A few years ago, Walter Russell Mead published an insightful article titled, “The Once and Future Liberalism” in which he described two models of governance in the American states. First is the blue state model—found in states like New York, Illinois, and California—which incorporates high levels of public employment, extensive and expensive public services, and high taxes and comprehensive regulations on business. In contrast, the red state model, found in states like Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Tennessee, operates with a lean public sector combined with low taxes and modest regulations designed to promote and attract new businesses. For the most part, Democrats control the “blue” states and Republicans the “red” states.
In Mead’s view, the blue state model is collapsing because voters are rebelling against the high taxes needed to keep it afloat and businesses are fleeing in search of more welcoming tax and regulatory environments. The blue state model, he argues, is a relic of the postwar era when a few companies dominated key industries such as autos, oil, and steel. Back then, U.S. companies faced little international competition, and state and local governments did not worry much about remaining competitive with their peers in the federal system. Those conditions changed beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, when European and Japanese companies entered the American market and citizens began to “vote with their feet” by leaving high-tax jurisdictions.
Now another factor has come into play that will accelerate the demise of the blue state model: tax reform.
The new tax legislation approved this week by Congress and to be signed by President Trump includes a provision that will cap the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) at $10,000 per household. (Businesses will still be allowed to deduct those taxes as business expenses.) The other provisions of the tax bill—especially the corporate tax rate cut—should encourage investment in the United States and spur faster economic growth. But the cap on state and local deductions may be the most significant in terms of its potential political consequences.
“Boon for the Rich”? Hardly
Up until now, taxpayers could deduct the total expense of state and local taxes from their federal tax bill, a provision in place since the federal income tax originated in 1913. These deductions subsidized high state and local taxes to some degree, or in any case alleviated the burdens of those taxes, especially for wealthy households. The main effect of this provision in the tax law will be to raise the federal tax bill for high income households in blue states like California, New York, Illinois, and Connecticut. The provision will only affect a small share of taxpayers—the 10 or 20 percent that itemize their deductions and previously could claim the full exemption for state and local taxes.
There are also localities within those states, such as Westchester County in New York, Bergen County in New Jersey, and Marin County in California, that impose punishing property taxes to fund local schools and other public services. The vast majority of homeowners in these and similar counties pay far in excess of $10,000 per year in local property taxes. For example, a person owning a $2 million home in any of the above counties probably pays a local property tax bill in excess of $50,000 per year. Wealthy taxpayers in those communities will be hit twice with this new provision as they lose their deductions for state income taxes along with those for local property taxes.
In this sense, the critics are completely wrong who claim that the new tax bill is a “boon for the rich.” It is not: the state and local tax provision seems aimed primarily at wealthy taxpayers.
With the SALT cap in place, governors and legislators in those high tax states will find it more and more difficult to deal with their fiscal problems by raising taxes on wealthy taxpayers and business owners. In the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown, governors in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, and California signed legislation to raise state taxes to deal with financial shortfalls instead of making the more difficult choice to reduce expenditures. This may prove impossible to do in the future, given the incentive that wealthy taxpayers now have to pack up and leave for friendlier tax climates.
To survive in a competitive universe, blue state governors and legislatures may have little choice but to reduce taxes and pare back public services and public employment—in other words, to abandon the blue state model.
The Role of Public Employee Unions
More than anything else, the blue state model was propelled by the creation of robust public employee unions in the 1960s and 1970s—the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Service Employees International Union, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Once these unions won recognition in various states to bargain on behalf of public employees, their members organized politically to push for increased taxes, increased public employment, and higher salaries and pensions.
Many states that adopted income taxes in this era did so due to the political muscle of public unions. As a result, some of these states (Connecticut and Illinois) have had to deal with chronic fiscal crises and public employee pension obligations that cannot be paid absent higher taxes.
Union leaders achieved their political goals by burrowing within the Democratic Party in their states to the point where they eventually gained control of those organizations by providing campaign funds, packing party conventions with union members, and running union-sponsored candidates for public office.
As time passed, the unions were able to use their influence to enact union-friendly policies that always involved higher taxes and more spending on public services. This dynamic relationship among and between the unions, the Democratic Party, and state governments was central to the growth of the blue state model, and to the domination of several of these states by the Democratic Party.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are (as of 2016) about 17 million state and local government employees in the United States (about 12 percent of the national workforce) with 6.1 million of them belonging to the various public employee unions mentioned above and another 500,000 being represented by unions (without being union members). Public employee union membership has leveled off in recent years, and there are even signs that it is gradually declining in response to fiscal belt-tightening in many states, along with the effects of “right to work” policies in states such as Wisconsin and Michigan. The BLS shows, for example, a decline from 6.4 million public employee union members in 2012, to 6.3 million in 2013, and 6.1 million in 2016 (the latest year available). In Wisconsin public employee union membership plunged from more than 50 percent of public employees to 30 percent after the state eliminated collective bargaining for public employees in 2011.
The strength of public employee unions is concentrated in a handful of states that, not coincidentally, are controlled by Democrats. In 2014, 13 states had public employee union membership rates exceeding 50 percent of all public employees, led by New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California with rates greater than 55 percent. All solid blue. Of those 13 states, 11 went for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (Michigan and Alaska were the exceptions).
In general, the movement of those states in a Democratic direction since the 1970s was directly proportional to the growing political strength of their public employee unions. Among 26 states with public employee union membership below 30 percent, 24 of them cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump in 2016. Most have Republican governors and legislatures.
Capping State Tax Deductions
The cap on the state and local tax deduction will increase the pressure on high-tax states to reduce taxes and rein in spending, and along the way it may curb the power of their public employee unions.
The Government Finance Officers Association reports there were 19 states in 2015 in which the average household deduction for state and local taxes exceeded $10,000. New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts topped the list with the average household deduction exceeding $15,000. In New York, the average household SALT deduction was $22,000. Of those 19 states, nearly all fit the blue state model of high taxes, high spending, strong public employee unions, and Democratic Party control.
Of the 31 states with average deductions of less than $10,000 per household, all but three or four fit the red state model of low taxes, lean public sectors, and a bias toward Republicans. Because taxes are already low, taxpayers in those states would be little affected by the new tax provision.
Within the blue states and across the country, the burden of the new provision will fall mostly on wealthier households in the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
According to GFOA study, the average SALT deduction for households reporting less than $100,000 in income was around $4,000—meaning that very few of those households will be affected by the provision. On the other hand, households reporting incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 had average SALT deductions of $23,000 and those with incomes exceeding $1 million had average SALT deductions of $274,000. Those in this latter bracket may see an average increase of $100,000 or more in their federal tax bill.
From a national point of view, the new provision will mostly affect high-income households, most of them reporting incomes in excess of $200,000 per year. But a high proportion of those households are situated in the high-tax jurisdictions, and many of them in towns and counties with high property taxes.
High Taxes Should Be Paid by Those Who Vote for Them
When the implications of the new provision hit home, those high-income taxpayers and business owners will either think about leaving for more welcoming jurisdictions or they will begin to pressure state and local officials to reduce their tax and regulatory burdens.
The problem for the high-tax states is that they have burdensome legacy costs in the form of built-in civil service protections for public employees and pension and health care obligations for employees that cannot easily be reduced. Some states, such as Illinois and Connecticut, are already feeling the pinch of high legacy expenses combined with sluggish economic growth. As the new provision kicks in the vise will tighten on these and other blue states where political pressures drive taxes and spending higher at a time when federal tax policy is suddenly pushing them in the opposite direction.
Blue state governors view the new SALT deduction limits as a calamity—and understandably so. All of them were elected to represent public employee unions and the major recipients of public spending. The governors of New York, California, and Connecticut, along with the mayors of New York City and Chicago, have spoken out forcefully against the provision. Now that the bill is law they will have little choice but to reckon with its consequences, which are likely to be significant.
