growth rates of these states which provide welfare to everyone. Instead, let's talk about te tax base which provides this welfare and you'll notice that tax base does not grow nearly as fast and might in fact be shrinking - actual reliable numbers are hard to come by. How many of the newcomers to these states will end up being net providers to the tax base and how many will end up being net consumers? If you provide more benefits, more people will come. If you raise the net tax rates to provide those benefits to a growing number of consumers more net payers will leave. The total population may remain the same or may even grow but a larger fraction of that total population will never become net providers, remaining net consumers. What is the end game here? This is a question which has already been answered in many European countries with similarly structured social benefit systems. There the end game is called 'austerity measures', the reduction of state services to keep the state from getting even deeper in debt. A cynical take on this situation is that the current crop of politicos in these states launch these ever-increasing benefit systems in the knowledge that this attracts voters from a few segments of the population as well as 'future voters' who will move to these places because they promise to provide them with (more) benefits than their current domiciles. Once the costs of the whole system become too high the system will no longer be tenable but the current crop of politicos will by that time have moved on to greener pastures, probably golf courses in some nice shielded and guarded areas. The 'other party' will end up winning the elections after having been out of power for a long time but this will end up being a Pyrrhic victory since they inherit a state on the verge of financial collapse. OK, they say, "we need to fix this mess and the only way to achieve that is to cut spending because we can not raise taxes above where they've been raised by our predecessors" - in fact this promise was one of the factors which made them win the elections. They do just that, lower benefits, lower some taxes - but not that much because they do need money to pay off all those debts and all the running contracts entered by their predecessors - and they manage to pull the state away from the brink of financial ruin. At the next election round the party which put in place all those benefit programs portrays the current incumbents as "inhumane penny-pushers who only want to appease the rich" with organised - and paid - protests by all the right groups, long media campaigns about the threat of *-ism and *-phobia, the works. The current incumbents try to defend their record stating that they're just cleaning up the mess left by the previous leadership who are financially irresponsible spendthrifts but that message is not nearly as emotionally appealing as the video clips of poor single mothers who now have less to feed their poor children, about the cancelled school trips because the state no longer had the funds to pay for them. The elections are won by the party which put in place the programs which nearly bankrupted the state, the new leadership undoes part of what the previous leadership did to save the state from financial ruin and as a result the process is set to repeat in a few years. Enough years at least to make sure they get to retire to greener pastures, probably golf courses in nice shielded and guarded neighbourhoods. They don't have to worry about such silly things as financial responsibility, they know they can get the other side to clean up the mess and they also know they'll be able to use the measures the others need to take to clean up the mess to launch a campaign against them which is nearly sure to regain them the leadership in one or two election cycles. As the label on the shampoo bottle says: rinse, repeat.