• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The End of the Federal Tax Subsidy for Blue States

SouthernDemocrat said:
The Big Blues generate the bulk of the GDP in this country. They would be doing good to have a paved road or flush toilets in the whole damn state of Mississippi if it were not for taxpayers in states like California, NY, and hell Texas for that matter.
Click to expand...

If FDR hadn't established the Tennesse Valley Authority most of the south wouldn't even have electricity let alone indoor plumbing.
 
Are you kidding me? Blue states subsidize red states, as that is where the most money is made and the most taxes paid.

What do people get out of being so intentionally stupid?
 
Last edited:
leekohler2 said:
That's interesting, since we pay red states deficits. Now we have to pay more for red states?

Hmm...maybe it is time for us liberals to arm ourselves.

From the same publication:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...states-want-even-more/?utm_term=.97997f6632ef
Click to expand...

Just like most leftwingers, you buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. Do some research and find out what federal tax dollars going to red states fund instead of buying that it funds deficits. Most states aren't allowed to have deficits and most states expect the federal govt. to pay for federal mandates to the states instead of forcing citizens of the state to fund them. Use the following link to find out what the federal govt. funds for your state by just changing TX to your state. That will change your tune of federal dollars going to the red states and again prove just how distorted the liberal data and rhetoric are

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/smart/texas/
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Are you kidding me? Blue states subsidize red states, as that is where the most money is made and the most taxes paid.

What do people get out of being so intentionally stupid?
Click to expand...

That is a lie, read post 28. Red States pay federal taxes too so you aren't subsidizing Red states for anything but you are supporting payment of tax dollars for FEDERAL MANDATED expenses. Wouldn't spend a lot of time talking about intentionally stupid because defines most liberals as liberals think only with their heart, not their brain
 
Jack Hays said:
Sometimes good government can also be good politics. It may be that the most important provision of the recent tax cut was the cap on deductions for state and local taxes. This ends the federal tax subsidy for high tax blue states and localities. It also poses some difficult strategic problems for the Democrats' coalition.





Democrats are about to have to pay up


Before the ink was dry on our new tax bill, outraged blue states were screaming about the cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes. Their governments were also frantically seeking ways around it, and small wonder. For decades, high-tax states with a lot of wealthy residents enjoyed a hefty subsidy from the rest of America. Legislators were understandably panicked over what voters might do when handed the rest of the bill.
That panic generated some desperate ideas. The most popular, currently, is allowing people to convert tax payments above the $10,000 cap into a “charitable donation.” New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have already passed laws to allow this.
While charmingly innovative, this approach is likely to fall afoul of tax courts, as will the other proposed tactics. Blue-state taxpayers may finally have to confront the full cost of the government they want. And Democrats will finally have to confront the tension between what those voters want government to do and what they’re willing to pay for. . . .


Click to expand...

Jack, we don't have state taxes here, but I know from personal experience that VA does. I also know that states with no income taxes use other taxes (property is the big one here) to fill in the hole. If they don't they will fall apart and people will leave.
 
longview said:
“charitable donation.” Sounds voluntary, I wonder if those states will charge those who do not volunteer with a crime?
Click to expand...

That was my observation too. Since when does the state at any level dictate what you must contribute as a charitable donation?
 
Jack Hays said:
It is progressive and enlightened for the better-off to pay more to help the less-well-off. As pointed out in the OP article, blue states possess a disproportionate share of wealth. That's why wealthy blue states pay more. What has ended is a subsidy from the less-well-off to benefit the better-off.
Click to expand...

Blue states EARN a disproportionate share of the wealth because they have, largely through higher taxes, invested more in themselves. Education is a good example.

This tax change aims to lower that investment (or simply punish people for paying higher taxes), bringing successful blue states more in line (investment-wise) with piss-poor red states. That's not going to help anybody, long run or short run.

It is analogous to a school scaling back the curriculum so the dumb kids won't fall so far behind the smart kids - but they aren't making the dumb kids any smarter by doing so. They are just hindering the smart kids.
 
