Kamala vs the Orange Felon - Presidential Race 2024 - Polls, News, Etc...

Page 169 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
13,181
3,962
136
Many of these folks rail against Biden handing out their tax money for tuition reimbursement, saying that it is just buying votes. Literally some of the lower income people that are in need to get started are being given money and they squawk about it, but say nothing when rich folks and corporations get billions in tax cuts.
And it's especially hilarious because DJT has been promising numerous tax breaks to wage earners in obvious attempts to "buy votes." There's zero coherence in his economic proposals, but the overarching theme is he could literally bankrupt the federal government within one term.

Latest related NYT headline:
Trump Flirts With the Ultimate Tax Cut: No Income Taxes at All
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,622
10,881
136
Well his presidency is going to have 4 corners:

1. No taxes if you're rich enough
2. No rights if you're not MAGA male christian.
3. Systemic slaughter of migrants and possibly brown people
4. Alliances with Russia, China, North Korea because they're nice to him!

Basically a great reset back to just after colonial times! That's what MAGA is!

Anyone think I'm wrong in any of my assumptions??
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,510
3,047
136
Haha you are correct - I take it all back, Minnesota is a relatively high tax state!

I can't keep all those midwest places straight.
But effective tax rate and tax burden is meaningless until you look at how those taxes are being used. Better infrastructure, public transportation, better education, quality of life, etc are all a reflection of that. Many states that have lower tax burdens tend to fall in such areas, and/or they are more dependant on federal tax dollars to compensate their lack of tax revenue from their citizens.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,622
10,881
136
I think you're overcomplicating the tax issue.

Do you remember Hurricane Matthew when North Carolina needed like 700+ million in federal aid and Trump denied 99% of it?

It doesn't even make the news now but it actually happened.. and instead we're arguing about how we'll better spend tax dollars instead of showing contrast of our policy vs his.

1729802631532.png

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,726
54,731
136
But effective tax rate and tax burden is meaningless until you look at how those taxes are being used. Better infrastructure, public transportation, better education, quality of life, etc are all a reflection of that. Many states that have lower tax burdens tend to fall in such areas, and/or they are more dependant on federal tax dollars to compensate their lack of tax revenue from their citizens.
To be clear I am broadly in support of a higher tax/higher service state. It is also important to note that most of those low tax states are the recipients of large federal transfers so their low taxes are subsidized by other, more economically competitive areas. I just think when people complain about taxes they should be accurate.

In this case though I got the state wrong because I’m an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
5,191
4,571
136
No income tax at all would be hilarious for all those backward red states that depend on blue tax money. It would almost be worth it to watch them crumble. If Trump wins he is going to crater this economy so hard. I will seriously consider moving a lot of money overseas or at least into assets not priced in dollars.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Amol S. and Indus

Dave_5k

Platinum Member
May 23, 2017
2,007
3,820
136
To be clear I am broadly in support of a higher tax/higher service state. It is also important to note that most of those low tax states are the recipients of large federal transfers so their low taxes are subsidized by other, more economically competitive areas. I just think when people complain about taxes they should be accurate.

In this case though I got the state wrong because I’m an idiot.
2022, last year I could find quickly online ~ California net paid the feds $71 billion more than it received from all sources. And by far the largest net recipient of federal spending was Virginia with massive federal contracts spent there. But other than California, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, and dense population areas of the North East, most of the rest of the states in blue are net recipients of federal funds.

Over the past decade, the map doesn't change much, although New York often beats out California as largest net contributor to the federal budget depending on the year.

Net balance of payments to the federal government (orange = net payer to feds, blue = net recipient from feds):
1729805757732.png
Of course the federal balance is net a pretty big cash outflow (as we're running big federal deficits).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,726
54,731
136
2022, last year I could find quickly online ~ California net paid the feds $71 billion more than it received from all sources. And by far the largest net recipient of federal spending was Virginia with massive federal contracts spent there. But other than California, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, and dense population areas of the North East, most of the rest of the states in blue are net recipients of federal funds.

Over the past decade, the map doesn't change much, although New York often beats out California as largest net contributor to the federal budget depending on the year.

Net balance of payments to the federal government (orange = net payer to feds, blue = net recipient from feds):
View attachment 110238
Of course the federal balance is net a pretty big cash outflow (as we're running big federal deficits).
Yes, broadly speaking the northeast and California subsidize the rest of the country.

That being said, I think raw dollar figures obscure the reality. In percentage or per capita terms New York and especially Connecticut give a shitload to the feds and a lot of those low population southern states take a tremendous amount of federal cash per person.