But from another perspective, the tax reforms are an opportunity to reorder the political dynamic in blue states where public-employee unions have outsized influence on taxing and spending, and ordinary citizens have little recourse except to move elsewhere.
As blue state leaders adjust their policies, their states will gradually become more competitive with their peers in the federal system. At the same time, such policies, difficult as they may be to accept, will salve the inflamed relations among the blue and red states and perhaps help to heal the divide that now threatens to tear the country apart—something that can only be good for America.
I have California’s solution to their SALT crisis. The CA legislature, which has a veto-proof Democratic majority, should make federal taxes deductible on state tax returns.
This will aid CA’s richest citizens.
Of course the state’s revenues will suffer, but CA can recoup those losses by raising taxes on the state’s rich corporations, who will be happy to pay for such a progressive, anti-racist state government.
If those big businesses turn out to be hypocrites and abandon CA for low-tax states like Texas and Florida, then CA can be free of greedy corporations and can begin to live its socialist, diverse dream without them.
I can hear the sound of stampede already… otherwise its a great solution.
Don’t get to excited. When Toyota left for TX from Cali, SnapChat picked up the slack with higher paying jobs and the real estate market was provided a bit more homes to sell.
There is only so much replacement you can get at escalating taxes and costs.
Don’t kid yourself. The talent is moving to Cali, cause demand is high and new companies are created daily. Cali has more job growth than Texas.
Another solution would be is to get rid of 10 million of illegals that CA is paying for now…. But that’s probably as unlikely as humans landing in the Sun in our lifetime.
You’re right, of course, but the way Londoners got rid of the pigeons in Trafalgar Square was to make unavailable bird seed.
If CA doesn’t have the revenue for those illegals, especially with the public employee unions fighting to maintain their share, AND
If there are fewer big corporations and rich people to employ those illegals, THEN
Mexico, the land of their hearts and their fathers, beckons.
London should start making kebabs unavailable.
These illegals you describe drive the Cali economy.
My company is already abandoning CA for TX.
A legacy company BTW. TX loves legacy firms.
That would be fun. Sales tax would go to 15 percent. they would start charging for mileage you travel a day. I t would be so interesting. I can’t wait to leave this state heading to Nevada and help turn it RED>
I moved to Nevada from CA 7 years ago.
Unfortunately, lots of liberals apparently did and still are as well.
The state is turning more blue, not red.
This is a major problem. The leftists move out of their socialist paradises because “reasons” and then, unwilling to admit why they left, proceed to turn their new states into exactly what they left. They are like locusts, leaving destruction in their wake.
I have to agree. Those carpetbaggers are destroying my home state of Virginia and also my current state of residence, Florida.
Hey, don’t knock all of us carpetbagger Northerners who moved to FL. I’m one of the most conservative people you will ever meet. I moved to the South specifically to get away from the liberals and their taxes.
What has ruined Virginia is the recent boom in government jobs. Real estate value in NoVa has skyrocketed right around 2005, when Bush The Cuck went on a hiring and pay-raising spree of unprecedented proportions. At once, legions of soccer-moms and their domesticated pencil-neck sperm donors invaded the area–mostly from the urban areas in Pennsylvania, Ohio an Illinois–and turned the state blue. Add to that the concomitant welcoming of dementia-level-IQ human trash from south of the border and (now) the Middle East (can never have enough ragheads, America!), and my vote is cancelled out 10 times over by a combined mass of estrogen and taco-sweat.
But yes, my #1 concern of this otherwise excellent tax bill is just that: it will encourage many Liberals to leave their blue states and U-Haul their liberalism and their D vote to red states. Mass idiocy *is* the most expensive feature a society can acquire.
These people you deride are the professional class kept the state from being Mississippi and heavily subsidize the confederate region from sinking any lower.
Oh, go blow it out your ass.
I don’t think that prostitutes qualify as the kind of professionals whose influx helps a local economy.
Didn’t understand a thing about the article, did you?
Ironically, the liberals people moving out turning red states blue appear to have helped turn some former blue states red.
Same problem here in NH.
And Florida natives think what of emigres?
These carpetbaggers saved VA from being Mississippi. As a resident of SWVA which is a economic basket case near the WVA border, I am grateful of the tax revenues created in NOVA that get redistributed to our ungrateful region to keep the lights on.
It’s sort of like how all of the illegal immigrants from central America left their failing societies behind and snuck into America, then proceeded to establish the same dysfunctional society that they left behind here in America
Actually, we destroyed their rule of law institutions last century when we played them during the cold war. Like over throwing democratically elected gov’ts we didn’t like. We left the carnage behind afterwards. That is why I give these folks a pass.
As if you really need a reason!
Your state legislation invited companies in. Once there, they saw a meager local talent pool and had to import the brightest and talent employees. Once there, saw the dreadful services and crappy funded schools and demanded better. The solution, tell your state and local gov’t to quit vying forward firms that require talent. Your just asking for trouble.
Exactly! Like multi-billion dollar concerns such as Mercedes Benz, BMW and Volkswagen decide to sink billion dollar investments into places they don’t know a thing about. That’s why AL, SC and TN are brand spanking new blue states. If you weren’t so ignorant I’d laugh!
The urban core is growing bluer by the year. Its the rigged legislative districts that keep the confederates in the majority. This past November, the dem sleepy base breached the rigged legislative districts. Come ’19’ the dems will have entire control of the state, with the NRA weeping. By ’21’ the dem gov will still be in office putting his stamp on new legislative and congressional boundaries. The repubs, by than will be crying for a independent body to redraw the boundaries.
Lol!!! It’s just like a lefty troll to meet a cold, dispassionate analysis with an unassociated political rant. I’ll play anyway. If your talking of Urban cores, especially in Virginia (DC), I really can’t see how they could grow much bluer. 96% of DC voted for Hillary dude. If you look back it wasn’t much better for previous GOP candidates in DC or elsewhere when it comes to large urban “cores”. If a nuke detonated over NYC the state would move from blue to red in an instant. So if this is your argument it’s both old AND irrelevant news, not to mention ill founded hope. The GOP has met with phenomenal success hemming in the urban cores however they would have been unable to do so had they not met with electoral success first. Face it, they out electioned your stale, stagnant hope!
In Virginia, statewide elections are held in odd years, like a year after and or before federal elections. The dem base tend to have lower participation in statewide elections until now. The Republicans only maintained their slim majority through gerrymandering the legislative districts.
NYC is home to half the states population.
Not half however a third, including Yonkers, New Rochelle and the like.
And why has the dem base been unmotivated until now? Sorry guy but the majority of your support comes from a number of people somewhat tough to focus and motivate. This may prove hard for you to get your head around but they wouldn’t be poor if they were focused and motivated. Ergo you simply refuse to acknowledge that the GOP wouldn’t have you in your gerrymandering fix (gerrymandering becoming the fashionable excuse these days for the left after tasting their own medicine sans a truckload of sugar) had they not won elections. They started winning elections when dems started losing elections in districts that had long since been gerrymandered…by the dems themselves. You’ll get a short burst of wind to fill your sails and even should you make the best of it, I suspect you’ll come up short. The reason is simple. Outside of hard economics it is only possible to motivate in the short term. What proves truly remarkable is that you should already know that because you’ve already experienced it. The old New Deal coalition ruled local politics until you decided to seek success with social engineering, gender politics and the like. About where the repubs were with the family values approach. If Trump is seen sustaining growth at 3% he’s tough to beat. In the upper 3% it gets even tougher. If he’s seen as pushing it over four you’ll find yourselves a hill you can’t climb. The President, especially since the dawn of the New Deal era, is associated with the nations economic performance IN REAL TIME. That means you can say that Obama is responsible for the growth of the economy all you like and it’s just so much preaching to an ever diminishing choir.
