2020 US Election (Part One)

[Birdjaguar]

Wealthier people pay more taxes, if they lean Republican then even blue states are being subsidized by Republicans

Keep in mind that not all government revenue comes from income taxes. Less than 50% comes from individual income taxes. So you cannot clearly know from which sources any particular spending originated. In addition, if any of the spending comes from federal borrowing, then that cannot be tied to red state taxes.

 

[Berzerker]

The wealthy people in California subsidize their poorer neighbors. If those wealthy people lean Republican then the Democrats in California are being subsidized by Republicans. And thats not only true for other states, but wealthy Republicans in red states are probably subsidizing poorer Democrats in blue states.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The wealthy people in California subsidize their poorer neighbors. If those wealthy people lean Republican then the Democrats in California are being subsidized by Republicans. And thats not only true for other states, but wealthy Republicans in red states are probably subsidizing poorer Democrats in blue states.

When the feds pay agricultural subsidies to Iowas farmers, where (what revenue sources) does the money come from?
When the feds support Sandia and Los Alamos National labs, where (what revenue sources) does the money come from?
When the feds build a new aircraft carrier, where (what revenue sources) does the money come from?
When the BIA builds a new road on the Lakota Sioux reservation, where (what revenue sources) does the money come from?

All federal revenue gets dumped into a single bucket and only 47% of it is from income taxes. From that giant bucket, they spend the money. There are no red or blue states subsidizing red or blue states. There is only some states getting back more or less than they put in.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Surely it depends on how thy got that wealth? Those whose wealth derives from rent seeking, though legally enforced monopolies like patents, copyrights, land titles, etc., are being subsidized at the expense of the poor. Rent is in essence a tax whether collected by a government or private landlord.

 

[El_Machinae]

I wish more people just implicitly understood the above post.

 

[Farm Boy]

When the feds pay agricultural subsidies to Iowas farmers, where (what revenue sources) does the money come from?

And who is it for? What does it build, and who benefits? What winds up being acquired with costs that are ablated and hidden, and in the case of undocumented labor, simply underpaid by the end user?

 

[Socrates99]

The wealthy people in California subsidize their poorer neighbors. If those wealthy people lean Republican then the Democrats in California are being subsidized by Republicans. And thats not only true for other states, but wealthy Republicans in red states are probably subsidizing poorer Democrats in blue states.

Come on, some of the wealthiest people in CA, NY, NJ, etc are Democrats. Many Republicans are also bible thumping gun loving working poor. This is a weird way to go when attempting to prove a point.

It exactly that gap that give Republicans the idea that Democrats are the "coastal elite."

 

[El_Machinae]

It's just honestly two different questions as to what type of individuals pay more or what types of states pay more. After that, we have to look for implicit biases regarding the framing.

Are we trying to figure out what individual taxpayers are paying, out of some effort to be part of their 'tribe'? It's a bit of a fallacy. I might point out how many scientists are atheist, in order to associate me with their intelligence. But there can be a broad range of reasons why someone is an atheist. If I don't have the same reasons they do, then their thinking on the topic doesn't reflect on me in any way. Same if I say "conservatives earn more than liberals". There's such a broad range of reasons why a person chooses on tribe over another. If my implicit motivation is to suggest that us conservatives are better, this only makes sense if I am conservative for the same reason the high-earners are. I'm trying to ride the coat-tails through simplistic tribal membership.

In comparison, the political leanings of a state will overall contribute to its long-term success (or failures). Asking 'which way does a state lean?' means something, because we're trying to unpack its leanings from its relative success. The political institutions help create the outcomes. And the reasons why a state will be successful will very likely not be the same reason why a person choses one political leaning over another.

 

[Farm Boy]

If we're going to use economics as a measure of a state's success, which is essentially boiling down the worst part of the American psyche, but w/e the disciples of God Money are legion and it's not a useless measure of power by any means...

It's easy to get the relationship between "state level" economics and "state level" political leanings backwards. These are states, they do not print their own money. They are limited by the economic output of their industries and whatnot. Liberal spending policies are nice, but they come after not before economic wealth presuming generally well intentioned and generally effective governance on the whole. Having wealth and not spending it is miserly, it's destructive. Not having wealth and spending it is spendthrift, and it's destructive. The states that have more liberal spending policies can afford to, those that cannot cannot. It's generally why Rockefeller Republicans reside where they do in their party. It's generally why blue collar Democrats reside where they do in their party. It's why political leanings and state GDPs per capita, unless thrown by a significant input, track the way they do.

 

[Kyriakos]

Come on, some of the wealthiest people in CA, NY, NJ, etc are Democrats. Many Republicans are also bible thumping gun loving working poor. This is a weird way to go when attempting to prove a point.

It exactly that gap that give Republicans the idea that Democrats are the "coastal elite."