MrWonka said:
You don't appear to know what a subsidy is. The previous law said that so long as blue states are willing to tax themselves and pay for their own education and infrastructure there is no reason for the Federal government to tax them again. The law is designed to prevent low tax states red states from stealing business from higher tax blue states by sabotaging their own education systems. Now you're forcing liberal blue states who previously had very good and very well funded education systems to choose between creating jobs and education. Instead of making conservative states raise their taxes to improve their educational systems you're trying to bring sabotage the good educational systems of blue states. Yet another disgusting race to the bottom. Conservatives just can't win elections unless they can keep the population ignorant can they?
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]"Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]—Representative Barber Conable[/FONT]
 
notquiteright said:
I'd LOVE to see the numbers and plan you think would make this 'better' healthcare possible... but you ducked the question- do you favor universal health care run and financed by the federal government? You want the feds and not the states to develop and administer so wide reaching a program???

So you didn't support the new tax laws passed in congress lowering the tax rates? Lowering corporate taxes??? After all the better off should help the less well off... :roll:

But the red states aren't less well off, they have deliberately ruined their economies, their tax base in some warped rabid right failed economic folly and fully expect the feds to prop them up so of course they want a new revenue stream to keep the party going.

No you only favor a very targeted elimination of a tax deduction- one that hits the rabid right's enemies- it is the world stood on end to see a conservative demand MORE taxes for the wealthy... and cheap political partisanship...

Would you be in favor of ending the red state subsidy where MORE federal money pours into a state than they pay in??? Seems highly biased and who knows, we could reach universal health care coverage if the red states grew up and created a budget that paid it's bills to include getting our education system out of the basement... :peace
Click to expand...

Actually, I opposed the recent tax cut. Started a thread here at DP on that basis. I think there was a case to be made for cleaning up corporate tax loopholes and lowering rates, but I'd have coupled that with an increase on individual income tax rates for the highest earners.

If we're going to aim at universal health care then it should be federal.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Jack, we don't have state taxes here, but I know from personal experience that VA does. I also know that states with no income taxes use other taxes (property is the big one here) to fill in the hole. If they don't they will fall apart and people will leave.
Click to expand...

Nothing to disagree with. I'm not sure I get your point.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Blue states EARN a disproportionate share of the wealth because they have, largely through higher taxes, invested more in themselves. Education is a good example.

This tax change aims to lower that investment (or simply punish people for paying higher taxes), bringing successful blue states more in line (investment-wise) with piss-poor red states. That's not going to help anybody, long run or short run.

It is analogous to a school scaling back the curriculum so the dumb kids won't fall so far behind the smart kids - but they aren't making the dumb kids any smarter by doing so. They are just hindering the smart kids.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]"Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]—Representative Barber Conable[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, I opposed the recent tax cut. Started a thread here at DP on that basis. I think there was a case to be made for cleaning up corporate tax loopholes and lowering rates, but I'd have coupled that with an increase on individual income tax rates for the highest earners. If we're going to aim at universal health care then it should be federal.
Click to expand...

All nice rhetoric but you have yet to give numbers to reducing the federal tax deduction (remember it ends nothing, just lowers the cap) so what kind of money will this generate? What program do you see for healthcare?

You don't think the well off in a state should be focused on their less well off rather than bail out poorly run red states? Why should a state that is doing better be forced to prop up states that deliberately trash their tax system? Why do you reward deliberate sabotage and bailouts???
 
Jack Hays said:
And yet they have benefited (until now) from a subsidy paid for by the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

Explain how it is paid by the less fortunate, when the less fortunates already were getting back far more in federal spending then they were paying in federal taxes.

You put in a $1.00 and you get $1.50 back. I put in a $1.00 and get 60 cents back.

New tax scenario: You put in a 80 cents get a $1.50 back. I put in a $1.25 and still get just 60 cents back. I say that is unfair, and you say "until now you have benefited from a subsidy paid for by me - the less fortunate". I scratch my head in disbelief wondering how in the hell someone that always gets back far more than they pay in could say that about someone that always gets back far less than they pay in.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]"Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle."[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2D2D2D][FONT="]—Representative Barber Conable[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I think we all have a vested interest in not becoming The United States of Mississippi.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is progressive and enlightened for the better-off to pay more to help the less-well-off. As pointed out in the OP article, blue states possess a disproportionate share of wealth. That's why wealthy blue states pay more. What has ended is a subsidy from the less-well-off to benefit the better-off.
Click to expand...

The point being that the people who are 8itching are from the red states who get subsidized by the blue states. A third of West Virginia receives Medicaid but I am sure they complain about federal taxes, when their state gets more from the feds than they pay in taxes.