That would be because liberals are like locusts.
They flee the consequences of their own toxic liberal policies, and then start enacting them again wherever they go.
You really mean like GD Roaches, right?
Your kidding? These blue states are the economic engines of the Union who drive the technological innovation and prosperous economy. Sorry you did not keep up. These blue states pay over 40% of the state revenue budgets of rural, Appalachian and deep south states. Your state finances would sink with out the charity of revenue sharing dollars created by the successful blue states.
It’ll be interesting to see if more and more companies move from blue states to red as the tax reform goes into effect and more incentives change.
Nope. You don’t have the talent pool.
Yeah, Detroit and South Chicago are keeping us afloat.
Detroit is a upswing with a growing millennial population and huge new investments. What’s south Chicago? Chicago as a whole is doing well with corporate HQ moving in. Apple just built a new $27 million river front store in the ‘failing’–) city.
I do hope the Democratic Party uses Detroit and Chicago heavily in 2018 and 2020 as examples of what they want to do to the rest of the USA. It should go down really, really well with voters.
They should. You should see the bleak communities between the border towns of West Virginia and Virginia, a sea of red. Families living in shacks, some with out plumbing. Most have the confederate battle flag engulfing the property.
California Vs. Texas: Which Is The Better State?
As someone who has lived in the two most discussed and opposing states in our great nation, I feel as if I have a unique perspective on the merits and downfalls of California and Texas. While they have some obvious, glaring differences, these states are similar in a number of ways. Here is a side by side comparison of California and Texas, based on the biggest qualities that make states great.
California and Texas have been neck and neck in economic development. Though Texas has a higher growth rate, California has had a very strong start, with Silicon Valley growing and continuing to improve. I cannot attest to the future of economic development in these two states, but I can give a summary of what experts agree on now.
Compared to other states, California is ranked 11 by Business Insider and 3 by the US News and World Report. They have attributed this score to the strong growth rate, and apt business environment, juxtaposed with a relatively high unemployment rate. It has the biggest state economy with a 2.6 trillion dollar GDP; if ranked as its own country, California would have the fifth largest GDP in the world.
Texas is ranked by Business Insider as the fourth best state economy, whereas the US News and World Report puts Texas at number six. The strong economic growth rate, steadily increasing real-estate value, and lower unemployment rates account for the high ranking. Texas has the second largest state GDP, sitting at 1.6 trillion dollars. If compared as its own country (yes Texas we all know you were your own country for about as long as it took for Miley to go from Disney sweetheart to crazy “Wrecking Ball”) Texas would be the 10th largest economy in the world.
And the winner is: California
These states are pretty close when it comes to overall economic profile — both ranking high on each of the reports I cited, however California boasts a 62 percent higher GDP, the highest out of any state by far.
California and Texas have very similar violent crime rates, with California at 396.1 (per 100 thousand people) and Texas at 405.9. Here I will discuss the major differences they have.
California’s highest crime comes primarily from their motor vehicle theft, so be sure to lock your doors and opt for the cheaper rental car if you come to visit (let’s be real you don’t want to be driving those crazy California highways anyway). The overall incarceration rate is 329 people per 100,000.
Texas has unusually high rates of rape, property crime and burglary. The incarceration rate is 568 If you visit this website, where I acquired my statistics, you can see a more accurate, side by side comparison of the two states.
Like Odyssey on Facebook
And the winner is: California
While these states have similar overall crime rates, California excels in many of the aforementioned areas. Additionally, the incarceration rate is considerably lower.
Terrain and weather
As two of the largest states in the country, both have a wide variety of climates and terrains… this will be another close race!
California boasts the longest coastline, with 1100 miles of it. Additionally, the Sierra Nevada and other mountain ranges make for the perfect place to hike in the summer and ski in the winter. There are also several beautiful, unique national parks, including world-famous Yosemite and the Redwoods. The weather couldn’t be any more perfect; Southern California boasts “sunny and 75” for the majority of the year, whereas northern California is perfect for those who prefer cooler temperatures.
Sadly, California is also home to a variety of problems in this area. With the dry weather comes many forest fires, along with a minuscule amount of natural bodies of water. Earthquakes are also very common, some devastating.
Though smaller than California’s, Texas has a relatively long coastline, with 367 miles in the south. Additionally, they have several natural bodies of water due to the variability of weather. This weather variability allows for beautiful fields of their famous Bluebells in the spring (pictured above), however, it also brings the hottest, most humid summers. Though mostly flat, Texas does have some mountains in the East. Even so, the flat landscape makes for some of the most beautiful, huge sunsets I’ve ever seen.
As far as natural disasters, hurricanes, brush fires, and tornadoes are prevalent in the various part of the state, however, they are usually relatively confined to their regions.
And the winner is: California
Obviously, this is the most subjective ruling so far, so feel free to disagree on this one. However, it is hard to beat the vast variety of options you get in California. In my home of San Diego, the average temperature is between 60-75 year round. Additionally, the fact that most cities are by beaches, but also within two hours of perfect hiking destinations, makes this state ideal for anyone who wants to be outdoors for their vacation or everyday life.
The biggest cities in California include San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose (Silicon Valley). San Diego, known for its perfect weather, is also the perfect type of city — small enough to get to know, but big enough for fun, adventure, and job acquisition. Los Angeles, like New York City, is divided into several sub-divisions, with a different experience everywhere you go. San Francisco, on the other hand, is cozy and congested, but with enough personality for the whole state. No need to explain Silicon Valley; with the tech industry as big as ever, it’s no wonder why those trying to find their way into this sector are interested in moving here.
Texas has a wide variety of cities; there is something for everyone if you’re looking for it. Fort Worth is a unique spin on the “typical Texas town,” in that it is the size of a big city, but sticks close to small-town roots. Dallas on the other hand is full of young professionals, as well as big corporations and families just settling down. San Antonio is where you go for a little piece of history, and Houston is another big city where families can afford to live. Austin is the “San Francisco of the South,” with a Texas touch on what it means to be yourself.
And the winner is: Texas
Okay, I will always think San Diego is the greatest city in the world. However, Texas has a little something for everyone. With a variety of cities to choose from, not to mention low costs of living, all types of people can find their home.
To be frank, I really don’t care if a state is blue or red. Here I would like to focus on the major interests of the state, as that is what (should) sway the votes of the people of each state.
The major interests of California voters include jobs, education, healthcare, homeland security, and social security. Much of this can be attributed to the high unemployment rate, poor education ratings, and high levels of immigration.
The primary issues that Texas voters are concerned with include immigration, border security, political leadership and corruption, education, and unemployment. Notably, they share almost all of the same interests as California unsurprisingly, as Texas has exceptionally low education levels, high amounts of immigration, and higher levels of unemployment.
And the winner is: Really I don’t care at this point it’s just good to know.
Because of how much immigration California gets from all around the world, the state is lucky enough to have a wide variety of food specialties that locals have turned into their own. California is a state that focuses strongly on health, taking advantage of proximity to the ocean and the large Japanese population by making fresh sushi (and no, California rolls are not real sushi. We just have lots of avocados in California). Additionally, the seafood trend and Mexican border mean great fish tacos and burritos. As California produces the majority of fruits for the United States, as well as many vegetables and nut varieties, these are core to Californian diet. Microbrews and craft beers are also extremely popular, with Napa adding to the popular wine hobby that many Californians share. Overall, California diets are an eclectic mix of healthy yet diverse food options.
Texas boasts its own food culture that has developed in the heart of the state. Brisket is a Texas staple, with entire festivals revolving around deciding who makes it the best. Texas barbecue has become an art form, developed over the state’s long history. Tex-Mex is another thing unique to Texas, differentiating itself with queso dip, tamales, and margaritas. Their food — though adopted by other regions — takes the motto “bigger is better,” and never ceases to surprise you with what really can be fried. While California has local beer options, Texas beers are known around the country and are gaining popularity. One of the things that Texas borrowed is kolaches; though originally a Czech dessert, Texas popularized the sweet danish and turned it into one of their most popular treats.
