Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are paying your lack of federal taxes and you can't spin that. We are talking about federal taxes not state or local so why don't you stay on point.
No, blue states had the chicken before the egg. Many blue states have regulated themselves into oblivion making certain types of production higher in costs, reducing supply. This increased prices. What happened then? Let's raise minimum wage without increasing production; this moves aggregate demand up in the state without increasing production. Result: higher prices. Other result: workers demanding higher wages. Then, vicious cycle. That's what happened in California with many of its environmental and business regulations: producers choked and went out of business. However, they still had 36 million people to feed and cloth. They had the same amount of money chasing less goods (Result:INFLATION!). Workers demanded higher wages, but many times, it was fractional to their actual needs but still higher than average. Home prices accelerated because builders couldn't easily get permits despite there being high demand (result: same supply, increased demand, asset price inflation). So, you had millions of people making 70K-100K a year who were really in poverty because everything was expensive. Result: crash and burn/popping bubbles. Result: paying higher taxes at the federal level because the feds don't differentiate between states' costs when determining a tax burden based on income; the high inflation in those states also contributed to the "poverty threshold" they come up with allowing states with less inflation to easily collect money they didn't need because the average incomes (AND costs) were lower. The losers were the states that regulated themselves to death.
No, blue states had the chicken before the egg. Many blue states have regulated themselves into oblivion making certain types of production higher in costs, reducing supply. This increased prices. What happened then? Let's raise minimum wage without increasing production; this moves aggregate demand up in the state without increasing production. Result: higher prices. Other result: workers demanding higher wages. Then, vicious cycle. That's what happened in California with many of its environmental and business regulations: producers choked and went out of business. However, they still had 36 million people to feed and cloth. They had the same amount of money chasing less goods (Result:INFLATION!). Workers demanded higher wages, but many times, it was fractional to their actual needs but still higher than average. Home prices accelerated because builders couldn't easily get permits despite there being high demand (result: same supply, increased demand, asset price inflation). So, you had millions of people making 70K-100K a year who were really in poverty because everything was expensive. Result: crash and burn/popping bubbles. Result: paying higher taxes at the federal level because the feds don't differentiate between states' costs when determining a tax burden based on income; the high inflation in those states also contributed to the "poverty threshold" they come up with allowing states with less inflation to easily collect money they didn't need because the average incomes (AND costs) were lower. The losers were the states that regulated themselves to death.
What does your post have to do with FEDERAL taxes paid in and FEDERAL dollars recieved?????
The subject is that blue states are subsidizing the red states... The fact is that red states are taking in more FEDERAL government revenue than they are paying and the blue states are paying more FEDERAL government revenus than they are taking in. The red states are nothing but deadbeats when it comes to FEDERAL taxes and "whine and cry" about it. The fact remains that those lazy welfare recieving liberal states are paying for those dead beat republican states and the republican states are still crying about it.
What does your post have to do with FEDERAL taxes paid in and FEDERAL dollars recieved?????
The subject is that blue states are subsidizing the red states... The fact is that red states are taking in more FEDERAL government revenue than they are paying and the blue states are paying more FEDERAL government revenus than they are taking in. The red states are nothing but deadbeats when it comes to FEDERAL taxes and "whine and cry" about it. The fact remains that those lazy welfare recieving liberal states are paying for those dead beat republican states and the republican states are still crying about it.
lamexican, take off your partisan glasses for a moment and use rationale. What I posted is a basic macroeconomic relationship that explains why blue states pay more taxes to the federal government while red states don't despite blue states having more severe economic problems. If you can't see that, or can't at least look up the underlying concepts of this (read: dead weight loss, severe regulation, decreased production, asset price inflation) then I can't make you see it. I'll try to explain it in simpler terms if you wish:
The basic premise is that regulation many states has caused severe asset price inflation, and thus wage inflation that can't cover all the costs associated with living in that state on a middle income [for that particular state]. The income for that particular state may be higher, but that's only in the number of dollars. If you look at what they take home in goods, it's not as much unless they're truly wealthy. Now, the federal government doesn't care about how many goods you're able to buy in a particular area; they only care that you make X amount of dollars and that you fall within a particular tax rate and that you have so many deductions. States with much much lower income requirements for cost of living are subject to the same tax code that higher COL areas are subject to. So, you have many many poor people living in the over-regulated states who are according to the federal government, "high income" individuals when they're really just barely making it because they're higher incomes are chasing a lower amount of goods and services within their local economy. In the lower COL states, many are able to get tax credits and returns and the like despite many not actually needing them (again, due to lower COL needs usually because there isn't as much regulation). The higher COL states with high regulation tend to be "blue" states while the lower COL states tend to be "red." Do you see how this is working now?
