Minneapolis teachers contract says white teachers get fired first

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What you always leave outdon't know what that has to do with your posting a link to an article about state debt?, is that the fed (until Trump stopped it), gave residents of high-tax blue states a big federal tax deduction, not available to residents of low-tax red states. I'm referring to what used to be an un-capped deduction for state and local taxes, which is a big federal income tax break for residents of high tax blue states, paid for by people in low tax red states.
.

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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. Did I say that? I don't think I did.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?Prob. has more to do w/the average salary. The lower taxed states could always tax their people more and use that $ to help the poor out but they have chosen not to.


"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.

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. That is reflected in the stats which show the higher taxed states have higher rankings in almost all the social services type categories.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. That is reflected in the stats which show the higher taxed states have higher rankings in almost all the social services type categories.

ok paul. we were talking about state debt, and then you posted about imbalance of federal spending. Sonic tiny dint being that up in regards to being a caiden of state debt, why did you bring it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok paul. we were talking about state debt, and then you posted about imbalance of federal spending. Sonic tiny dint being that up in regards to being a caiden of state debt, why did you bring it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

??

I brought it up bc you posted the link to show the blue states have more debt than the red states. The red states receive far more fed. $ than the blue states. If every state only received a 1 for 1 return, the blue states would have far less debt (bc of increased tax revenue) vs the red states which would have more either more debt, decreased services or have to increase taxes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

??

I brought it up bc you posted the link to show the blue states have more debt than the red states. The red states receive far more fed. $ than the blue states. If every state only received a 1 for 1 return, the blue states would have far less debt (bc of increased tax revenue) vs the red states which would have more either more debt, decreased services or have to increase taxes.

Again, you are completely ignoring the offsetting effect of the huge federal tax deduction that residents of blue states get, which must be paid for by residents of red states.

When you ignore facts that refute your argument, I'll admit it bolsters your argument. But I'm not sure that's the proper way to debate things.

The money the state of CT gets from its state income tax, sales tax, and the casinos, should be way more than enough to run the state. It's a tiny state with a relatively wealthy population that doesn't need much in the way of state services compared to most other states with less wealthy citizens. Yet we are drowning in debt. Because we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

If you gave the state of CT a trillion dollars today, tomorrow they'd borrow 2 trillion to give to the unions. That's our problem.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, you are completely ignoring the offsetting effect of the huge federal tax deduction that residents of blue states get, which must be paid for by residents of red states.

When you ignore facts that refute your argument, I'll admit it bolsters your argument. But I'm not sure that's the proper way to debate things.

The money the state of CT gets from its state income tax, sales tax, and the casinos, should be way more than enough to run the state. It's a tiny state with a relatively wealthy population that doesn't need much in the way of state services compared to most other states with less wealthy citizens. Yet we are drowning in debt. Because we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

If you gave the state of CT a trillion dollars today, tomorrow they'd borrow 2 trillion to give to the unions. That's our problem.

There is no more salt and yet the blue states lead the red states in almost all good social/welfare categories.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. .

Yet in uber wealthy CT, the state constantly cuts services to the poor, and instead gives more and more to public sector labor unions, who don’t represent poor people. they represent solidly middle class and upper-middle class people for the most part.

Talk to someone who works for DCF, ask them
if their state funding keeps getting cut.

Poor people in Ct should
unionize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yet in uber wealthy CT, the state constantly cuts services to the poor, and instead gives more and more to public sector labor unions, who don’t represent poor people. they represent solidly middle class and upper-middle class people for the most part.

Talk to someone who works for DCF, ask them
if their state funding keeps getting cut.

Poor people in Ct should
unionize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know about what services have been cut but even if true, CT still leads almost? all red states in services provided which is reflected in the numerous rankings which have already been provided.