And the winner is: California
While Texas created their food culture, going to California gives you the option of eating food from all over the world; it only takes a walk downtown to experience Italian food made by someone who grew up in Rome. Additionally, our Mexican food is subjectively better (It is. Please just try it and you’ll understand).
So overall, what state wins? It depends on how important you see any of these factors. California will always have my heart. It will always be my home, but Texas showed me a way of life that was vastly different than what I was used to — not better, but different. I would highly advise living in both of these states because they both have incredible things to offer!
California was once a beautiful place to live. Democrats wrecked it and turned it into an Obama-hole.
They realize how crappy the services are.
As I understand it, the secret to Nevada’s shift to the Democrats is the burgeoning service unions there–in other words, the people who make the beds and clean the floors in the hotels and casinos. They’re old style meat-and-potatoes liberals, not ideological leftists.
You are probably largely correct, which is why I used the term liberal rather than leftist.
But at this point, it’s a distinction without much difference. Either way, the result at the ballot box is the same: Dem votes.
And a lot of old “Taco and Tomali rollers” from MEHICO!!
Colorado went the same way. Other than a few big cities, Colorado mostly voted conservative and Republican in the eighties and nineties. Then, lots of liberal Californians started moving there, and it has swung over to the “progressives” and Democrats…
Yep. Most of the liberals end up in the largest cities in the state: Las Vegas (Clark County) or Reno (Washoe County).
Every other county is solidly red.
yeah, but there are about 6 people in every other county.
Which proves my point about the state turning blue.
The blue states are overwhelmingly dominated by their major city or sometimes a couple of cities. CA, IL, NY, WA and MA are dominated by SF/LA, Chicago, New York, Seattle and Boston in ways that Indianapolis is unable to dominate IN or Houston and Dallas don’t dominate TX. So, perhaps Vegas will come to dominate NV. Shame really, but when your interior regions are sparse it would seem a likely outcome.
All good points.
I’d argue that Vegas already dominates NV. It’s metro area already holds two-thirds of the state’s population.
Liberals are moving to red states because the economies are so damn good in blue states that property values have skyrocketed. Free market, baby!
That’s how it works sometimes, yep.
The red states have to pay quality firms to move there. Once there, the local talent is meager which is why they have to recruit elsewhere. Maybe your state should properly invest in human capital for once and other quality of life services.
In 2016 more Coloradons left the state than came in by almost 80 thousand. Now that’s progress!!
And Democrats are doing to Colorado what they have done to California, New York and Illinois: Wreck them.
Don’t try to copy Cali’s economic success by creating high paying jobs that drive real estate prices up.
A state like California will ultimately have to raise sales taxes to collect revenue from illegals and the poorest to stay afloat. They will also find the income bands in which state residents are getting a net benefit and they will increase the taxes there so that what the fed giveth the state taketh away. Mark my words thats what they will do because they have no choice.
“Of course the state’s revenues will suffer, but CA can recoup those losses by raising taxes on the state’s rich corporations, who will be happy to pay for such a progressive, anti-racist state government.”
Ha! That is why they are all moving is they just can’t wait to pay for all those progressive policies. Lose, lose.
Progressive polices in these states have been the economic engine of the Union. What red states have firms like Tesla, Facebook, Google, Apple etc?
So the tax bill pretty much targets those rich people who tend to scream the loudest that the rich should pay more in taxes. How can anyone complain? The only better solution would be to keep a list of all rich people who push the “rich should pay more” mantra and bill them individually and that’s probably unworkable.
Those who were truly rich never were able to deduct their state and local taxes. The alternative minimum tax caused those deductions to go away for incomes over $470,000. The people hurt by the cap on state and local taxes are those with incomes 2-4 times the median income ($200,000 – $400,000 per year)
The income tax has always been about keeping people from becoming rich.
Nah – it’s always been about paying extortion money to the parasites so as to avoid uprisings.
Warren Buffett is a classic example of you are talking about. Says he pays too little yet has a team of tax lawyers that fight tooth and nail to keep every cent they can.
An unintended consequence of “voting with your feet”: Hypocrite liberals – fleeing the disaster they created in the blue states, continue their insane left wing voting practices one they invade – like locusts – the red states.
What’s the definition of insanity?
Proving – yet again: Liberalism IS mental illness.
But has the author been to states like Texas and Alabama? They’re shitholes!
Really? How so?
And that’s exactly why people want to move there….. No wait that’s not right, DOH!!!
Nice trolling. You’re one of the viruses mentioned. Stay where you are. We like you better there. We’d rather have you look down your nose at us from 1,000 miles away than listen to you whinge in our backyard.
I’m waiting for the day when Texas turns blue and everyone in power is Latino. I figure another decade tops.
Sorry never going to happen keep dreaming.
You will revel in its Third World mestizo status and economic death spiral?
I predict it will be better than the redneck shithole it is now.
Those displaced and angry Puerto Ricans who are in Florida and North Carolina are in foul moods ready to vote against Republican candidates.
False they are very nice in selected area’s like flower mound texas.
Here’s my fear of the unintended consequences of this new tax code: The people in blue states who voted for the blue-state model that ultimately crushed themselves will come to red states without having learned their lesson and begin turning those states purple, or even blue. We see this a lot in Texas now, especially in Austin. People from NY, MA and CA move here and live in residential enclaves, proclaiming “I hate Texas, but love Austin” and mocking Texans who have lived here all their lives.
In principle, I support this part of the new tax code. But I fear that it will be the blue-state liberals who will “vote with their feet” and corrupt the red states. They’re like a virus. They consume the resources around them until the host is dead, then move on.
Definitely could become an unintended consequence, but hopefully those Dems will be smart enough to see the results of the red states and change their votes.
Thats what happened in N.H. and they don’t change.
Same in Oregon…the ‘California-virus’ has taken over a formerly purplish state.
Best solution would be a national divorce. Kind of contradicts the columnist’s last paragraph, but much more realistic.
Your state would sink without blue state subsidies.
History has proven that leftists lack the basic cognitive abilities to question their failed ideology. As Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro(s), Pol Pot, etc., all have shown, leftists will eat their fellow human beings before they reconsider the sickening failures of their ideology.
The problem is that ‘smart enough’ and Dems are not compatible much lately, though clearly some not-insignificant number of Dems IS coming around. I’m trying to be hopeful about Dems but it’s tough going.
Same for Wyoming. Got Californicated.
Wyoming still feels very red to me, even in the counties of its 2 most populous cities(Casper and Cheyenne). If anything, Nevada, Arizona, and heck even Idaho(not to the level of NV or AZ, but more than WY), have attracted more ex-Californian residents. This is when I looked at an interactive map from some website, that showed inward and outward migrations from each county in the U.S. based on 2010 Census data.
“They consume the resources around them until the host is dead, then move on.” – Says the person that lives in a state that literally takes more from the Federal Gov’t each year than they give back while all those bad blue state people continue to fund you and your welfare state.
Making up your own “facts” doesn’t mean you win the debate. Your ignorance about our state makes me hope that you’ll stay where you are.
Sorry, but those ARE the facts. TX takes in more in federal spending than they send in taxes. You live in a welfare state. If you don’t know this then you might want to educate yourself.
Well, California being the six (or is it now the fifth) largest economy in the world should pay more. That’s progressivism in motion for ya ace.
CA pays more in to fed revenues than any other state in income and corp taxes FROM PRIVATE SOURCES. The STATE of CA receives more transfers from the fed gov than any other state. CA is the NUMBER ONE RECIPIENT of WELFARE PAYMENTS.
The welfare recipients in red states are mostly Democrap voters.
Aggregate statistics are meaningless without a consideration of the specifics of where the money comes from and where it goes.
Agreed! Cali has a full third of ALL WELFARE RECIPIENTS in the USA. There is no way around that stat!
Sorry dude, for ever dollar Cali sends to the DC treasure, it gets back 60 cents.
It seems you read as poorly as you write.
HUH???? That doesn’t account for why TX and the other red states cannot pay their fair share – #welfarestates
It doesn’t because they do. Now it’s your turn ace. As for Cali being so rich it’s high time for you folks over there to start spreading the wealth around. The tax bills SALT provisions will assure such. Congrats upon submitting your next form 1040.
^^^^ welfare queen
Lol!!! Now you get to actually pay what you said you’ve been paying all along. Only this time you don’t get to take it back. Thanks guy! Now I get to sit back and spend the money sucker.
I’m sure your trailer park friends will be happy
I can’t see where they won’t be. There property values should rise dramatically as they take advantage of blue staters running away from their new tax burdens. Tell it ta da hand sucker!
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
keep ignoring reality with your head in the sand
That’s stupid juice, not kool-ade.
What are they counting as “Federal Spending?” They counted e.g. military spending, so for example a military base and fighter factory counts as “federal spending….” What other dubious things do they count?
Military is a big part of it
Don’t forget all the federal land and national parks that are also maintained and paid for by taxpayers.!
Good point, Social “Security is “Federal Spending” too. So would Medicare be federal spending. SO would disaster relief etc. The number is meaningless without a detailed breakdown.
But, but, but it sounds so much better to keep bleating that Texas gets more Federal $$ than it pays. Goes over well with the masses who can’t be bothered to think.
It’s just a way for dishonest proggies to lie more.
facts and numbers are tricky things. Sorry, but you pay less in federal taxes and take more…. Texas is a welfare state no matter how you try to carve it up or make excuses.
We are now compared to what’s about to happen in those pretty blue states of yours.
So, you only have an aggregate number, which is useless. Seems you are just repeating boilerplate and haven’t looked in to this. This means your conclusion is at best unproven–at worst you don’t have the slightest clue. Here is a hint–military spending is not a welfare payment, neither is Medicare.
oh please….. you pay less and get more. Military spending that is based within your state DOES count.
Just… NO. Military spending, Border Patrol spending, and National Parks and BLM spending give no direct benefit to Texans. They directly benefit the entire population of the US. Medicare is a Federal Entitlement, for every US citizen, regardless of State. If you don’t do an honest comparison of the numbers, you are just blowing smoke at mirrors.
just….. YES. Those are all programs that PAY and EMPLOY actual people that work in your state. You take in more that you give…… welfare state. Those hoops you just tried to jump through were given to you by moronic radio shows to make you feel like you aren’t a welfare state…. but you are.
The infrastructure costs associated with those programs, which are invested in, therefore associated with the state, do not benefit state citizens directly. Or perhaps, since there IS value received for those funds spent on employment, making the employees a federal asset, it is to make YOU believe Texas is a “welfare state”.
LOL….. yeah, I’m guessing you don’t want to include any corporate welfare spending either
Military bases, SS payments and welfare are simply not the same thing, and pretending they are is intellectually dishonest. Thus, your “argument” failed.
As my Grand Dad often told me… “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Everyone is right to check your math, and call you on it. You can’t lump gross figures to make a comparison.
yeah, actually thats how things work. You pay a certain amount and you get back more than that. You want to carve out things to try to make to look better, but the reality is that you take in more than you give back…… welfare state
No, the idea is that in context, statistics represent an accurate model of reality, but taken out of context, theuy can be twisted to represent anything, particularly if no one checks the veracity of the statistics. This leads me to my boter’s favorite old saw, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$#!+”
Here is an easy one for you: Texas takes in well over a dollar for every dollar they send in taxes.
Perhaps they do, but as I pointed out money spent in Texas for infrastructure and employee salaries, to the Federal benefit, offsets the welfare liabilities. This where you playing with statistics falls apart.
Obviously I can’t change your mind, and your cherry picked, incomplete data won’t change mine, but perhaps my comments will inform others. I am through playing with you now.
And I’m guessing you’re easily baffled
Ni, I don’t listen to talk radio, or watch any cable news. I read in print and then verify through independent sources. I do my own historical research. In short, I am your worst nightmare… I am an informed voter.
It takes a despicable proggie to equate hard earned money to leeching welfare.
its takes a ridiculous neo-con to conflate getting more in $$$ than you sent in as somehow being your money and not mine. Remember you send less in and take more. Thats not YOUR money you are spending its MINE
Nope, we pay in plenty and lots of what comes to red states is EARNED. freebies go to the welfare takers in blue cities.
Math is math, and EARNED benefits/wages are EARNED, not taken.
You can go put your head back in the sand again until your favorite FOX show comes on so they can tell you more lies like above. This is ignorance personified
You’re a hoot. No one does #FakeNews and brazen lies like the lefty media and the proggie useful idiots who lap it up.
Social Security payments.
If you take out military spending from the equation, it screws up his precious narrative.
Cut it out.
Probably is due to all of the retirees that have fled blue states and now have their Social Security payments sent to Texas!
yeah….no. Its been like this for a while now.
I enjoy the vagaries of your side of the debate. “More” and “a while now” are imprecise and nebulous phrases. If you’re going to make a claim, show some finite numbers, categories, and dates to support it. Here’s a few suggestions:
– Corporate taxes paid by TX entities
– Personal income taxes paid by TX residents
– Payroll taxes (SS and Medicare) paid by both employees and their employers
– Federal surcharges paid by TX energy companies that supply the rest of the nation (drilling fees, licenses, etc.)
– Defense spending for bases within TX borders (which are a national expenditure regardless of location, otherwise CA has a bunch we could throw into the analysis)
– Education spending within the state
– Social entitlement programs (welfare, social security)
– Medicare (which TX declined for opting out of Obamacare exchanges)
– Federal transportation funding (which benefits the nation by delivering from TX ports and refineries)
– Disaster relief
Some measure of that is Social Security payments from progressives/liberals fleeing cold winters when they retire – and taking-up residence where it’s warm and the taxes are low.
SALT provisions are designed to keep the feds from underwriting blue state spending which, when you take a closer look at the respective blue state tax structure, is massive. So much so that states such as Cali and NY dwarf Texas in Federal largesse. Looks like you’re not going to be getting your money back this time around. This time around Texas will actually receive more in Federal largesse than CA or NY. So stop your crying dude, you get to lord it over us welfare recipients for real this time.
You STILL take more from the Fed than you give. #welfarestates
A federal worker takes in more in wages than he pays in taxes, so he is on welfare, right?
sigh…. he provides a service which is what he/she is paid for. I know that you will have trouble understanding this……. You, on the other hand, live in s state that takes in more than they pay. Thats known as welfare
Thank you for refuting your own argument.
Your argument was that some states receive more in federal expenditures than they send to the federal government so they were on “welfare….” The counter argument was that a lot of the expenditures were not welfare expenditures but things like SS payments and military spending. Military spending is a a service which is what he/she is paid for.” SS is not a welfare payment but an entitlement etc. There are mor examples.
You would have none of it though, merely repeating your argument that because e.g. Texas receives more in funds than they send they are on welfare. So, if your argument was true, then federal workers are on welfare. QED.
Since you denied that, you admit your argument ifs false.
And I live in a blue state, so you are wrong there too. It would help if you actually looked into things and not just repeat what you are spooned. If you did that you wouldn’t look so ill informed. Critical thinking is healthy, you should try it.
NO……. thats the most convoluted logic I’ve heard in a while and I’ve had to deal with a number of absolute morons on this site. You might try some as well: Maybe start here with some actual facts that prove my point – https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
Just saying it is convoluted logic does not make it so. It is quite clear your standards change when the needs of your “argument” change.
The article includes “the number of federal employees per capita.” which you said earlier should not count because they are paid for a service.
See? You don’t really look into these things, and just repeat what you are told. You really look uninformed.
Yeah, sure we do. Whatever you say man. Come tax time you get to pony up for real this time. Thanks for the scratch…in advance.
God, you are dumber than a door nail. Stats don’t lie.
Really? Then explain what happens to all that dough you right off on your federal tax form? Do the feds get to keep it or do you take it back from the feds because it was actually spent eatlier by the state? Heres a stat for you. Approximately a third of all welfare recipients live in the state of California. That’s a staggering statistic considering that the states population represents approximately 10% (give or take a point or two) of the nation as a whole. Do those welfare recipients pay taxes? I thought not. Which leaves the tax burden to high income earners all of whom write off their state tax burden on the federal form. I’m no CPA but last I heard an itemized deduction gets a return of fifty percent against the federal tax burden. Considering how high taxes are in blue states that represents quite a bit rolling back out of the federal treasury toward those very states that love to say that they pay the way for red states. Your precious stats never get around to recording that shortfall. Nice of you not to notice.
Feel free to keep blowing smoke all you like dude.
You’re full of lies.
facts hurt, they burn when you realize that you are living a lie. #welfarestate
Texas receives $0.94 in federal spending for every $1.00 it send to DC. So you are just an ignorant liar, too lazy to look up facts before spouting nonsense.
based on absurd facts that try to take out money that is sent to TX…….. sorry but if you look at JUST taxes and tax expenditures you get more than you pay in. welfare state
So I guess you don’t believe the governments own figures. And will happily live in your fantasy world of make believe.
halfway down there is a perfect chart which shows that TX receives more than a dollar for every dollar they send. Sorry, but facts are hard to argue
Sorry a chart with out data (or even units) does not impress me as a source and neither does Wallet Watch on which it is supposedly based. Wallet Watch also did not provide data and had different conclusions than the Atlantic. My numbers came from the PEW study.
After earned benefits like fed pensions and SS/Medicare are subtracted, and earned paychecks for fed employees like on military bases and at fed facilities on fed lands are subtracted, only then do you have welfare numbers. Red states are full of workers and retirees who earned those checks.
The welfare moochers and food stamp freeloaders are in blue cities and blue states.
Cali pays for its welfare via taxes paid to DC and Sacramento 100%. For every federal tax dollar sent to DC, they get back 60 cents. BTW: Minnesota is the best state to reside. Coming from Minneapolis to Appalachia is a very true statement.
That’s mostly because American Cali workers can’t afford to retire in their own high tax state so they take their pensions and SS/Medicare checks to red states to live better at lower cost.
Basically, your pols launder state tax money through public unions and then the recipients of those big pensions leave for Florida or Texas and they take their pensions/SS&Medicare along because it’s EARNED money.
The big fat welfare pits are blue cities, which are also pest holes of crime and violence.
Stop motivating your retirees to flee and you’ll be better off. You can only tax the people who will stand for it. Choosing to force taxpayers out while paying bills for criminal illegals is stupid and destructive, but keep it up because consequences are coming for blue states.
Stop with the illegal BS and blue state analysis-farther from the truth. Minnesota is the best run state and is outperforming Walker’s Wisconsin. Many of their people drive across the bridge to well paying jobs. Wisconsin had to pay Foxtron to set up operation while MN do not have to.
People move for all sorts of reasons. I’m in my seventh state(MN is my favorite). My retired neighbors worked in the DC area but wanted a less congested, slow paced retirement, so they moved to the less prosperous rural part of the state. Taxes are no different, but saving on gas. They made their living in the metro and enjoying their fruits in a quieter atmosphere. Someone else bought their houses which is a plus for both parties.
Nonsense. you can try to add up numbers differently, but in the end numbers are numbers and you pay less and take more.
Nope, the earned money isn’t taken. It has been EARNED.
The takers are mostly in blue cities in all states. Just the facts.
Just because you write something doesn’t make it a fact. now numbers… those are facts, so lets look at those – https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
The Atlantic has different assessments (one link and excerpts provided below), perhaps because it’s a very complex subject. Notice in your link the phrase ‘return on investment’ is used, which reflects the simple fact that a lot of the fed money red states get is not welfare by any definition and it’s patently dishonest to describe it that way (which never stopped most Dems who tend to be dishonest by nature, apparently).
The author at your link makes patently false claims as well, “The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine…..” although New Mexico is a blue state. The author correctly notes that Nebraska and Ohio pay more in than they get back, but doesn’t note that both are red states — Trump won Ohio by 8 points.
Here’s the point though: “It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low.” The fact is that Dem voters in blue state voters vote higher taxes on themselves. Others put up with it or flee to low tax states. Blue state Dems literally shove retirees out because people on fixed incomes literally struggle to pay their bills in places like Cali, NY, NJ, and Illinois.
Dems in blue states are basically complaining and harping that they stupidly overtax themselves which drives their ‘investment’ in our fed government. It’s not a good look unless you’re trying to portray yourselves as hapless, helpless suckers who brainlessly vote to hand money over to people who utilize fed systems better than you do.
When it comes to federal funds for those living in poverty (not fed funds for military bases or space tech facilities or paychecks earned by fed employees who work on fed lands or fed pension/SS payments earned by retirees), that money goes to blue cities.
Take a look at another Atlantic article about children living in poverty (with their families) and see how blue cities across America leave minority children to rot in areas of concentrated poverty. Did you know the highest income inequality exists in Democrat-run cities and states (NY and NYC, Cali and LA/SD/SF and all the homeless in blue places for example).
“In almost all major American cities, most African American and Hispanic students attend public schools where a majority of their classmates qualify as poor or low-income, a new analysis of federal data shows…..
Underscoring the breadth of the challenge, the economic segregation of minority students persists across virtually all types of cities, from fast-growing Sunbelt places like Austin, Denver, Dallas, and Charlotte to struggling Rust Belt communities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee, to the nation’s largest metropolitan centers, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston…..
The analysis expands on that national portrait to examine the extent of economic isolation at the city level. That assessment points to one overwhelming conclusion: economic isolation and the concentration of poverty among students of color afflicts not only a few struggling cities, but virtually all cities—including many that have seen the most robust growth in jobs, incomes and population since the Great Recession.”
Blue cities are the huge poverty spots in the US. Cali is 100% Dem-owned and operated; no Repubs hold statewide office, not one. Why is Democrat Cali keeping so many in poverty? Why haven’t Dems who completely control Cali (and have for years and years now) ended income inequality there? Cali’s economy is bigger than that of many small nations so why doesn’t Cali have universal health coverage? There are plenty of obscenely rich folks in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and LA, so why does Cali have the highest number of people living in poverty in the nation?
Dems need to get their act together and start solving problems instead of inventing micro aggressions and dividing Americans by physical characteristics. Your own Atlantic link highlighted that you’re responsible for the issues you’re whining about. If you want to pay less in taxes, stop voting to pay more taxes and stop electing corrupt big spenders.
Sorry, but its you who are the ignorant one.
See my post above, Texas is 28 in reliance on federal aid, just below NY at 24.
Now that is starting with something specific to discuss. So the next questions are how much does TX contribute to the treasury and how much does it receive? In what categories does the federal spending fall for each state?
Without dollar amounts in that area, the argument will never be resolved.
Don’t you just love your progressive income taxes?
You make so much money … then you pay more.
See how that works.
It’s a progressive dream come true!
I left a link below that lists states in order of dependency of federal aid.
According to the tax foundation, Texas is #28 in federal aid, a bit lower than New York at #24. Texas is quite a bit lower than Oregon (#10) and Maine (#6). So in reality New York, Oregon and Maine receive more federal aid than Texas.