Blue states aren't subsidizing red states from the state tax deduction -- red states are already receiving more than they pay.

One thing NY and CA have is crafty lawyers and accountants that will figure out how to get the deduction stick.
 
Conservative said:
That is a lie, read post 28. Red States pay federal taxes too so you aren't subsidizing Red states for anything but you are supporting payment of tax dollars for FEDERAL MANDATED expenses. Wouldn't spend a lot of time talking about intentionally stupid because defines most liberals as liberals think only with their heart, not their brain
Click to expand...

More rabid right alternate facts.... just trying to disguise why the feds mandate the spending...

Try the traditional poverty of these fly over states. For all conservatives love to bash the inner city the fact is the average welfare queen is a rural teen. STAMP/SNAP and WIC support many a rural family to include single mothers. Medicare/caid keeps many rural clinics and doctors afloat. Failed flyover state economic theory has bankrupted many rural states that would have a good tax base to support the less well off if they weren't so eager to pander to their well off. (sounds like the conservatives here want to tax Blue state wealthy but pander to red state wealthy.)

Next big federal teat the red states suckle to get more back than they paid in- matching funds. There wouldn't be any gravel on our county roads if not for the feds. Our roads and bridges are being replaced with federal money. Now that is coming to a halt because we don't have the local money to pitch in. Local governments are increasing local taxes and issuing bonds to do what our state legislatures routinely fail to do.

Same with school funding, veteran funding, even law enforcement rely on federal tax dollars- but you need matching funds and our state elected to cut taxes to the bone and wait for the money to roll in when new businesses and increased private sector spending boomed- it didn't, so now the red states are desperate to gain new revenue stream and force blue states to lose revenue.

I don't see how anyone can declare the federal mandate system will remain as it is while the Republicans scramble to pass their agenda prior to the mid terms. I can see a new wave of 'returning the people's money' as a cover to pump more money to the red states to help them stave off going broke.
 
Casper said:
Or they can get rid of their state taxes, cut educational and support for the poor and aged, then get more money from the Federal Government, like Red States do.
Click to expand...

I live in a state with no state tax except for sales tax.
the schools are funded unless the local districts waste money on stupidity.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It only increases the wealth transfers from states like NY and California to states like Mississippi and Oklahoma. I thought you guys were against wealth transfers? Think how much lower taxes would be in a state like New Jersey if they did not have all these freeloaders that benefited from their federal tax dollars in more rural states. Part of why state taxes are higher in a state like NY is they get far less back in federal spending than they pay in federal income taxes thus the state has to be pick up the slack.
Click to expand...

the liberal left should be applauding the fact that more of their money is going to the government. I mean after all that is what they constantly push for.
now they get the chance to put their money where their mouth is they are howling.

the leftist hypocrisy continues.
 
notquiteright said:
More rabid right alternate facts.... just trying to disguise why the feds mandate the spending...

Try the traditional poverty of these fly over states. For all conservatives love to bash the inner city the fact is the average welfare queen is a rural teen. STAMP/SNAP and WIC support many a rural family to include single mothers. Medicare/caid keeps many rural clinics and doctors afloat. Failed flyover state economic theory has bankrupted many rural states that would have a good tax base to support the less well off if they weren't so eager to pander to their well off. (sounds like the conservatives here want to tax Blue state wealthy but pander to red state wealthy.)

Next big federal teat the red states suckle to get more back than they paid in- matching funds. There wouldn't be any gravel on our county roads if not for the feds. Our roads and bridges are being replaced with federal money. Now that is coming to a halt because we don't have the local money to pitch in. Local governments are increasing local taxes and issuing bonds to do what our state legislatures routinely fail to do.

Same with school funding, veteran funding, even law enforcement rely on federal tax dollars- but you need matching funds and our state elected to cut taxes to the bone and wait for the money to roll in when new businesses and increased private sector spending boomed- it didn't, so now the red states are desperate to gain new revenue stream and force blue states to lose revenue.

I don't see how anyone can declare the federal mandate system will remain as it is while the Republicans scramble to pass their agenda prior to the mid terms. I can see a new wave of 'returning the people's money' as a cover to pump more money to the red states to help them stave off going broke.
Click to expand...

