You still are avoiding the point that many, many Red States take more than they give.
Regarding what you said above how is it any different? Shouldn’t the taker States either raise taxes or lower spending or some combination?
Let's see if I can explain this.
Before Free trade: Factories paid taxes, such as property taxes. People had decent jobs that supported the middle class. People bought homes, which they paid property taxes on. People bought stuff locally that had a sales tax.
After free trade: Factories were bulldozed, or taken apart and shipped off. Without that tax revenue from fcoties counties had to shift the tax burden to property owners.
What does this mean? Since the 1980s, 1990s... after GATT and NAFTA were signed, there has been a shift in businesses paying the bulk of local taxes, to homeowners paying the bulk.
Let's throw out some examples.
In the early 1980s Reagan moved the US from domestic oil production to OPEC. What happened? Shipyards all along the gulf coast closed. Local economies collapsed, and some of them have never recovered. With the shipyards gone, local governments lost a large tax source. So what happened? Homeowners had to make up the difference.
Now we are in this problem that SALT is so high people are unable to afford it without writing it off their federal taxes.
Solution?
End free trade, force balanced trade with protectionist policies. Bring the factories back, shift the tax burden from homeowners to factories.
Some people are going to say the business will raise prices to pay off taxes, and that is what should happen.
Let's say a company in Lake Charles Louisiana makes a shirt. That shirt is shipped to new york. Someone in New York buys the shirt. So in essence the person in new york buying the shirt helps pay taxes in Lake Charles.
The important thing is to get the tax burden off the homeowner and put it on factories. From there, the tax burden is shifted to millions of consumers who will pay a microscopic amount in prices adjusted to pay SALT.