BTW – N Dakota is #50, it must be a result of all the oil revenue
That’s not fair — you actually cited a study for your assertion. Nunya, like every good progressive, knows that you should just emphatically state your position without any corroborating data, and that makes it automatically true.
The corrupt scumbags in my blue state already are screwing me over. To make matters worse now I’m going to get SALTed. Higher blue state taxes only allows them to spend tax money on their precious illegals, wreaking the school, police fire and heath care systems while the roads and bridges crumble.
Unless your SALT is >= $10K, you should be good. I live in a blue state and I should be OK.
If you believe red states are somehow living off the blue states, then change the federal power grab, and lessen the jackbooted thuggery of the federal government. That way, the blue people can cease with their whining, and red states get freedom and autonomy back. Win-win.
Until you support that, you are simply acting as another foolish leftists who doesn’t wish to deal with the natural and logical effects of your horrific ideology.
You wouldn’t be able to keep the lights on. Fine with me.
Really? Then why are you so upset with SALT? Yeah, you guys contribute a lot to the feds only to take it back with your deductions at tax time. So go ahead and lash out dude because now you’re gonna have to live up to your stated reputation. Cry all you like but you’re done!
You are a liar repeating a simpleton’s lie. It is the blue states that devour the sustenance of the red states, you puke. Doesn’t matter now. It’s all over. Might as well hang yourself. Don’t forget all your little commie buddies.
you appear to be an ignoramus that chooses to ignore actual facts to make yourself feel better. I know facts can be hard things, but your state takes in more than it sends which makes you a welfare queen living in a welfare state. Congrats!!!
Well, that’s not exactly true. Yes, in 2016 the blue states did pay more per capita in federal taxes than the red did. However, blue states are, on average, richer, with progressive tax systems that collect more dollars from its wealthier citizens. When we look at what the federal government pays out, the picture becomes a bit muddier. First, we could look at the percentage of state budgets that are payed for with federal dollars. The state with the lowest level of federal subsidization was North Dakota, a red state if ever there was one. The highest ten included eight red states, but also two blue states: Oregon and New Mexico. The problem with this is that, while federal funds do tend to make up a larger portion of red state budgets, those budgets tend to be much smaller that blue state budgets, so in actual dollars, red states may be getting less than blue states. Finally, if we look at how much the federal government spends in per resident terms, the narrative is reversed. Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red.
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m an independent who tends to vote more democratic. But the numbers are what they are.
Is it at all possible for many of you to have a productive conversation with fiscally conservative but socially liberal independent without resorting to ad hominem attacks?
Many who can will, but that will never be a great many at one time. It’ll be a slow but increasing trickle. Remember what kind of people we are talking about. They are of a kind that does not actually reason for themselves. They take ideas from those around them. They do not generate new thought, they engage in derivative thought formed by external inputs, and those are usually relatively local voices.
They we be assimilated, as they should be.
Immigration is by far the largest factor in red state transition to blue states, however.
Is someone really going to move from NY to Texas just to save a few bucks on taxes? I don’t think many people will. People live where they live for many different reasons and taxes are not at that top of that list for most people.
It’s not that they choose to do so for the personal taxes. It’s that their jobs have come to Texas because of the corporate migration. Their companies can no longer afford to do business in a blue state, so it relocates to a red state. The individual never gets that the blue-state policies caused this. So they follow their job and then vote the way that they always have, not recognizing the paradox.
If the article is correct, some will have to pay $100,000 more to the feds. That is a pretty good incentive.
Retirees do it all the time. Are you ignorant to population movement?
Slowleftarm poses a legitimate question that should be answered, if not for their benefit, then for the benefit of others who read these comments. Let’s not condescend unless condescended to. I didn’t read their comment that way.
New York retirees move south all the time, if only because it is no longer possible for a lot of retirees to live on their pensions and keep their homes here (full disclosure: I am a lifelong New Yorker). I hope that the new tax law will start compelling people here to demand that the state actually listen to them instead of the long line of special interests who have their snouts firmly lodged in the public trough.
I read an article recently that stated that retirees formerly employed by the state of New York are fleeing in record numbers for Florida and Texas and the reasoning is exactly because of high state taxes.
Its call elections. People in NY like their high services and should not be penalized by the new tax code.
Check the actual stats – you’ll find you’re wrong and slowleftarm is right.
If you look at the US Census’s migration statistics that were published yesterday at: http://www.census.gov, you see, for example, that NY State lost some 19,000 residents (which was partially compensated by international immigration). Other “blue states” also suffered from out-migration while “red states” like TX, FL, and NC benefited from domestic migration – there is a map that shows this as well.
Forbes also has a great one that shows the same data on an interactive map, county by county.
I moved from California to Texas six years ago to save over $55,000/yr in taxes, as an average. Although compared to my last two years in California, that moved saved $78,000/yr.
My business picked up enormously when Trump was elected. (I made almost as much in Q4 as Q1+Q2+Q3). Just from personal income tax savings alone, I bought my wife a new Mercedes for Christmas last year for the same amount we would have paid in California state income taxes.
This year is a record breaking year for us. Including my business taxes, I am saving about a million dollars in taxes by having moved from California to Texas.
Be careful though, the FTB will chase its rich former residents, so you have to make sure you follow the guidelines for non-residency.
Wow, that’s great, Joe! Congrats to you and your wife! It’s actually nice to hear success stories from regular citizens than the doom and gloom constantly on the MSM.
Businesses will move with little hesitation.
Often people are trapped by circumstance where they. They KNOW how bad it is, and for any number of reasons (jobs and family, mostly), can’t afford to change it. They want out so bad they can taste it, but live trapped in place. I know because I left many behind when I left New York.
My thought is they are like locusts. Virus is a fine analogy, but viruses are invisible.
LOL. Although viruses have the ability to mutate and appear harmless for a while.
More like cockroaches. Locusts work for a living.
I call them parasites.
Well, have your state not invite forward looking firms to expand.
Good point. However, if they ‘drain’ out of NY, CA, IL, etc., any remaining conservatives may find their political influence rising by comparison.
I lived in California from the time that I was 3 years old (1962) until 1992. I can remember, before the progressives started moving out from “red” states (ironically, in the 1980s, the networks colored Republican ‘wins’ for states during the presidential election, with “blue”), that California could elect Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson to the Governors’ mansion (aside with a ‘take a walk on the wild side’ election of Jerry Brown), and conservative Democrats could win statewide elections in CA, OR and WA states.
Yea, Pete Wilson destroyed any chances for Repubs to win statewide when he went after the Mexicans.
Your scenario is, indeed, a likelihood but only over a relatively extended period of time. Only Middle East-based Jihadi Muslims can “emigrate” as fast as you fear and only with the unwitting assistance of the inept host (Cf. Italy, France or Germany).
I would like to make a counter point to this argument and use states like Wisconsin and Michigan as examples. As the leftists move into more fertile territory like Texas, Colorado, and North Carolina, they lose their footing in the old Blue Wall states, and make reliably blue states purple as well. Every action has a reaction, and at some point, we may see a realignment based on these mass exoduses. For every Virginia and Colorado that turns blue, a Wisconsin, Michigan, and heck, even Minnesota, will eventually turn more red.
This is a good point.
I pray that you’re right, John. But my concern is that what passes for “conservative” in the blue states looks more like left-center in the red states. Most people in CA that consider themselves “conservative” are still left of the ones in the red states. So it would still be a leftward creep. Socialism creeps in only one direction.
Socialism is what keeps red states afloat.
I don’t think that will happen in California. For every Leftist leaving California there are two illegal aliens coming across the Mexican border into California. Either they vote illegally or their native born children grow up and vote for Democrats.
I’m not so sure about Minnesota. It’d take a LOT for that state to flip. You might be right about Michigan and Wisconsin, though. Pennsylvania would probably have a better chance of flipping red, if anything.
