bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,164
- 47,312
- 2,180
Then what are you whining about?This is a fact that so many who make the "taker state" argument fail to grasp.Do I?But you love wealth redistribution, so what's the problem?
Yes, you do, so you really have nobody but yourself to blame. You're the one who elects these politicians who want more centralized control in D.C. so they can divvy up slices of the pie based on who lobbies them the most or which Congressman has the most seniority. Then you come here and bellyache about "taker states." As I said initially, maybe the moral of the story here is that bigger, centralized government isn't the answer. Would California and New York be better off if most of their tax dollars never left their states in the first place so they can spend their own money on themselves instead of having to beg for it back?
But, then, the SALT tax exclusion had these fuckers screaming like stuck pigs.
So, really, what was happening was these "donor" states were getting all sorts of exemptions for their state income taxes and other local taxes and paying less in Fed income tax. When they were forced to pay the local taxes (California) AND not take the exclusion on the Fed income taxes, it became clear that these "donor" states were nothing more than areas with a higher cost of living which required higher incomes resulting in more tax revenue. It became obvious that a lowly unskilled workerOP had to make $100,000 a year just to afford basic living expenses.
FUNNY AS HELL to watch. It exposed the fuck out of these "donor" states.
![]()
Yes, dope. With the resulting increased state tax revenues, the higher taxed states require less from the federal govt. A successful state economy.