States that Can't Pay for themselves

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Bullshit!
If states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc weren't sending 100's of BILLIONS every year to the dirt poor, low wage recipient states they would have huge surpluses.
-snip-

I'm pretty states don't send other states money.

Can you link up some proof for that assertion?

TIA

Fern

he's talking about where federal dollars are spent vs where they are collected

Never mind that those taxes are Federal taxes and are levied at an equal rate across all states which means that they don't come into play in a state's ability to raise its own budget.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: techs
New York state only got back .79 cents for every dollar they gave the Feds in 2005 (according to your link)
Utah (for Elias824) your good old Red state got back 1.07 for every dollar they gave the Feds.
So basically you should be kissing New Yorks *ss. Without them, or California, etc, you probably wouldn't have one job offer.

And of course, its not in the link, but New York City has been paying for the rest of New York state for 150 years. In fact, the State Supreme Court ruled that the State had to give New York its fair share of revenue for its schools.

Oh yeah, gotta love Alaska and the myth they would be so much better off as their own country. They get back an astounding 1.84 dollars for every dollar they pay. Bridges to nowhere add up. I guess Alaska just doesn't tax them oil companies as much as they lead you to believe.

"Per tax dollar paid" is a horrible metric. Let's use an example to show why:

State A has very few people and low income, they collect $2 in federal taxes and receive $4 in federal funding. They receive $2 for every $1 sent to the Federal Government.

State B has many people. They collect $100 in federal taxes and receive $90 in federal funding. They receive $0.90 for every $1 sent to the Federal Government. However, that's 22.5 times more federal money than State A. The federal dollars per tax dollar metric makes this appear as though State B is receiving much less than State A, while the fact is that State B is, in absolute terms, receiving far more federal benefits than State A.

If both State A and State B are roughly the same geographic size, then they are supporting roughly the same amount of federally-funded infrastructure (roads, fire departments, police departments, etc). Even though State A receives more federal dollars per tax dollar paid, they still have to use more state funds on their infrastructure than State B since State B is receiving 22.5 times the federal funds for State B's infrastructure.

The argument that somehow CA, NY, etc are "propping up" other states because of federal funding just doesn't hold up to a close investigation with logic.

ZV

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: techs
New York state only got back .79 cents for every dollar they gave the Feds in 2005 (according to your link)
Utah (for Elias824) your good old Red state got back 1.07 for every dollar they gave the Feds.
So basically you should be kissing New Yorks *ss. Without them, or California, etc, you probably wouldn't have one job offer.

And of course, its not in the link, but New York City has been paying for the rest of New York state for 150 years. In fact, the State Supreme Court ruled that the State had to give New York its fair share of revenue for its schools.

Oh yeah, gotta love Alaska and the myth they would be so much better off as their own country. They get back an astounding 1.84 dollars for every dollar they pay. Bridges to nowhere add up. I guess Alaska just doesn't tax them oil companies as much as they lead you to believe.

"Per tax dollar paid" is a horrible metric. Let's use an example to show why:

State A has very few people and low income, they collect $2 in federal taxes and receive $4 in federal funding. They receive $2 for every $1 sent to the Federal Government.

State B has many people. They collect $100 in federal taxes and receive $90 in federal funding. They receive $0.90 for every $1 sent to the Federal Government. However, that's 22.5 times more federal money than State A. The federal dollars per tax dollar metric makes this appear as though State B is receiving much less than State A, while the fact is that State B is, in absolute terms, receiving far more federal benefits than State A.

If both State A and State B are roughly the same geographic size, then they are supporting roughly the same amount of federally-funded infrastructure (roads, fire departments, police departments, etc). Even though State A receives more federal dollars per tax dollar paid, they still have to use more state funds on their infrastructure than State B since State B is receiving 22.5 times the federal funds for State B's infrastructure.

The argument that somehow CA, NY, etc are "propping up" other states because of federal funding just doesn't hold up to a close investigation with logic.

ZV

Well.... I'd be all for proportional taxation. IOW, the State collects all the tax from its folks and sends to Washington, DC an amount per body equal to all the other states' per body amount and develops its own interstate system and collect the gas tax etc.. Each state votes on how much per body to send to DC and if they agree then that is the budget the Fed's work with.. somehow... IF they want to drop bombs.. well fine then we vote on it... allocate the funds for the bombs and there it is.. Hamilton's notion of a strong central government could have worked but for the fact that somehow someone figured out that money is power and why should Ca have that much power.

edit: Hell, I like that idea alot...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans...27t-Pay-for-Themselves

The Golden State, which recently scrambled to fill a $15 billion budget gap, still may not be able to meet its payroll without help.

California is going to Washington, D.C., to ask for $7 billion to cover its budget shortfall. Otherwise it won't be able to pay for its teachers, cops, firemen, and other essential services.

Our previous governor, a democrat, Gray Davis, ended the suspension of a DMV fee that had been put in place during the tech boom, to balance the budget.

The CA Republicans - a radical group of rightys - used that, calling it a 'tax increase', and the public outrage over Enron, to recall him, and got Arnold elected.

The irony is that Enron was a Republican company, Bush's #1 lifetime donor, and Arnold was a friend of Enron while Dave was its opponent.

Enron wanted a sweetheart deal signed off to let them off their wrongs requiring the governor's agreement and David refused sign; Arnold signed.

As it turns out, the DMV fee Davis put back in place was just the right amount to have balanced our budget, while Arnold's policies have led to this mess.

Once again, the facts show the democrats were the right party and the Republicans are FUBAR.

 

[Robor]

Based on HR's chart it looks like FL is doing ok and we don't pay a state income tax. Based on winnar's chart we're near the worst. Which is it?

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

 

[HannibalX]

California can go to hell. They have a 7 billion dollar gap in their budget? Stop spending so much! They are asking the rest of the country to pay for their entitlement programs? No thanks.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Bullshit!
If states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc weren't sending 100's of BILLIONS every year to the dirt poor, low wage recipient states they would have huge surpluses.
-snip-

I'm pretty states don't send other states money.

Can you link up some proof for that assertion?

TIA

Fern

he's talking about where federal dollars are spent vs where they are collected

Info on dollars paid vs received.

As far as NY goes, we're saddled with NYC. We've been paying for them forever.

New York state only got back .79 cents for every dollar they gave the Feds in 2005 (according to your link)
Utah (for Elias824) your good old Red state got back 1.07 for every dollar they gave the Feds.
So basically you should be kissing New Yorks *ss. Without them, or California, etc, you probably wouldn't have one job offer.

And of course, its not in the link, but New York City has been paying for the rest of New York state for 150 years. In fact, the State Supreme Court ruled that the State had to give New York its fair share of revenue for its schools.

Oh yeah, gotta love Alaska and the myth they would be so much better off as their own country. They get back an astounding 1.84 dollars for every dollar they pay. Bridges to nowhere add up. I guess Alaska just doesn't tax them oil companies as much as they lead you to believe.

And what in your mind suddenly decided wealth redistribution is bad?

 

[ElFenix]

gray davis got $85,000 from enron, 3x more than his competitor in the regular election. so don't act like he wasn't bought and paid for like every other politician out there. according to USA today hundreds of candidates in CA, received money, all legally, from enron. the total was nearly $500,000 over 3 years before enron's collapse. further, the republicans tossed enron under the bus when it started to look for handouts from the feds.

 

[Squisher]

Hmm, Michigan in the 5th year of a recession and only a 4.8% gap even though one of the least business friendly states.

Another, Hmm.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: techs

Oh yeah, gotta love Alaska and the myth they would be so much better off as their own country. They get back an astounding 1.84 dollars for every dollar they pay. Bridges to nowhere add up. I guess Alaska just doesn't tax them oil companies as much as they lead you to believe.

It's not like the government just gives the state government a bag of cash. The federal government also owns much (most?) of Alaskan land which must be maintained, has military bases there, etc. Your interpretation of the numbers is a juvenile approach.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Bullshit!
If states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc weren't sending 100's of BILLIONS every year to the dirt poor, low wage recipient states they would have huge surpluses.
-snip-

I'm pretty states don't send other states money.

Can you link up some proof for that assertion?

TIA

Fern

he's talking about where federal dollars are spent vs where they are collected

I though he may, but what he says and any comments about allocation/distribution of federal tax dollars are two completely different things. The states he mentioned do have an income tax system, but do not send any of their revenue to any other state. Business and citizens within a state send their money to the federal government (taxes) - states do not (nor do they send their to other states).

Besides, that whole argument about some states paying more than they get back is rather stupid and mostly based upon incomplete and/or flawed data.

E.g. IBM Corp is headquarted in Armonk NY. Therefore according to federal data all of their tax (federal revenue) is *credited* to the state of NY. That's complete rubish too, IBM does business all over the USA (and in foreign countries) but their revenue is listed as a 100% NY source.

IBM has huge operations here in NC, why shouldn't some of that revenue (taxes) be credited to NC?

Well, it isn't. They are huge numbers of corporations generating all kinds of federal revenue yet operate in many, many states - but the way the revenue is *allocated* credits 100% to only the state where the HQ is.

There is NO data on a federal corp tax return that tells anybody the source (which state) of the company's revenue.

This re-occurring argument about how some states pay more than they recieve is all a bunch of BS supported by crappy meaningless data.

Even if it weren't, Dems like techs argue that reallocation of income vis-a-vis the federal tax system is appropriate; so why cry about it when they see data that (falsely) purports to demonstrate such reallocation?

Fern

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Don't you love the idiots who support a $40 billion HSR proposal in CA? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. LAFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffffffff. Stupid kids thinking they want everything but we don't have the money.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
gray davis got $85,000 from enron, 3x more than his competitor in the regular election. so don't act like he wasn't bought and paid for like every other politician out there. according to USA today hundreds of candidates in CA, received money, all legally, from enron. the total was nearly $500,000 over 3 years before enron's collapse. further, the republicans tossed enron under the bus when it started to look for handouts from the feds.

You're right that the democrats were far from blameless when it came to Enron - David had history lobbying for Greece to buy their product - but when the real issues came up, Davis *stood clearly against the Enron corruption*, refusing to sign the sweetheart deal for them, while the Republicans supported the corruption, Enron having friendly meetings with Dick Cheney's energy commission and Arnold signing the deal they wanted.

Davis in contrast (quoting from a right-wing site):

"I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put all of us at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President [Dick] Cheney to draft a national energy strategy," stated Davis.

In May 2002, Davis called Enron executives "robber barons."

"This is more than greed. This is depravity," stated Davis.

Here is a very informative link to 'Democracy Now!' on the Enron-CA issue.]

Excerpt:

AMY GOODMAN: And what does Governor Schwarzenegger have to do with this?

GREG PALAST: Ah, well, the worst thing?these guys fear one thing more than jail, and that?s giving back the money. The State of California under Gray Davis?you just had him on saying, you know, ?God bless this jury.? Gray Davis had demanded that after Enron got and their buddies got caught nicking the state for $9 billion-plus, he did the obvious thing, he demanded that the money be returned.

So Lay panicked. He did two things: He went to meet with Dick Cheney in Washington, but he also held a meeting with Mike Milken, who had just gotten out of jail for his multi-billion-dollar stock fraud. Milken and Lay invited Arnold Schwarzenegger to a private meeting at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills, and, you know, Schwarzenegger used to do these private hotel things where he?d go down to his Speedos, but now this is in 2001, and they suggested that they needed?if only they could get the State of California to agree to basically a sweetheart fake settlement, where the people would get back, instead of $9 billion, would basically get, you know, donuts instead of dollars, next to nothing.

Right after that, the recall drive starts against Gray Davis, who is demanding that the money be returned. Schwarzenegger becomes?the Terminator becomes the Governator, and literally within days, the Lay plan from the Peninsula Hotel goes right into effect, and Schwarzenegger just starts signing off with every one of these power companies to give dimes on the dollar, so that the public in California just never got its money back, just got virtually nothing.