There are also military expenditures, road expenditures for growing populations (sunbelt is growing faster than the shrinking rest-belt, afterall... it's getting a HUGE share of disgruntled rusties who were unhappy with economic policies in said states), schools to be built, etc. that come from current federal expenditures. So, who's losing out? Many of the blue states are with the policy enacted.
What I'm confused about is why people on here are saying "they should be grateful that they get the money and shut up... we're paying so much to THESE people, and they want to return it?" That's like those people who try to force charity on a family member and call them a *****/******* behind their back because they didn't want to take it and then forcing it into their car seat. If they say they don't want it, why not just take it back and use it in your own states? They just might complain, but remember, you were doing what they wanted.
If it were me, I'd demand a change in the tax code or fiscal policy to get money back in my state so that it didn't have stagnation problems.
Rhode Island rules, I did already state that running. You chose to ignore it and made elaborate excuses. Fact is if we did go to rhode island rules, its a rude awakening for a great deal many rural communities who really believe they're magically doing it all by themselves. Just like amish, who cannot exist without protection they personally express disdain over. It's baldfaced ingratitude, and it's consistently coming from the right.
Whats more, none of these rural folks could come close to imagining what it takes to manage a city with population densities of san fran, nyc, baltimore, etc. Your exercise in mathematical theory and purist notions doesn't cut the mustard anymore than city folks telling a farmer how to farm. Real estate bubbles happened because weasels wanted it that way. When they decide to value every property on the block 300% what it was yestorday, that's not a free market anymore.
Below is the 2005 ranking of all 50 states. As much as the GOP complain about "pork", it is mostly red states who get military bases, federal projects and contracts, farm and business subsidies (corporate welfare), and other "pork" that blue states pay for.
However, hypocrisy and disinformation is nothing new to the "teabag" crowd.
Military bases are pork? You have to build them somewhere. If they were built in San Francisco, would they still be pork? If they are collapsed to some states over other states, I would hope they typically go where it costs less to place and operate them and where the people who work on them can afford to live.
What I don't understand is why a physically centralized Federal Government is needed anymore in Washington, DC? Why not place those headquarters operations in cheaper states to save money? I understand why they were centrally located back when they were established but now, with all of our methods of telecommunication, it hardly seems prudent to have them where the cost of living is so high (especially salaries) and their old buildings are always in disrepair. There are only a few staffs working in them that need to be physically close to Congress and the President for meetings and hearings. Leave those people in DC. Maybe they could share a building. Plus, it might improve the quality of the federal employee headquarters work pool to not have everyone drawing lower echelon headquarters workers from the same area.
Rhode Island rules, I did already state that running. You chose to ignore it and made elaborate excuses. Fact is if we did go to rhode island rules, its a rude awakening for a great deal many rural communities who really believe they're magically doing it all by themselves. Just like amish, who cannot exist without protection they personally express disdain over. It's baldfaced ingratitude, and it's consistently coming from the right.
No, it's not a free market anymore. That's what I've been stating. It's not some "elaborate excuse". It's stating why these states are paying more despite having a high-income poor populace that aren't as productive as they really are. You didn't address any of those problems, instead saying that these states are more productive because they had higher incomes; I explained that they had higher incomes because they have more dead-weight loss and it's costing them big time. I was coming in defense of the blue states (while, admittedly, disparaging the many regulations they have causing deadweight loss), saying that not only are they paying more in dollars, but they're basically getting less resources with their money before taxation compared to other states. I said that blue states should be upset that their paying this much, getting that much less, and either remove unnecessary regulations that cause the deadweight loss, or demand changes at the federal level that take these into consideration.
Quote:
Your exercise in mathematical theory and purist notions doesn't cut the mustard anymore than city folks telling a farmer how to farm.
