I'm so tired of this "equality" BS

[fskimospy]

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.

Your argument on federal taxation is baffling and illogical. California is having a larger amount of money removed from it for federal taxation than other states. Period. Math is math.

You are attempting to take federal taxation data for years in an area deeply affected by the property bust and ensuing economic difficulties. California was affected to a far, far larger degree than Arkansas in both federal revenue payments as well as welfare benefits received. 2010 is not representative of normal economic times, and therefore it's a bad year to use.

There's a reason why people don't try to draw large tax policy conclusions from the last couple years' data. Maybe you are now learning this lesson.

 

[PeshakJang]

Your argument on federal taxation is baffling and illogical.

At least I have presented one, as difficult a time as you are having understanding it.

California is having a larger amount of money removed from it for federal taxation than other states. Period. Math is math.

If every single person responsible for paying federal income tax in California decided to move to Nevada, and as such filed as Nevada residents next year.. .all else being unchanged, how is California affected? How is Nevada affected? Is the state of Nevada now subsidizing California? Has Nevada all of the sudden gained from all the federal revenue coming from its residents? Has it lost?

You are attempting to take federal taxation data for years in an area deeply affected by the property bust and ensuing economic difficulties. California was affected to a far, far larger degree than Arkansas in both federal revenue payments as well as welfare benefits received. 2010 is not representative of normal economic times, and therefore it's a bad year to use.

There's a reason why people don't try to draw large tax policy conclusions from the last couple years' data. Maybe you are now learning this lesson.

And you are still focusing on an irrelevant aspect of the argument and completely ignoring the point I am making, which apparently requires an advanced degree in economic theory to comprehend.

I will lay it out one more time, in simple terms to understand.

Federal revenue is not determinate upon the state residency status of taxpayers. A higher concentration of high-tax paying persons within any given state does nothing to change actual federal receipts, only the geographic distribution thereof. Receipts and expenditures are in NO WAY correlated with respect to geography, get it? A STATE does not pay federal income tax, INDIVIDUALS do.

Let's give an even easier example. A state has two counties. In one county (A) there are small businesses, but in the other county (B) there is a large, fortune 500 company, that pays the majority of state taxes. Every year, the state takes all this money and spends it however it needs to in order to run the state... let's say 50% in each county. Is county B, which had absolutely nothing to do with the state taxes paid by the corporation, subsidizing county A? Is county B entitled to a larger share of spending, since the corporation that pays the most taxes to the state is located there? If the company decides to move to county A, is county A now subsidizing county B? Should the state now spend a proportionate share in county A?

And going back to the heart of the matter, what would change based on the voting habits of either county?

I've made my argument, you've continued to ignore it.

 

[xBiffx]

You are attempting to take federal taxation data for years in an area deeply affected by the property bust and ensuing economic difficulties. California was affected to a far, far larger degree than Arkansas in both federal revenue payments as well as welfare benefits received. 2010 is not representative of normal economic times, and therefore it's a bad year to use.

Outside of people who work directly in the real estate or banking industry tied to it, how does the property bust in California effect the federal revenues from its residents? Welfare isn't given out when you lose your home last time I checked, only when you don't have an income/enough income. Losing your home != losing your job.

 

[fskimospy]

Outside of people who work directly in the real estate or banking industry tied to it, how does the property bust in California effect the federal revenues from its residents? Welfare isn't given out when you lose your home last time I checked, only when you don't have an income/enough income. Losing your home != losing your job.

According to this study: http://www.strategiceconomicresearch.org/AboutUs/EconBenHousing10.pdf

11 percent of California's economic output is directly or indirectly tied to the housing industry, making it one of the single largest components of the statewide economy. From 2005-2010 output and employment each dropped 80% or more in this industry. This enormous drop in employment and economic output might in fact have an ever so modest effect on federal tax revenues and welfare recipients per state.

Hopefully that clears things up.

 

[Ausm]

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

LMAO...reading your sig it looks like you are stupid enough to believe that the POTUS control gas prices??

DRILL BABY DRILL!!

 

[IGBT]

LMAO...reading your sig it looks like you are stupid enough to believe that the POTUS control gas prices??

DRILL BABY DRILL!!

you certainly thought so when the bush was president. So which side of your mouth are you mumbling out of now??

 

[JSt0rm]

you certainly thought so when the bush was president. So which side of your mouth are you mumbling out of now??

links to back up Ausm thought bush was in control of gas prices?