The northeastern states in general are constantly slammed for being "not American" or some other such nonsense, and right-wingers HATE progressive taxation. Yet the ones in the South, Midwest and poor western states benefit from it, since the northeastern states (along with a few other states, like California, Illinois, etc.) underwrite other regions of the country, including the ones that appear to despise or mock them constantly. (Just think of W's constant attacks on "Massachusetts.")

This article about New York, New Jersey and Connecticut is interesting; were they to secede, they'd constitute the second richest country--displacing the US!--in the world, after Luxembourg.

NY TIMES: Region Gets Less Federal Money for Taxes Paid, a Study Finds

Do Southern right-wingers especially REALLY want a flat tax or some other system that wouldn't be bilking the northeast and underwriting them?

[ November 17, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

This issue has been on my mind a lot over the past couple of years. Aside from the fact that the blue states largely subsidize the red states, I feel like the red states have pushed our country way off track. They've taken away my tax money and they've taken away my country and I want them both back! On top of that, the GOP and the red states routinely deride us for being un-American (even sometimes being anti-American), which is a total crock. And living in Massachusetts, I can tell you that almost no state is pilloried along these lines quite as much as we are, yet we're up there with the tri-state area in terms of income generation (MA is 3rd highest in income after CT and NJ) and having an imbalance between federal taxes paid and federal benefits received.

Personally, I'd love a flat tax. Aside from just having it be fair, I'd love to see the red states suddenly realize that they've been welfare queens all along.

Good luck trying to feed your entire population on the limited land you possess. Y'all are gonna be some mightly hungry folk. Hope you don't like cotton either, because it won't grow that far north. Oh, Florida called and said it was closed to y'all...so enjoy your winter.

Using this logic to progress your political agenda is ridiculous. Isn't is the Republicans' thought process that they pay for everthing and they should be able to make the rules?

[ October 29, 2004, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Aubie in Bham ]

You tax burden increases with all of your "local" taxes for the inner cities that "milk" the money from you idiots back there....

OUr state and local taxes are less out here because we dont have poverty sticken parts of the cities which you all ignore...

Don't believe me? take a trip to newark.

My post above about seceding is purely tongue in cheek, though it's clear from the data that the red states benefit more from federal largesse. I completely stand by my other point, about giving the low taxers what they want. I'd much rather pay lower taxes, but when GOP voters in the south have to start driving on pothole-filled interstates and get less money for education and medicare, I think they'll regret falling for the GOP's IRS bogey-man ploy. If anything, no changes to the tax code should make all of you very very happy because you're getting lots more out of the fed than we do up here.

Don't front, I know there are bad areas in Phoenix. I watch "Cops".

Case in point: the S&L bailout of the '80s. Where was Keating's cartel based again? Oh yeah, Phoenix!

What makes you think we don't already drive on pothole-infested interstates?

Not a red or blue state issue, but a general issue, and fascinating--most people probably don't realize how unfair the tax system really is:
CSPAN's Booknotes: David Cay Johnston on his book Perfectly Legal:The Covert Campaign to Rig our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich- and Cheat Everyone Else

Just in case anyone thinks this guy is a rabid socialist:

There's so much more in this excellent interview.

This is one time Alabama will fight anyone seceding from our great Union!! We need your money, so we ain't letting you go nowhere no-how.(The grammar in this here post was learnt in the public schools of alabama).

Well, looks like we're all going to get screwed even more, red and blue--though the high-tax blue states will really get socked if the new tax policies that the Washington Post is writing about come to pass.

1) No state and local income tax deductions on federal income taxes any more AND;
2) No more business tax deductions to pay for/subsidize health insurance for employees.

Why:

To give more money to the rich! Investment and dividend income will be nearly untaxed, while salaried and wage-earning employees will bear an even greater burden! Gotta love it....

Washington Post: Tax Code Overhaul

And my employer, like others is constantly reminding us how much money they spend on our health care, even going so far as to use it to insinuate that our salaries are 20% higher than what they actaully pay. I used to just ignore that. Now I may have to burst out laughing. Gotta get control of that laugh thing.

Sportinlife said: As an employer, where the hell do you think the money comes from, the Healthcare Fairy? Of course it is an addition to your salary. Fringes aren't free and you are DAMN lucky to have health care provided your employer.

All the more reason for universal health care. That way, employers are freed the "burden" of making sure they have to care about their employees.

First of all, as a gay man, I resent your derogatory reference to our fair friends of the forest. Where would we be without them? Perhaps you miss my point that my employer is making it appear that they are doing something that no one else does and suffering a unique burden because of it. Doesn't every employer who pays for health insurance suffer and deduct that "burden"?

Sport, it doesn't matter if you deduct it or not. You still have to pay. That's what always amazes me about people that bitch about having to pay taxes. I hope I have to pay a bunch, because that means I made a bunch.

Not every company offers health insurance. If they do, they all vary in how much of it the employee is responsible for paying. I can tell by your statements that you must work for a large company and you ASSUME that everyone has equal fringes to you. Well, that's not the case. 85% of americans are employed by small businesses. Blue cross waltzed into my office and said, here's your 12% increase and you are one of the lucky ones. Health insurance for small businesses is a tremendous BURDEN. So, if your is paid for, look across the street to someone working for a small company, and paying their own health care premiums, and you will understand that it is INDEED a benefit and an increase to your salary.

