PDA

View Full Version : is there no end to their shameless creativity?



david gibson
08-05-2010, 08:17 AM
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/democrats-say-lets-exempt-rich-in-blue-states-from-tax-hike/

waiting........

ducknwork
08-05-2010, 10:07 AM
What a joke.:rolleyes:

Some of the comments below the article are pretty good. I liked this one...


What happened to the joy of ending the “evil” Bush tax cuts ?
Obama ran on ending them .. these chumps voted for him .. they deserve to pay them.

YardleyLabs
08-05-2010, 10:52 AM
To be clear, the bill submitted was not linked to continuation or expiration of the Bush tax cuts (which Bush and Congressional Republicans wrote to expire because the alternative was to include spending cuts in the bill). It was a separate bill addressing a real issue that exists in many other venues -- the cost of living varies widely across states, yet this difference is not considered in setting tax rates, defining eligibility for Federal assistance programs, etc. That is one of the reasons why current tax policies and current aid programs are biased to provide disproportionate assistance to lower cost and lower income states -- most of which ar "red". H.R. 1943, which Congressman Nadler introduced 16 months ago, was DOA and referred to committee where no hearings were scheduled and no action taken.

Needless to say, all six co-sponsors of H.R. 1943 were from New York as well. I guess they are tired of bankrolling America . The fact that the bill died immediately in a Democrat controlled committee is evidence that the rest of us are happy to take New York's money. According to The Tax Foundation, New York receives $0.79 in Federal spending for each $1.00 paid in Federal taxes. New Jersey receives on $0.61 in spending per dollar of taxes paid, making it the biggest loser in the Federal sweepstakes. The biggest winners? New Mexico at $2.03 received per dollar paid, Mississippi at $2.02, Alaska at $1.84, and Louisiana at $1.78. It should be expected that Federal spending cuts will have a disproportionately negative effect on those states that now are the disproportionate winners. Will that happen, or will cuts be done in a way that penalizes those states that already pay the biggest share of the bill the most? In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of an extension of the Bush tax cuts would be those states, like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois, that now receive the least in return for their Federal tax dollars. (See http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html)

dback
08-05-2010, 11:41 AM
To be clear, the bill submitted was not linked to continuation or expiration of the Bush tax cuts (which Bush and Congressional Republicans wrote to expire because the alternative was to include spending cuts in the bill). It was a separate bill addressing a real issue that exists in many other venues -- the cost of living varies widely across states, yet this difference is not considered in setting tax rates, defining eligibility for Federal assistance programs, etc. That is one of the reasons why current tax policies and current aid programs are biased to provide disproportionate assistance to lower cost and lower income states -- most of which ar "red". H.R. 1943, which Congressman Nadler introduced 16 months ago, was DOA and referred to committee where no hearings were scheduled and no action taken.

Needless to say, all six co-sponsors of H.R. 1943 were from New York as well. I guess they are tired of bankrolling America . The fact that the bill died immediately in a Democrat controlled committee is evidence that the rest of us are happy to take New York's money. According to The Tax Foundation, New York receives $0.79 in Federal spending for each $1.00 paid in Federal taxes. New Jersey receives on $0.61 in spending per dollar of taxes paid, making it the biggest loser in the Federal sweepstakes. The biggest winners? New Mexico at $2.03 received per dollar paid, Mississippi at $2.02, Alaska at $1.84, and Louisiana at $1.78. It should be expected that Federal spending cuts will have a disproportionately negative effect on those states that now are the disproportionate winners. Will that happen, or will cuts be done in a way that penalizes those states that already pay the biggest share of the bill the most? In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of an extension of the Bush tax cuts would be those states, like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois, that now receive the least in return for their Federal tax dollars. (See http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html)

Yes poooooor NY.....I guess if NY had a larger retirement community, more Federal Facilities, more military bases, major interstate transportation routes some agriculture and lots of Native Americans their return would be higher.......all things NM has. Why should NYers be exempt from participating in these segments of our society when they themselves benefit from or have responsibilities to each?