What is it about liberalism and socialism that creates people like you? Those aren't alternative facts as I gave you the link to look up what the federal dollars fund. You refuse to do research preferring instead to buy what you are being told to promote class warfare, envy and a bigger federal govt.

it is about time blue states realized the cost of socialism and you are about to see that. You want to cut off funding for red states, go for it as it funds Federal programs MANDATED by the Federal Govt. and see how that works

School funding comes from state and local taxes so by all means keep raising federal taxes and leaving the state taxpayers with less money to spend. Brilliant economic strategy. You simply have no idea what taxes you pay, what those taxes fund, the roles of the various governments we have so you let liberalism make you look and sound foolish?

You leftists are the most poorly informed and educated people regarding civics, economics, and history I have ever seen
 
people will complain about the elimination of the SALT deduction, but it really isn't much of an increase. For me, it's less than s 1% increase in my federal tax obligation.

If your state's income tax is 5%, and you make $50,000, you were only able to reduce your federal taxes by about $250. Nobody is going to be arguing about it very much after they realize the small size of the figure.
 
Conservative said:
What is it about liberalism and socialism that creates people like you? Those aren't alternative facts as I gave you the link to look up what the federal dollars fund. You refuse to do research preferring instead to buy what you are being told to promote class warfare, envy and a bigger federal govt. it is about time blue states realized the cost of socialism and you are about to see that. You want to cut off funding for red states, go for it as it funds Federal programs MANDATED by the Federal Govt. and see how that works School funding comes from state and local taxes so by all means keep raising federal taxes and leaving the state taxpayers with less money to spend. Brilliant economic strategy. You simply have no idea what taxes you pay, what those taxes fund, the roles of the various governments we have so you let liberalism make you look and sound foolish? You leftists are the most poorly informed and educated people regarding civics, economics, and history I have ever seen
Click to expand...

I did my research- federal mandates provide what the red states either can't or refuse to fund. Things like WIC, SNAP,STAMP, Medicare and Medicaid.

Now show me where I said cut off funding to my state (I live in a very red state)??? You are moving the discussion. (FYI my state is doing exactly what you lament- cutting spending on schools, roads, safety, medicare and LOSING the federal funding.) Our road system is running out of money and the federal money has all but dried up. Our rural roads will suffer. Our local governments (below state level) are increasing taxes/bonds because our foolish regressive state government has cut it's tax base past the bone. Our school system loses teachers every year because we don't pay a decent wage- and that compares to the rest of the nation.

I don't promote class warfare- the idea of attacking blue states through the federal tax system is political warfare. I don't envy the blue state wealthy- I'd say the red state promoters do. I don't support bigger federal government- this capping the tax deduction will GROW the federal government... :roll:

I'd say the foolish one is the one who uses the topic to vent the usual red bait red state ranting points... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
All nice rhetoric but you have yet to give numbers to reducing the federal tax deduction (remember it ends nothing, just lowers the cap) so what kind of money will this generate? What program do you see for healthcare?

You don't think the well off in a state should be focused on their less well off rather than bail out poorly run red states? Why should a state that is doing better be forced to prop up states that deliberately trash their tax system? Why do you reward deliberate sabotage and bailouts???
Click to expand...

It's a matter of fairness. Wealthy individuals in richer states should not be able to avoid paying their share of federal taxes at the expense of the less wealthy in poorer states.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Explain how it is paid by the less fortunate, when the less fortunates already were getting back far more in federal spending then they were paying in federal taxes.

You put in a $1.00 and you get $1.50 back. I put in a $1.00 and get 60 cents back.

New tax scenario: You put in a 80 cents get a $1.50 back. I put in a $1.25 and still get just 60 cents back. I say that is unfair, and you say "until now you have benefited from a subsidy paid for by me - the less fortunate". I scratch my head in disbelief wondering how in the hell someone that always gets back far more than they pay in could say that about someone that always gets back far less than they pay in.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding your fair share of the federal burden by keeping more for yourself, and asking others to make up the difference.
 
MTAtech said:
The point being that the people who are 8itching are from the red states who get subsidized by the blue states. A third of West Virginia receives Medicaid but I am sure they complain about federal taxes, when their state gets more from the feds than they pay in taxes.

Blue states aren't subsidizing red states from the state tax deduction -- red states are already receiving more than they pay.

One thing NY and CA have is crafty lawyers and accountants that will figure out how to get the deduction stick.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of fairness. Those West Virginians should not be subsidizing wealthy residents of CA and NY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom