I'm so tired of this "equality" BS

[JSt0rm]

awesome. Do you understand I was addressing the op in this thread? The op who has decided to wage war against poor people who are taking from the state? So the fact that there are IT jobs in Arkansas or that the federal government in Cali has a large employment base is irrelevant.

FACT Arkansas is a welfare state.

FACT this guy from your states hate is misguided and he fails as a thinking human being.

Everything else is you defending your state by showing other things. Well none of those other things change this fact = $1 out $1.53 in

 

[ZaneNBK]

awesome. Do you understand I was addressing the op in this thread? The op who has decided to wage war against poor people who are taking from the state? So the fact that there are IT jobs in Arkansas or that the federal government in Cali has a large employment base is irrelevant.

FACT Arkansas is a welfare state.

FACT this guy from your states hate is misguided and he fails as a thinking human being.

Everything else is you defending your state by showing other things. Well none of those other things change this fact = $1 out $1.53 in

You can address the original post without disparaging the entire state and the people that live there with incorrect and misleading facts, such as those that I have rebutted so far. Even your number for the amount we receive per dollar paid in federal taxes is off according to every source I can find. Arkansas is $1.41 per $1 in federal taxes and 14th overall according to the latest study I can find, which only has data up to 2005: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

Still not enviable though.

 

[JSt0rm]

in the list i found you are 10th on the list at $1.53. I cant find the source right now and dont have time to do that.

I am not a diplomat and offending an entire states worth of people is irrelevant to me. As you can see the op has left never to return to this thread that was my only purpose.

I suggest moving to the coasts.

 

[IGBT]

moral relativism is a liberal psychosis. thus liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[ch33zw1z]

moral relativism is a liberal psychosis. thus liberalism is a mental disorder.

stfu you damn doper.

 

[CallMeJoe]

stfu you damn doper.

You shouldn't be rude to the intellectually disadvantaged.

 

[Jhhnn]

You can address the original post without disparaging the entire state and the people that live there with incorrect and misleading facts, such as those that I have rebutted so far. Even your number for the amount we receive per dollar paid in federal taxes is off according to every source I can find. Arkansas is $1.41 per $1 in federal taxes and 14th overall according to the latest study I can find, which only has data up to 2005: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

Still not enviable though.

I haven't personally disparaged the state of Arkansas per se, but I think it's entirely reasonable to point out that recipients of federal largesse are often the first to bite the hand that feeds 'em, and to elect right wing obstructionists to national office. Many of them would be in very deep doo-doo if they got what they claim they want. Their social & financial elites have used federal monies to pacify residents into accepting what are often very regressive tax structures, right to work status, low wages, lousy schools, poor infrastructure & income disparities that would make Joseph Mobutu blush.

Many of them are highly indoctrinated & terribly misinformed as to the finances of their own states, and even disparage the states who sacrifice their own well being to help them. The finances of states like California & New Jersey would be splendid if they got back 90% of what they put into the federal kitty.

Red State Righties need to be very, very careful of what they wish for, because it wouldn't be what they thought it would be, at all...

 

[PeshakJang]

FACT Arkansas is a welfare state.

If all of the sudden a major corporation moves to Arkansas and as such, their federal tax payments cause the state's federal tax per capita to double, how does that in ANY WAY change the finances of the state with regards to what we are discussing? Are they no longer a welfare state, by your definition, despite nothing else at all changing?

FACT, California receives far more *welfare* dollars per capita than Arkansas. Coupled with a much larger population, California is the clear welfare state in this comparison.

Math is math... I don't see how you are having trouble with this.

 

[JSt0rm]

You talk big for a man without links. And we are talking about federal dollars in for federal taxes paid. You can talk about whatever you want to talk about but WE are talking about federal taxes. Welfare comes in many forms. Like Walmart not paying their people enough and letting them get on state Medicaid rolls. This helps walmarts bottom line. Welfare to Walmart. Bravo.

 

[Jhhnn]

If all of the sudden a major corporation moves to Arkansas and as such, their federal tax payments cause the state's federal tax per capita to double, how does that in ANY WAY change the finances of the state with regards to what we are discussing? Are they no longer a welfare state, by your definition, despite nothing else at all changing?

FACT, California receives far more *welfare* dollars per capita than Arkansas. Coupled with a much larger population, California is the clear welfare state in this comparison.

Math is math... I don't see how you are having trouble with this.

Narrow the focus to eliminate facts contrary to your opinion, right?

In 2005, California put ~$290B into the federal kitty, got back ~$242B, or $.78 on the dollar. Arkansas put in ~$14B, got back ~$20B, or ~$1.41 on the dollar.

California is a net donor, while Arkansas is a net recipient of federal largesse. The details wrt what part of each State's total return were spent on welfare or anything else are immaterial.

It's a great deal for residents of States like Arkansas- getting a 25-41% return on their federal tax dollars every year, plus they get to piss & moan about big govt as if they were paying rather than being paid...

 

[fskimospy]

If all of the sudden a major corporation moves to Arkansas and as such, their federal tax payments cause the state's federal tax per capita to double, how does that in ANY WAY change the finances of the state with regards to what we are discussing? Are they no longer a welfare state, by your definition, despite nothing else at all changing?

FACT, California receives far more *welfare* dollars per capita than Arkansas. Coupled with a much larger population, California is the clear welfare state in this comparison.

Math is math... I don't see how you are having trouble with this.

Yes, math is math. Red states are generally subsidized by the wealthier blue states. In this case Arkansas takes in more than it gives out.

Period.

 

[PeshakJang]

Yes, math is math. Red states are generally subsidized by the wealthier blue states. In this case Arkansas takes in more than it gives out.

Period.

It's almost pointless arguing with you morons.

The money comes from where ever the 1% live. The state those 1% live in doesn't matter, since it's federal taxes. Your implication that the 'people' of California somehow pay more than they get back is as dishonest as it gets. How much federal tax income comes from people living within any given state doesn't matter for jack shit... it will come from them where ever they live. Federal expenditures per capita over taxes paid in simply means that either more rich people live in your state paying federal taxes, or more poor people live there collecting taxes. That's the bottom line.

At this point I can't tell if you are purposely not understanding this simple concept, or if you are drunk.

Also:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

According to the report you keep linking, it looks like the biggest source of difference in federal expenditures per capita is retirement and disability. You know, the entitlements you will defend to your death. So again, another case of the wealthy subsidizing the poor.

Still not getting it?

 

[JSt0rm]

It's almost pointless arguing with you morons.

The money comes from where ever the 1% live. The state those 1% live in doesn't matter, since it's federal taxes. Your implication that the 'people' of California somehow pay more than they get back is as dishonest as it gets. How much federal tax income comes from people living within any given state doesn't matter for jack shit... it will come from them where ever they live. Federal expenditures per capita over taxes paid in simply means that either more rich people live in your state paying federal taxes, or more poor people live there collecting taxes. That's the bottom line.

At this point I can't tell if you are purposely not understanding this simple concept, or if you are drunk.

Your view of the country is demented.

Rich and poor?

 

[PeshakJang]

Your view of the country is demented.

Rich and poor?

Better tell the dems if there isn't... They're going to need to change their campaign message.

Who pays the bills btw?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's almost pointless arguing with you morons.

The money comes from where ever the 1% live. The state those 1% live in doesn't matter, since it's federal taxes. Your implication that the 'people' of California somehow pay more than they get back is as dishonest as it gets. How much federal tax income comes from people living within any given state doesn't matter for jack shit... it will come from them where ever they live. Federal expenditures per capita over taxes paid in simply means that either more rich people live in your state paying federal taxes, or more poor people live there collecting taxes. That's the bottom line.

At this point I can't tell if you are purposely not understanding this simple concept, or if you are drunk.

Also:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

According to the report you keep linking, it looks like the biggest source of difference in federal expenditures per capita is retirement and disability. You know, the entitlements you will defend to your death. So again, another case of the wealthy subsidizing the poor.

Still not getting it?

You're the one not getting it, because your ideology demands circular argument & shifting rationale.

The federal govt currently collects more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. 41% vs 40%. There are no payroll taxes on dividends & capital gains, and SS deductions do not apply to earned income shares above ~$100K. Even if the top 1% of filers pay 40% of federal income taxes, that's still only 16% of the total revenue collected. Add a few points for their share of payroll & other taxes, call it 20% of federal revenues. So the top 1% only pays ~$.08 of the $.41 extra that Arkansas receives from the feds...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

Math? That's easy compared to reasoning with minds that are impaired by defective ideology.

 

[PeshakJang]

Time to end this debate that you lost several pages ago.

The data you keep quoting is from 2007 and hasn't been updated since. I pulled the same data from .gov websites, using the same criteria as the original study, with 2010 data. Interesting what I got:

2010 Population:

CA - 37,253,956
AR - 2,915,918

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

Federal Revenue Collections, net refunds FY2010:

CA - $222,665,185,000
AR - $25,102,757,000

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10databk.pdf

Federal Expenditure:

CA - $467,970,143,056
AR - $37,709,486,514

https://harvester.census.gov/cffr/asp/Geography.asp

Federal Collections Per Capita:

CA - $5,976.95
AR - $8,608.87

Federal Expenditures Per Capita:

CA - $12,561.62
AR - $12,932.29

Federal Expenditure Received Per Dollar of Revenue Collected:

CA - $2.10
AR - $1.50

HOLY GODDAMN SHIT BATMAN!

Looks like California is the clear Welfare Queen.... you got some explaining to do.

Break the argument.

 

[Jhhnn]

Time to end this debate that you lost several pages ago.

The data you keep quoting is from 2007 and hasn't been updated since. I pulled the same data from .gov websites, using the same criteria as the original study, with 2010 data. Interesting what I got:

2010 Population:

CA - 37,253,956
AR - 2,915,918

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

Federal Revenue Collections, net refunds FY2010:

CA - $222,665,185,000
AR - $25,102,757,000

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10databk.pdf

Federal Expenditure:

CA - $467,970,143,056
AR - $37,709,486,514

https://harvester.census.gov/cffr/asp/Geography.asp

Federal Collections Per Capita:

CA - $5,976.95
AR - $8,608.87

Federal Expenditures Per Capita:

CA - $12,561.62
AR - $12,932.29

Federal Expenditure Received Per Dollar of Revenue Collected:

CA - $2.10
AR - $1.50

HOLY GODDAMN SHIT BATMAN!

Looks like California is the clear Welfare Queen.... you got some explaining to do.

Break the argument.

Still wrong. You left out payroll & excise taxes in your desperation to maintain denial... Californians obviously pay more of those per capita due to their higher income level... They also outnumber Arkansawyers 12:1.

You're also trying to hand-wave away 25+ years of history, because it contradicts what you want to believe. Facts & Faith-based agendas are often irreconcilable.

 

[fskimospy]

It's almost pointless arguing with you morons.

The money comes from where ever the 1% live. The state those 1% live in doesn't matter, since it's federal taxes. Your implication that the 'people' of California somehow pay more than they get back is as dishonest as it gets. How much federal tax income comes from people living within any given state doesn't matter for jack shit... it will come from them where ever they live. Federal expenditures per capita over taxes paid in simply means that either more rich people live in your state paying federal taxes, or more poor people live there collecting taxes. That's the bottom line.

At this point I can't tell if you are purposely not understanding this simple concept, or if you are drunk.

Also:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

According to the report you keep linking, it looks like the biggest source of difference in federal expenditures per capita is retirement and disability. You know, the entitlements you will defend to your death. So again, another case of the wealthy subsidizing the poor.

Still not getting it?

lol. You're getting desperate now. In fact isn't the entire Republican argument about taxation that people who have to pay fewer taxes are more free to spend and to stimulate the economy? In that case it most certainly DOES matter where they live, because they would be improving California's economy with such money.

Your argument appears to be reliant upon discounting forms of taxation you don't like and trying to shift the argument onto new topics. My favorite part is that you're declaring victory while engaging in such transparently silly behavior.

Math is math. You simply can't win this one. I actually agree that concentrations of the wealthy are what cause a large amount of the federal expenditure disparity (although not the whole thing). You just foolishly took that idea and tried to make it into something it wasn't.

Gotta keep on that math.

 

[PeshakJang]

Still wrong. You left out payroll & excise taxes in your desperation to maintain denial... Californians obviously pay more of those per capita due to their higher income level... They also outnumber Arkansawyers 12:1.

Jesus... I even gave you the links to look at the data. It is all inclusive, and it the exact same data set used for the original study from 2007. Everything you just stated was wrong.

You're also trying to hand-wave away 25+ years of history, because it contradicts what you want to believe. Facts & Faith-based agendas are often irreconcilable.

What do I believe? Are you even paying attention? I'm not taking the position that one state subsidizes another, I took the opposite position, and then re-ran this data to show that if you are going to take that position, you need to admit that by your definition, California is being subsidized by the rest of us to the tune of 2:1+.

Yes, California has 12x more people. At $2:1 vs $1.5:1, they are drawing an even greater proportionate share of federal 'welfare'

I've presented all the facts in this thread. You and others quoted facts from 2007 and used them to make a claim. I quoted the same figures from 2010 and all of the sudden you say it doesn't matter... it's wrong no matter what the FACTS say.

I'd really like to know how you live with yourself every day with such a lack of principles.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus... I even gave you the links to look at the data. It is all inclusive, and it the exact same data set used for the original study from 2007. Everything you just stated was wrong.



What do I believe? Are you even paying attention? I'm not taking the position that one state subsidizes another, I took the opposite position, and then re-ran this data to show that if you are going to take that position, you need to admit that by your definition, California is being subsidized by the rest of us to the tune of 2:1+.

Yes, California has 12x more people. At $2:1 vs $1.5:1, they are drawing an even greater proportionate share of federal 'welfare'

I've presented all the facts in this thread. You and others quoted facts from 2007 and used them to make a claim. I quoted the same figures from 2010 and all of the sudden you say it doesn't matter... it's wrong no matter what the FACTS say.

I'd really like to know how you live with yourself every day with such a lack of principles.

Can you really not figure out why using 2010 numbers in California might be a bad idea?

 

[xBiffx]

Again the liberal mental gymnastics competition that this thread is ripe with never ceases to amaze me. From the simple math debate to it being OK to disparage an entire state is just unreal. Liberals with all their preaching of acceptance and tolerance can't even find the decency not to throw an entire state under the bus. Fucking hypocrites.

 

[PeshakJang]

Can you really not figure out why using 2010 numbers in California might be a bad idea?

Because they don't support your position?

I know... terrible idea.

 

[fskimospy]

Because they don't support your position?

I know... terrible idea.

lol, no. Think long and hard about it and get back to me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by PeshakJang
It's almost pointless arguing with you morons.

The money comes from where ever the 1% live. The state those 1% live in doesn't matter, since it's federal taxes. Your implication that the 'people' of California somehow pay more than they get back is as dishonest as it gets. How much federal tax income comes from people living within any given state doesn't matter for jack shit... it will come from them where ever they live. Federal expenditures per capita over taxes paid in simply means that either more rich people live in your state paying federal taxes, or more poor people live there collecting taxes. That's the bottom line.

At this point I can't tell if you are purposely not understanding this simple concept, or if you are drunk.

Your view of the country is demented.

Rich and poor?

Its simple alright.

Rich Republicans like him have been showing how much they hate America with their posts all over the place.

The good news is some of them are starting to leave or at least have plans to very soon. :thumbsup:

 

[PeshakJang]

lol, no. Think long and hard about it and get back to me.

Why don't you just lay it out for us, and actually debate the point. So far, I am the only one presenting any sort of verifiable facts in this thread. The original point was made, a point was implied as to the interpretation, and I supplied more timely information that shows the exact opposite.

I disputed the point of the original study made by the poster on the basis that he implied that the numbers showed that California somehow paid money to the government, and then received less of it back. I took the position that California never had that money, since it was FEDERALLY taxed from the residents of CA. It went from the taxpayers, to the FEDERAL government, to the STATE government. Every penny is a net gain for CA, as well as every other state. The proportion of those payments that come from residents living within any given state means NOTHING, since the federal government would get the exact same dollar amount regardless of what state those residents lived in. California having a higher concentration of wealthy individuals does not entitle them to a disproportionate share of federal taxes.

If you have a point, go through the data I provided and substantiate it. You haven't been able to break the argument, and no amount of deference on your part will change that.