I'll take my math and economics, which have been proven and are rooted in logic, over your emotional barrage or any ideology any day.
Quote:
Real estate bubbles happened because weasels wanted it that way. When they decide to value every property on the block 300% what it was yestorday, that's not a free market anymore.
Real estate bubbles happened because of bad monetary and fiscal policy as well as the removal of certain good policy. These banks no longer had to worry about being separated, and they conglomerated into large "investment houses" like they did in the 20s. The Fed poured more money into the houses' commercial and checking industries, they gave out loans to people who shouldn't be trusted with a potato gun let alone a home loan, repackaged them and sold them to larger investment houses... and we all know the rest. By creating more money to stave off the dotcom/911 recession, we induced demand quickly, but didn't have an immediate effect on supply. So, supply steady, demand up equals price increases. And we kept feeding that funny money train until prices were at 500K+ in many areas. People couldn't afford it anymore. All that economic growth was realized to be bull**** paper-pushing when the federal reserve hiked interest rates. There was nothing fueling that growth except funny money.
So, what happened? Remember the consolidation of all those investment houses? When their mortgage firms crashed, so did the rest of their conglomerates. People's 401Ks, portfolios, etc. reduced in value tremendously because their investors, the houses, toppled under the weight of debt. Many of those houses used debt to make money on margin; investors were frantic and got out of the market quickly to make sure they kept their money, worried that those banks would call in their stocks to cover their margins.
Yeah! Bulldoze over that whitehouse & build condo parks!
More brilliant ideas coming from tennessee.
runningcircles... forget the blah blah emotional barrage. That's BS and you know it. Reality of people who lived in cities across america have more clout than your books. I know where my taxes went and just how much LEFT my state. THAT was the point of this thread, which you continue to ignore. Start another thread about regulations & municipal taxes, we can talk. But on this subject of federal $$ taking from the higher economies to subsidize lesser economies you're flat out wrong. It's happened ever since taxation kicked in beyond pittance levels.
No argument about crooked market happening real estate/ banks/ insurance. They deserve more than a few lashes but the regulation of capitalism is not optional unless enron is the new standard of business in america. Doesn't help when you have political parties hell bent on undermining the system to get their way. Shouldn't there be imprisonment involved when legislators are incompetant? Just an idea.
No argument about crooked market happening real estate/ banks/ insurance. They deserve more than a few lashes but the regulation of capitalism is not optional unless enron is the new standard of business in america. Doesn't help when you have political parties hell bent on undermining the system to get their way. Shouldn't there be imprisonment involved when legislators are incompetant? Just an idea.
Yeah, I'm pretty much for regulation of capitalism if you didn't get that from my post or any former posts that I've written on here. However, there are GOOD regulations and there are BAD regulations. You must put up the correct ones to get a desired output and cut out unnecessary and bad regulations. I base my opinions on economics and mathematical econometric models. You base yours on emotional outbursts. I stated that blue states had the right to be angry at this, as they're being "double dipped." I don't know what more you want from me.
Quote:
runningcircles... forget the blah blah emotional barrage. That's BS and you know it. Reality of people who lived in cities across america have more clout than your books. I know where my taxes went and just how much LEFT my state. THAT was the point of this thread, which you continue to ignore. Start another thread about regulations & municipal taxes, we can talk. But on this subject of federal $$ taking from the higher economies to subsidize lesser economies you're flat out wrong. It's happened ever since taxation kicked in beyond pittance levels.
I live in a large city, as well... it's called Atlanta. I'm not ignoring the fact that all that money has left your state... I'm actually stating WHY, in fact. You just miss the point entirely with your flippant responses. I say that those blue state's economies are over-regulated, creating a dead-weight loss, and not producing enough to support their population, causing prices to increase, causing incomes to increase, causing more inflation, causing higher taxation from the federal government. I don't know what you don't get about that. You're subsidizing cheaper areas with less regulation with funny money. That was the entire point! Maybe if you got off your high-horse and took off your fringe-lunacy, politico glasses, you'd see what I was saying.
