Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
So maybe the states that lag behind in almost every health and welfare category need to start taxing their residents more so they have the funds to help the less fortunate in those states. The SALT deduction would have been available to any state that had an income tax. Instead those states choose not to have an income tax and as a result they don't have the funds to provide clean water and sewers for some of their residents. But the rich in those states do ok.
|
"don't know what that has to do with your posting a link to an article about state debt"
It has to do with YOUR statement that debt is driven by imbalance of federal spending. The fact that people in high-tax blue states have always had (and still do have, it's just capped) a huge federal tax break that people in low-tax red states don't get, that fact offsets some of the imbalance you always point to. Also, CT has way more rich people than MS, so wouldn't you expect the federal government to spend more on MS?
"But the rich in those states do ok"
Paul, If the rich states did OK in a broad sense, people would be moving there, instead of moving away. But they aren't, not in the numbers that they're moving to certain places within certain red states. People aren't moving to $600,000 houses in the Nashville suburbs in insane numbers because they expect to drink contaminated water.
Middle class people can move to certain places within certain red states, and not be without ANYTHING that they get in CT, but they pay a whole lot less. You can't make that wrong.
If you're in the top 5% or someone interested in living off welfare, CT is meaningfully better than the red states. For everyone else, the value proposition is better in the booming suburbs of certain red states.
I asked you what services I get in CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb in NH, and I believe you said nothing. That's the correct answer.