I've been watching the HEROES act because I figure the stock market will go up once the money starts flowing again. It will likely pass in some form at some point because airlines and some others have begun layoffs. The biggest point of contention in it seems to be, aside from funding more mail-in voting, that they want the federal government to bail out blue states that were insolvent well before the Coronavirus pandemic. The Republicans, being less likely to be from those states, don't want to do that. The argument in favor of the bailout is that "blue states pay more in taxes, therefore they should receive more." My question is, I thought the entire point of progressive taxation from the left wing was that those who have more pay more in order to help fund those who have less? If people are going to get equivalent from the tax revenue as compared to what they pay into it, doesn't that mean that progressive taxation is dead?
I do not think we want to get to a point where when dems are in control they only help dems states and visa versa this would set a dangerous precedence republican states get a hurricane or drought, too bad
Well, big blue states base their budget on tax revenue, and they get a lot of money, in normal times. Due to the coronavirus there's a lack of revenue. If the federal government doesn't bail them out, then that means painful cuts, including social programs that help the needy. It's because of the social programs that the argument that it doesn't follow progressive tax ideas doesn't hold water, my opinion. Also, there are a lot more needy in big blue states.
I don't understand why Blue States, as believers in progressive taxation, don't simply tax their millionaires and billionaires at 90% and watch the money flow in. I've been told by the best liberal minds that's exactly what would happen, with no change in the behavior of those millionaires and billionaires. Think of all the things they could do with that money...
We are talking about federal government funding in the CARES and HEROES acts Obviously a bankrupt state requires more support from the federal government than a solvent state., even if the bankrupt state has greater revenues. [Brings to mind the reported financial situation of Trump himself; there is a thread saying he is seeking support on GoFundMe to help pay c.400 million in debt repayments....a bit like the insolvent( "high revenue") blue states requiring support.....] Certainly different taxation formulae in the different levels of the federation create complications when considering tax and tax rates; and this pandemic has magnified those complications....
I do not mind that they pay more, what I am saying is they pay more than they receive, red state receive more then they pay thus when they need help, they too should get help if Trump becomes poor, he should qualify for welfare too, that is the way it works
How do you know they wouldn't move to another country? Is that why you have to turn all the big wealthy countries in the world into progressive states?
I can't believe you actually answered that, in the affirmative. That was meant to be a rhetorical question to make your side look bad, by suggesting the absurd lengths you would have to go to get what you want.
I suspected as much, but your Libertarian rhetoric fails with me: I support the implementation of - at a minimum - acceptable conditions for all, around the globe (since the resources and productive capacity/potential of the global economy exist, to enable achievement of that outcome.
Nah...that's just your Libertarian ideology claiming TINA (there is no alternative). Marxian socialist co-operation to implement basic economic conditions is achievable without infringement of individual social freedom.
Wait a minute...are you telling me that people change their behavior due to tax policy? That would mean every study on raising tax revenues is flawed! Oh noes...
News flash: People want to minimize their tax. Some wealthy people seek tax havens. Every study flawed?
"Economic freedom" is simply the freedom to engage in voluntary exchange of title for title, which may include social activities. The power and authority to regulate one means commensurate control of the other; they are intertwined. You propose totalitarian control of economics, so you propose totalitarian control of social activities. What will you do when the people you want ruling over you decide that a new social moral standard is necessary to save you from the latest bogeyman? Complain that they weren't supposed to do? I'm sure that they'll listen carefully to you unprincipled, emotional rhetoric about how everyone should be regulated economically but not socially.
They make a lot of long term commitments, usually in the form of gold-plated pensions and healthcare, that they expect the next generation to pay for. California now has a $1.5 trillion unfunded liability, and that doesn't include every level of government. Without the power to print money, the state is screwed.
Prove it, and, explain why you think that is the case. It's probably not something you read past the headline when the biased media trumpeted this "fact." For instance, how much of that is social security? People leave their deep blue states when they retire to cheaper red states. They collect social security. Now, unless you want to admit that SS is welfare and not a paid-into type of program, you can't really claim that's blue states subsidizing red states.