Those specific ultra-rich democrats are in the habit of supporting groups like the Biden-Meinhof.

 

[Socrates99]

Those specific ultra-rich democrats are in the habit of supporting groups like the Biden-Meinhof.

Didn't say they were the good guys lol.

The gist of this argument isn't really about what type of people are able to earn the most. If we're comparing red v blue states/districts it's a comparison of what economic systems are best for generating that income. Businesses need well educated workforce, good infrastructure, benefits, etc not just rock bottom taxes. Kansas generally comes up because they slashed taxes to the bare bones and didn't see the promised economic boom. That's why I pointed out earlier that their per capita GDP is number 50.

So while it's fun to point out that Republicans in blue states fund blue states it's still a blue state. That weath is generated in states that in the conservative mind should discourage that kind of wealth generation.

If the theory that wealthy people will flee high tax states for low tax states were true there'd be migration away from NY and California. Instead those states are seeing ever inflating housing prices because the opposite is happening.

 

[Takhisis]

If we're comparing red v blue states/districts it's a comparison of what economic systems are best for generating that income. Businesses need well educated workforce, good infrastructure, benefits, etc not just rock bottom taxes. Kansas generally comes up because they slashed taxes to the bare bones and didn't see the promised economic boom.

This might just be about how investment and patience are better than short-term gain and how a company profiting is not the same as its stockholders profiting, and how there can be virtuous circles, but I trust that TristanC will shortly come and disabuse us of these silly notions by pointing out that the parable of the Good Samaritan means that we should all be like the priest at the beginning and let people die because that's what God and the Protestant work ethic command.

 

[Berzerker]

Come on, some of the wealthiest people in CA, NY, NJ, etc are Democrats. Many Republicans are also bible thumping gun loving working poor. This is a weird way to go when attempting to prove a point.

It exactly that gap that give Republicans the idea that Democrats are the "coastal elite."

Does this mean the Democrats aren't telling the truth when they accuse the Republicans of being the party of wealth?

 

[Arakhor]

Don't be tedious, Berserker. You know full well that it is entirely possible to have a party dominated by the super-rich that still appeals to the rural poor.

 

[Mouthwash]

Don't be tedious, Berserker. You know full well that it is entirely possible to have a party dominated by the super-rich that still appeals to the rural poor.

The business of Republicans is to push an unpopular laissez-faire system onto the electorate by paying lip service to their values/identity. The business of Democrats is to push an unpopular social agenda by appealing to the impoverished and welfare-dependent. Now that Democrats have won the culture war and Republicans the economic war, let us ask, what is the common thread between those things?

Spoiler :

 

[Arakhor]

And who might that be?

 

[Kyriakos]

And who might that be?

Looks like a cross between Charles Baudelaire and that pornstar's lawyer.

 

[Socrates99]

Does this mean the Democrats aren't telling the truth when they accuse the Republicans of being the party of wealth?

Wealthy Democrats like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett often say they're not taxed enough and the insane cuts Republicans make are untenable.

You are right though, there is a large contingent of Bill Clinton style centrists who are absolutely lying when they say that. There are also a lot of working class supporting Democrats as well. There is no advocate for the working class in the GoP.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If we're going to use economics as a measure of a state's success, which is essentially boiling down the worst part of the American psyche, but w/e the disciples of God Money are legion and it's not a useless measure of power by any means...

It's easy to get the relationship between "state level" economics and "state level" political leanings backwards. These are states, they do not print their own money. They are limited by the economic output of their industries and whatnot. Liberal spending policies are nice, but they come after not before economic wealth presuming generally well intentioned and generally effective governance on the whole. Having wealth and not spending it is miserly, it's destructive. Not having wealth and spending it is spendthrift, and it's destructive. The states that have more liberal spending policies can afford to, those that cannot cannot. It's generally why Rockefeller Republicans reside where they do in their party. It's generally why blue collar Democrats reside where they do in their party. It's why political leanings and state GDPs per capita, unless thrown by a significant input, track the way they do.

Seems like a chicken-egg thing... The economics of a given state aren't simply about the politics, right? So the politics about any given state aren't just about the economics.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not sure I even agree with Farm Boy's posts in the context of our federal system. It's true the poorer states can't afford to be as generous with social programs. At the same time, the Feds tend to pick up the tab for a lot of basic welfare. Remember that Obamacare was 100% Fed-paid for the first couple of years and then dropped to ~90% Fed-paid after that. States refused on principal, not because they couldn't afford it. Similarly, many federal welfare programs are given out as block grants for the states to do with as they please. They have acted consistently against their people's interests on ideological grounds, not really because of lack of money. When states attempt to tie food stamps to work, that's not saving them money. When they do the same for medical care, it's not saving them money. When they spend unemployment benefit block grant money on abstinence programs for wealthy college kids or marriage counseling, it's not about saving money.