Now, I too live in a large city, again it's Atlanta. Now, why didn't we have a large housing bubble like these other areas? Why didn't we have rampant inflation, yet keep incomes that were comparable or higher than the bubble areas? Because aggregate production = aggregate consumption. We actually WERE productive and didn't suffer the dead-weight loss of those bubble cities. The worst part is, we're subsidizing the rest of GA and we know it! We're mad as hell, and we would be glad to yank the carpet out from underneath those yahoos for saying we steal from them. We're also probably subsidizing other areas in the US with our federal taxes (we do have federal services here, but still), except we don't have the funny money phenomenon here.
Immune to funny money and crooked markets? Very interesting! I think time is going to tell on you. Georgia= $1.01. This means you're at the Rhode Island rule standard, if not for the rest of the state getting subsidized. I also hear Atlanta is due for a mass exodus because the sprawl and crime are getting out of hand. I don't know first hand because I'd never bother visiting that city again. You don't forget being treated that badly. Why Does Your Devalued Home Have Such a High Tax Rate? - TIME
Quote:
Are your property taxes rising while the value of your house falls? Join the multitudes of Americans who are in the same predicament. In Atlanta, home values have tumbled over the past year by as much as 12%, but an Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership study of high-foreclosure areas found that the owners of those properties would have had to pay an extra $70 million in taxes because of overvalued but official appraisals.
Real time participation/ observation in a city by actually living there isn't the fringe lunacy you're all too happy to characterize. Sure you aren't emotionally defending your book?
Talk in circles all you want. Federal dollars leaving a state and not making its way back is dead weight period. Whatever else happens in that state by way of regulations is not relevant to this thread. NJ, NV, CT, NH, Il, DE, CA, NY, CO, MA, WI, MI, WA, OR, TX, and FLA are carrying the full burden of America on their backs, and the rest live on easy street. This might explain the mad rush of people I hear moving to AK. Free lunch crowd. I heard they get a check from the government to breathe.
$3,269.00 per person in 2008 when a one-time $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate was added to the dividend amount.... is acknowledged to have a substantial effect on Alaska's economy, both in total and especially in rural Alaska where unemployment can reach 60% and where cash is scarce.
I also hear Atlanta is due for a mass exodus because the sprawl and crime are getting out of hand.
Nope. We had another surge this year, in fact, according to the Census. Why? Despite the 30-60% declines in those bubble markets, it's still cheaper here to buy a house and to cover basic cost of living. Crime has been decreasing in the city for decades now. The recent "surge" (not really a surge at all) is caused by the economic downturn and is national. The sprawl is a different story, so traffic sucks. However, the current math still supports growth in the long term, mainly into the central counties.
And, the article you posted says that home values are overvalued for property tax purposes and is a nationwide trend. So, what is your point? That states are lying about prices to get more money? That sounds about right.
Quote:
I don't know first hand because I'd never bother visiting that city again. You don't forget being treated that badly.
Treated badly? You must be awful in person, then. I've lived in Cobb and Midtown (two opposite sides of every spectrum) and have never been treated badly. In fact, I've found it quite hospitable here. Must be you. I'm usually a fairly calm, rational person, but you make me envision a harpy shrew woman spouting things off just to get someone to pay attention to her.
Quote:
Talk in circles all you want. Federal dollars leaving a state and not making its way back is dead weight period. Whatever else happens in that state by way of regulations is not relevant to this thread. NJ, NV, CT, NH, Il, DE, CA, NY, CO, MA, WI, MI, WA, OR, TX, and FLA are carrying the full burden of America on their backs, and the rest live on easy street. This might explain the mad rush of people I hear moving to AK. Free lunch crowd. I heard they get a check from the government to breathe.
I think I've already agreed that yes, these states are funding the rest of the US. You miss the point entirely and keep repeating the same thing. Yes, what goes on in those states IS relevant under the current tax code. Are you going to tell me that 100K/year in Long Island is equivalent to 100K/year in Kansas? I'm telling you the reason why these places are paying out so much, and you're saying that I'm "making excuses." I'm saying that the middle classes of these cities have their median incomes artificially propped up, making them vulnerable under the current tax code.
I'm done arguing this point with you, as you're not able to comprehend any of the information I present you. In fact, I just don't care anymore. All I hear from you is is "he's probably some pig trying to infringe on my values because he's using economic logic to explain why blue states are carrying the burden."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
