Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Another Round Of Trying To Forgive Loans


Bigbrog

Recommended Posts

the whole federal spending received vs. extracted is disingenuous

the states with the highest ratio dont have any major corps. their income is lower and so they pay lower amounts of tax.

states like cali and texas at .80  have large corp. there...

not apples to apples

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

the whole federal spending received vs. extracted is disingenuous

the states with the highest ratio dont have any major corps. their income is lower and so they pay lower amounts of tax.

states like cali and texas at .80  have large corp. there...

not apples to apples

Socialism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Le duke said:

 


Excuses and bail outs, eh? Conservative economic policy in a nutshell. Wealth redistribution from blue to red.

I would prefer that I keep more of my (blue state) tax dollars in-state instead of bailing out red states. Particularly the south.

Unfortunately, they have a laundry list of excuses, such as, “We’re fat, drunk, have the worst educational systems by far and can’t get by without blue state tax dollars. Woe is me. Send me more money, blue states/Federal government, for I am poor.”

Hopefully the federal government doesn’t bail Florida out when the next big one hits. ***duck duck goose** ‘em. Their inflation rate is more than twice the national average, the two largest insurers just pulled out and illegal immigrants are scared to work there. Let that dump fester and rot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

can you do the math and figure out how contradictory your stance is or do i have to do it for you?

TBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

it always has been bob

but to argue that blue states fund red states based on this ratio

 is incorrect.

Since red states are so against socialism they shouldn't accept these funds right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

so what about blue states who want to be able to right off state taxes on their  fed tax papers?

 

Answer my question first, obviously it will pain you to type the answer so I'll let you do it. Better yet, I'm sure you'll go on a 10 post spree without anyone replying of random crap you've found on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobDole said:

No one is exactly thrilled about illegal immigrants coming in here ILLEGALY. However, without them doing a lot of low level labor our country would have trouble in industries such as construction and agriculture.

Doubt that Shillie has ever eaten a vegetable let alone know where they come from and probably never held a hammer...:classic_wink:

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

can you do the math and figure out how contradictory your stance is or do i have to do it for you?

If California contributes $300 and gets $195 back, and Mississippi contributes $50 and gets $130 back, please explain how my “blue states fund red states” stance is wrong. Where do you think that money for Mississippi comes from?

Hint: Those are the actual ratios of contributions vs returns for those two states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Le duke said:


If California contributes $300 and gets $195 back, and Mississippi contributes $50 and gets $130 back, please explain how my “blue states fund red states” stance is wrong. Where do you think that money for Mississippi comes from?

Hint: Those are the actual ratios of contributions vs returns for those two states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your take is such a partisan one it is almost laughable.  You do realize that the reason Suckafornia contributes so much is they are taxed WAY more than say, Florida due to each individual states policies.  And the reason for a state to receive funding is vast and should be taken into account when making such statements of "blue states" fund "red states".  It is a reach at best to try and make any sort of deduction about "blue" or "red" states from how much federal funding a state gets.  Each state would have to be looked at individually as to their balance sheet.  

It actually would have been fine if you said something like "According to some formula a group of people used, 7 out of 10 states that receive the most federal funding typically vote republican.  You can NOT make any sort of comparative to one state versus the other because of it.  Heck you can't really make a determination of "good" or "bad" in terms of the individual state depending on how much federal funding it receives.  

Overall it is a stupid way to look at things and a laughable way to try and divide further.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your take is such a partisan one it is almost laughable.  You do realize that the reason Suckafornia contributes so much is they are taxed WAY more than say, Florida due to each individual states policies.  And the reason for a state to receive funding is vast and should be taken into account when making such statements of "blue states" fund "red states".  It is a reach at best to try and make any sort of deduction about "blue" or "red" states from how much federal funding a state gets.  Each state would have to be looked at individually as to their balance sheet.  
It actually would have been fine if you said something like "According to some formula a group of people used, 7 out of 10 states that receive the most federal funding typically vote republican.  You can NOT make any sort of comparative to one state versus the other because of it.  Heck you can't really make a determination of "good" or "bad" in terms of the individual state depending on how much federal funding it receives.  
Overall it is a stupid way to look at things and a laughable way to try and divide further.


Are you honestly suggesting that Florida’s state tax policy has anything to do with FEDERAL taxes in California?

We have reached a new level here. You cannot be helped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

acutally i was wrong before.. according to AP
cali's ratio  is .96
so if they pay 300 they get back 288
 
 

Please cite a source.

Nothing I’ve found suggests anything higher than 0.70.

https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2022

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxes-ap-top-news-politics-2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

California fared a bit better than other blue states. It received 96 cents for every dollar the state sent to Washington.

 

12 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxes-ap-top-news-politics-2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

California fared a bit better than other blue states. It received 96 cents for every dollar the state sent to Washington.

Those pesky old facts. Scouts Honor you know democrats get bothered  when you use them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those pesky old facts. Scouts Honor you know democrats get bothered  when you use them. 

You might want to read the article, note that it’s from 2017, and wonder what tax policy/law has been passed since then.

Also, the first three paragraphs:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.

An Associated Press Fact Check finds it’s actually the other way around. High-tax, traditionally Democratic states (blue), subsidize low-tax, traditionally Republican states (red) — in a big way.

Republicans are trying to eliminate the deduction as part of the sweeping tax package working its way through Congress. They added back a deduction for up to $10,000 in property taxes, in a concession to Republicans from high-tax states such as New York and New Jersey. California Republicans are pushing to extend the deduction to local income taxes, too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Le duke said:


You might want to read the article, note that it’s from 2017, and wonder what tax policy/law has been passed since then.

Also, the first three paragraphs:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.

An Associated Press Fact Check finds it’s actually the other way around. High-tax, traditionally Democratic states (blue), subsidize low-tax, traditionally Republican states (red) — in a big way.

Republicans are trying to eliminate the deduction as part of the sweeping tax package working its way through Congress. They added back a deduction for up to $10,000 in property taxes, in a concession to Republicans from high-tax states such as New York and New Jersey. California Republicans are pushing to extend the deduction to local income taxes, too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I read it. 2017 . Would like to see the updated  information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When this first came out this was proven an inaccurate statement: blue states pay more and get less back from federal taxes.  The reason, as Bigbrog pointed out, is that each state is different.  California wages are higher than Mississippi, and even though Mississippi is a red state, it does have democrats there.  Another example was that some states have military bases that a lot of federal dollars go to.  Some states will get federal dollars for construction projects but the bid goes to out of state contractor and suppliers  Federal dollars are spent on so many different things, in so many different states that change or move around from day to day, that it would be different by the time you calculated what they all are.  The problem is, the amount of dollars they waste, and they continue to spend more than they have.  

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...