Red states are by and large utterly dependent on the federal government to survive. I guess they delude themselves into thinking otherwise because reality is too shameful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indus

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,622
10,881
136
Yes, broadly speaking the northeast and California subsidize the rest of the country.

That being said, I think raw dollar figures obscure the reality. In percentage or per capita terms New York and especially Connecticut give a shitload to the feds and a lot of those low population southern states take a tremendous amount of federal cash per person.

Red states are by and large utterly dependent on the federal government to survive. I guess they delude themselves into thinking otherwise because reality is too shameful.

If the Red States actually offered good comparable healthcare and protections.. I'd leave blue state taxes in a hurry!
 
Nov 17, 2019
13,245
7,854
136
GUINAN: We need to talk. Somehow this, this is all wrong. This is not the way it's supposed to be.

GUINAN: I don't know. But I do know that this is a mistake. Every fibre in my being says this is a mistake. I can't explain it to myself so I can't explain it to you. I only know that I'm right.

GUINAN: Tell me about Kamala
 
Last edited:

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,622
10,881
136
Another reason why we may need a REVOLUTION!

It might sound crazy calling for a bloody revolution since we all have families and homes but that's always the weird problem with uprisings/revolutions.

Dictators take comfort in people with families and homes that they're not going to risk it and they go further and further down the authoritarian road. Basically they call us "wusses" and they're right.

And on the flip side you need not only to get enough people to agree with you, but you also need them to be ready for it. If it starts too early, you won't have enough people supporting you. If it starts too late, you won't have enough military power to fight against the regime. And probably the most important thing is that a public figure that people trust needs to send the message to everyone. And at that time people have to know that they're probably going to die if they go up against the government, but things are so bad that they'd rather risk dying than living under the current rule.

Sad thing is everything I've just described in the wall of text..

It sounds like Trump has basically primed MAGA for a revolution against us!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,130
17,947
136
Another reason why we may need a REVOLUTION!

It might sound crazy calling for a bloody revolution since we all have families and homes but that's always the weird problem with uprisings/revolutions.

Dictators take comfort in people with families and homes that they're not going to risk it and they go further and further down the authoritarian road. Basically they call us "wusses" and they're right.

And on the flip side you need not only to get enough people to agree with you, but you also need them to be ready for it. If it starts too early, you won't have enough people supporting you. If it starts too late, you won't have enough military power to fight against the regime. And probably the most important thing is that a public figure that people trust needs to send the message to everyone. And at that time people have to know that they're probably going to die if they go up against the government, but things are so bad that they'd rather risk dying than living under the current rule.

Sad thing is everything I've just described in the wall of text..

It sounds like Trump has basically primed MAGA for a revolution against us!
Trump is just the mouthpiece, Fox News, OANN, the Daily Wire, etc are doing the heavy lifting. And we know that at least some of the influencers were being paid by Russia. We know the NRA was acting as a Russian asset.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,516
9,994
136
But we're always the ones willing to fold against threats of violence. 2000.. Gore folded. All it does is it allows the cancer to grow.. I'm under zero delusions that this election will be peaceful. I just hope we don't surrender without a fight.

Edit: it's scary that you think I'm crazy for wanting to push back.. but we're not willing to push back against Trump.
If Trump does not win the election, violence won't be tolerated. Joe won't fold. He's chief executive until Jan. 20 and won't play nice with perps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon and nOOky

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,510
3,047
136
To be clear I am broadly in support of a higher tax/higher service state. It is also important to note that most of those low tax states are the recipients of large federal transfers so their low taxes are subsidized by other, more economically competitive areas. I just think when people complain about taxes they should be accurate.

In this case though I got the state wrong because I’m an idiot.
I know where you where coming from, and my response wasn't really directed at you at all. I knew you just made a simple mistake, and used your post as a opening to say what I said.

It's just people bitch about taxes and "think" lower taxes is better, when in reality, they are getting lower quality services for their tax dollars. Or, as in the case for many blue states, who generally have a higher tax burden, are subsidizing other states, which are majority red states. Honestly, it's frustrating as hell.

As an example, I have an uncle who moved from a blue state, who constantly bitched about the taxes. He finally admitted last year, that if it wasn't for the tax credits and discounts the state gives him for being a senior, he would be paying more taxes over all. He also admitted that services are either lower quality, or non existent, and the roads are sub par on comparison.

That is why I said what I said, because there are many people who don't think past the taxes they pay. All they see is $$$, and nothing last that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fskimospy