Healthcare IS a real cost to employers; it's shortsighted to think employers are just writing off the cost in full. And, no, it's NOT offered by all employers, especially outside the major metropolitan areas. I have a second home in Florida, and am shocked and dismayed at how many people are working at full-time jobs for reputable companies, and have little or no health insurance. At my company in New York our health insurance cost is $393/month for a single employee (the employees pay 20%, so our actual net cost is $314/month). For employees that have family coverage it's $1,114/month (the employees pay 30% of family coverage, so our actual net cost is $780). Our effective combined income tax rate for feds, states and localities is 37%, so that reduces the cost by that same 37%, meaning it's a net cost of $229/month or $2,750/year for each single employee, and $569/month or $6,832 for employees with family coverage. Family coverage is substantially more costly for us, but we don't want to penalize people for having families (we do offer domestic partner benefits - I agitated for it and implemented it). Those are not insignificant costs, especially for small businesses, who are the primary employers in this country. Add in the costs of FICA, federal unemployment insurance, state unemployment insurance, disability insurance (all of which are mandated by law), plus a 401(k) matching contribution of 4% and our average cost for each employee is approximately 27% higher than the employee's salary - and that's after the tax benefit! So you shouldn't be so quick to assume that your employer's statement about his costs being 20% higher than your salary are inaccurate - they actually sound right on the money (no pun intended).

[ November 19, 2004, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Health cost is a burdent to SOME employers because others think health is optional.

The roads here in Austin are horrible. I guess that's because this is a blue county. As for education...this state is horrible in both education and healthcare.

Sportinlife I've never made such an inflammatory comment as I am about to make...YOU HAVE NO FRIGG** clue. I've not raised my salary in 3 years because of the economy, but my employees haven't missed theirs. They got their bonuses, I didn't get mine and now you are going to tell me it is my responsbility to GIVE them their healthcare. You are twisted, misguided and delusional.

You know, In College....

The BEST piece of advice the professor gave was this... when it comes taxes. If the answer looks like it makes sense, it's probably the wrong answer.

This is why I do nothing but laugh when some of you try to make sense out of the Tax System for what you think is RIGHT.

Exhibit A of a failed education system.

Again I don't quite understand why you are so excited. I was hired at a salary that I was well aware of before I was hired. The job included health care as several other, though not all, of my jobs have. Not one of the employers mentioned the cost of healthcare when they hired me, only that they had a plan and that it was a good one. Now 2 years later they mention the cost of the plan as though it is a raise. I laugh.

Sport, when you look for a job that pays most if not all of your health care costs, you look at that as a bonus. It is not a god given right that you deserve health care, shouldnt have to pay for health care or what not you are saying.

If your company pays the full price of health in a flat sales atmosphere and health costs go up 10%. Given no other changes in the company, where exactly would they get the additional money to pay for this?

If you are public, do you expect the shareholders to lose their profits? If you have an owner, do you expect him to take all of those costs? At that point, you either dont get a raise, you have to pay a little bit for healthcare, or they have to lay people off. At the point they lay people off, your workload increases then you can bitch about being overworked.

I'm getting the vapors and must lie down, two days in a row PhillyFan is making sense to me. What's happening to me?

I didn't bitch about being overworked. I laughed at the suggestion that a company that is giving health care benefits that may or may not be equal in value to what other employers are giving should want to claim "special rights" by suggesting theirs is equivalent to a pay raise when other companies do not make such a claim.

Surely they have the right to advertise their job falsely as being more valuable, but people find out and they risk losing quality employees.

Yet another difference between the US and Canadian systems....

Isn't the company's cost of providing health care factored into the price others pay to buy their product or service? If you didn't provide it (healthcare) the cost to those who consume your service would just be lower. It all comes out in the wash if you ask me. In the long run it benefits the company to provide healthcare and keep employees healthy and more productive. I think health care should be a right.

There sort-of a "yes-and-no" answer to whether health care costs can be passed on to consumers in the form of price adjustments. In a competitive market, the company may not have a lot of opportunity to raise prices if other companies do not (e.g. traditional airlines cannot raise fares much above the new upstarts, which have lower overall labor costs because their crews are typically younger and less experienced). In addition, if the labor market is tight (e.g., for IT personel) employers may still have to pay a premium to get those specific skills.

So firms may cut into their profits to fund health care - cut back on other benefits to cover the costs, increase employee cost-sharing or cut staff.

The other unique issue with health-care costs is that, unlike auto insurance, the risk is only spread among the employer's employees/family members. So, if you're like me and work for a smaller company (we have less than 200 staff), one high-cost case can really drive up the company's cost of benefits the next year. We had one premature baby that killed our premiums last year.

WTF???

NY TIMES: GOP says motive for tax clause in budget bill was misread

and

BUT WHY WAS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE???

[ November 22, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The idiot Congressman - yes, he's a Republican - responsible for this item was not even endorsed by "The Oklahoman," a GOP journal in his own district. He's widely regarded as a nutcase within the GOP.

To return to the topic of this thread, consider the following modest tax proposal that could directly ease gay couples' tax burdens.

'Nuff said.