YardleyLabs
08-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Yes poooooor NY.....I guess if NY had a larger retirement community, more Federal Facilities, more military bases, major interstate transportation routes some agriculture and lots of Native Americans their return would be higher.......all things NM has. Why should NYers be exempt from participating in these segments of our society when they themselves benefit from or have responsibilities to each?
Actually, New York has all of those things. It also has much higher incomes. The fact is that 8 of the top ten net contributors of Federal taxes (based on dollars paid vs dollars received) are "blue states, and two are "purple". Of the top net recipients of Federal spending, three are "red", six are "purple", and one is "blue". When the "second revolution" happens, all that blue money will leave all those red and purple states.:rolleyes: Welcome to the new world.

dback
08-05-2010, 01:15 PM
Actually, New York has all of those things.How does one make it through an Ivy League institution missing key words like 'larger' and 'more'? NY has 10x the population of NM and still NM out produces NY in several agricultural areas. At the 10x rate, NY can't compare to NM in a single category. Military, NY has 3x the population per troop than NM and that's not counting ICE or Los Alamos. Los Alamos alone has over one fifth the personnel (15,000) of the entire state of NYs military (71,000) It also has much higher incomes. The fact is that 8 of the top ten net contributors of Federal taxes (based on dollars paid vs dollars received) are "blue states, and two are "purple". Of the top net recipients of Federal spending, three are "red", six are "purple", and one is "blue". When the "second revolution" happens, all that blue money will leave all those red and purple states.:rolleyes: Well good luck defending themselves with their paltry 71,000 military personnel, 2 Air Bases....one with 'Cargo Planes' and one with 'Drone' operators (do they have a single fighter in the entire state) and try feeding (what 20+ million) that can't even match the state of NM in several categories. Oh, and please....let's not forget to bring home your retirees.....I get REAL tired of them blocking traffic with their golf carts when I'm trying to get to work. Welcome to the new world. Welcome to the REAL world :rolleyes:

.........................

YardleyLabs
08-05-2010, 02:51 PM
.........................
I'm sorry that you feel it is such a burden to have our Federal tax dollars. I think you would find the northeastern states would be happy to capture the military jobs that have gone to southern and southwestern states instead. Certainly Pennsylvania has been kicking and screaming about the theft of all of its military installations, leaving us with some pretty big toxic waste sites but none of the jobs that we used to have. The northeast currently is slightly underrepresented among military enlistees, but still represents 15% of US forces. It is unfortunate that most are stationed so far from home. Maybe if some of those bases were moved from NM to the northeast, enlistments would increase in addition to helping out the northeastern economy. We don't want you guys to feel so burdened.:D By the way, feel free to send back the retirees also. They are great for the economy.

ducknwork
08-05-2010, 02:54 PM
By the way, feel free to send back the retirees also. They are great for the economy.

Please, take them. They are bad for my blood pressure and stress level. I don't know why youse guys keep coming down heah anyways.

dback
08-05-2010, 03:25 PM
I'm sorry that you feel it is such a burden to have our Federal tax dollars. I think you would find the northeastern states would be happy to capture the military jobs that have gone to southern and southwestern states instead. Certainly Pennsylvania has been kicking and screaming about the theft of all of its military installations, leaving us with some pretty big toxic waste sites but none of the jobs that we used to have. The northeast currently is slightly underrepresented among military enlistees, but still represents 15% of US forces. It is unfortunate that most are stationed so far from home. Maybe if some of those bases were moved from NM to the northeast, enlistments would increase in addition to helping out the northeastern economy. We don't want you guys to feel so burdened.:D By the way, feel free to send back the retirees also. They are great for the economy.

Not complaining at all. I thought the point was that NY felt it paid an unfair balance. I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as stating a statistic that NY receives less per dollar of input. There are reasons for it .... much of which is brought on by NYers themselves. Hell, they even protested the Hancock mission (drones) for fear that it would make NY a target. Their tax rates are astronomical hence retirees bail for other locales with a more favorable tax (and cost of living, better weather, less crime, newer homes, decent roads, etc., etc, :-)) Other than Hogs :rolleyes: (literally) they simply are not a major player in agriculture. Fact of the matter.....there really aren't any 'blue' "states" anyway.....there are 'blue' population centers, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston. There isn't a one of those that can provide for themselves.....they depend on the rest of the US (or overseas) to do it. As long as NY wants to participate in the infra-structure, military, food products and 'feel good' thing with Native Americans......guess they'll pay extra.

Retirees......I don't imagine this will come as much of a surprise to anyone, but, I have pointed out to several that the highway they arrived on....had a lane headed the other way.