It’s hard to argue against more money in your pockets.
There should be a 5 year residency requirement before being allowed to vote as well as an extensive political reeducation program, similar to cult deprogramming. Maybe Hillsdale College could write a course for it.
I love it, although perhaps it should be called “de-programming” instead. :)
How about not inviting firms in who immediately realize the local/state population is dumb as a door knob and now need outside talent.
I read about some woman (in Austin IIRC) who voted for every far-left cause, far-left politician, far-left everything… and then complained about the massive tax increases required to pay for it all.
The problem is that these people do not connect the actions/beliefs they take/have with the consequences of those actions/beliefs.
What massive tax increase? Only the state legislature can do that.
Red states have been sucking the blue states dry for the past 40 years. Blue states, on average, pay far more in federal taxes than they receive in federal payments. The red states are the takers, and they never tire of asking for more.. Now we have red states lecturing the blue on how to run their affairs. Lets see how this comes out.
The blue states need to get out of the way and and let the red states use their resources.
The red states are not asking for more, just the opposite. It is blue state politicians who vote for the programs that send money to the red states. The red states, by voting for the GOP, by definition are asking for less.
It’s obvious you just make up your “facts’. Blue states, by far, take more money than the red ones, especially in entitlements. The difference is even more pronounced if you remove defense spending (military installations) from the equation.
Sigh. Progressive taxation. High income States pay more. Simple arithmetic.
Absolutely false lets look at states like Utah the reddest state doesnt get anything from blue states your crazy and you have been going to one of those leftwing websites for your facts.
Keep red states red by passing laws that say “No work, no welfare.
That also is in the works.
An interesting test case will be New Mexico … a POOR Blue State. New Mexico wants Blue State level benefits, but doesn’t have the Blue State wealth to pay for it…. so we end up with the worst of both worlds….. New Mexico comes in the bottom 5 in almost every meaningful state comparison.
New Mexico proves, counter to what lots of people in the liberal enclaves claim, it’s not that Blue State model and Blue State taxes lead to wealth (or else New Mexico would be wealthy like New York), but rather than Wealth lets Blue State Taxes be tolerable.
New Mexico will be hit by the new rules, but the chances of New Mexicans, especially those in deep blue North Central New Mexico, are almost zero.
One of the 10 richest counties in the US is located in North Central New Mexico. And that county (Los Alamos) will be hammered by this tax bill. This will remove tens of millions of dollars in discretionary income from one of the most impoverished regions in the country. Ironicaly, because of the skewed effects of the local demographics there (rich Los Alamos in a sea of poverty), this will exacerbate the effects with a severe negative economic impact on an area that can least absorb it.
I think Santa Fe will be hit harder than Los Alamos. You would have to have a $3M+ house in Los Alamos to have property taxes nearing $10k and there are not that many big houses in the county (MAYBE a dozen literally) HOWEVER Santa Fe tax rate is much higher so a$1M house has taxes around $8k to 9k and there are a lot of Santa Fe homes over a million
Los Alamos is very rich on average because there are almost no poor to pull down the average no housing for the very poor…..they all live in the valley below Los Alamos
I have heard numerous times that the border counties are lawless wastelands. If you speak out against the cartels ypu get beat up. NM needs the wall badly.
The Democrats view of the SALT deduction is illuminating. They rail against the tax bill because it’s a giveaway to “millionaires and billionaires” Well who is most affected by losing the SALT deduction? It’s not the middle class. The Dems fought like hell to preserve a deduction used mainly by the well-heeled. I guess their position is that the rich are supposed to pay their fair share….unless they live in blue states.
The people who take the SALT deduction are well off but not rich.
The truly rich in the blue states made out like bandits (literal bandits) just like the rich in the red states. Because this bill was really about purchasing Washington D.C. so they could steal a little more.
Not true at all. The “truly rich” who pay for example a 10% state income certainly do take the SALT deduction, which reduces their federal income tax by 10%. They will pay more under the new law.
The “well off but not rich” will lose the SALT deduction, but make up the difference in lower tax rates.
The truly rich for the most part don’t make money off of income they make it off of their investments in capital gains and a whole lot of those people just got their estate taxes eliminated. We are talking almost half of the total value of their estate in savings for those folks which will come at the expense of everyone else when it comes time to pay for those tax cuts.
But they pay state income tax on all of that investment income, and therefore they got a federal tax deduction as well. That was my point.
I was not commenting on the estate tax which is a different subject.
“make up the difference”???? Not even close……..
I’m not well off nor rich but take SALT because its double taxation. This specific measure is designed to go after certain geographic areas and make them pay so that other areas that don;t pay their fair share get more. Odd that they states that he outlines above that are the “bad”” ones all give far more in federal $$$ than they take and the “good” ones are all welfare states that take back more than they give. If the model was working so well then why isn’t it the other way around?
Uhhh. Progressive taxation is all about taking more from the high income to give to the low. CA has more high income people than Mississippi, for instance.
I assume you are for a flat tax, then?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Flat tax has some benefits as long as its not just another tool to help rich to avoid playing their fair share while fleecing the poor which is usually how it designed. The issue here is that they are putting more measures in place that tax people in certain geographic area more while giving others he breaks. That should bother you because its taking money away from the areas of this country that are prospering and creating jobs and giving it to those areas that are not
You’re economically illiterate.
You’re a mental midget
absolutely true and the fact that you have no data to back it up proves that even more
States don’t pay taxes. They certainly don’t own their taxpayers. People and corporations pay taxes. People and corporations are mobile as well. There are plenty of blue state retirees here in FL who paid taxes up north and receive social security and medicare here.
Texas is a welfare state. Their citizens pay less in federal taxes than they receive in benefits.
It’s still a lie no matter how often you repeat it.
Its still a fact no matter how many times you try to ignore it
All states are treated the same now, which is fair. Blue state voters are welcome to cut or eliminate their state/local taxes. You get what you vote for.
Elections have consequences. Pay your own way.
LOL….. OK then red states should only be allowed to accept as much in federal $$$ as they take in in the future……… give me a break.
Stupid blue state voters want high taxes to be deductible, too bad. Now stupid blue staters will chase MORE retirees to red states where they spend their big pensions in our local economies which also bolsters our tax base.
I hope the stupid blue state voters stay stuck on stupid; we’re happy to benefit from those luxurious pensions they fund!
Merry Christmas! MAGA!
Man are you people dumb…….. its double taxation which is the entire premise behind getting rid of the estate tax.
Double taxation, as in the money was taxed when I earned it and taxed again when I spend it. Yep, so what’s your point.
You voted for the high taxes and the corrupt, big-spending Dems so quit whining.
and you are spending more than you pay in. You voted to make yourself a welfare recipient
No, only low info proggies claim that. We get to spend proggie/blue state pension money because smart people bring those big proggie state pensions to red states and spend their money here.
Stupid proggies confuse welfare with earned benefits because they’re all welfare freeloaders. Red staters know the difference.
That pension money is earned and smart people reward smart red states with it because idiots in blue states tax retirees into moving to red states.
you keep admitting that you are taking our money and then you try to say that you aren’t. morons gonna moron
Your public sector retirees suckered you into paying big pensions.
YOU made the deals to fund those fat pensions. Your retirees bring their earned money to welcoming red states because they’re smart.
When that money gets paid to blue state retirees, it ceases to be your money because they EARNED it, and you’re contractually obligated to pay what you owe them even when they’re smart enough to move to red states.
Stupid proggie. You keep bragging about getting suckered and THAT is funny!!
The people who benefit from the SALT deduction are certainly rich by Democrat definition but thanks for the talking point. My contention remains unchallenged: the Democrats are constantly going on about getting the well-off to pay their fair share but then for political reasons they fight like hell against a provision that increases taxes on those folks.
Really? Please explain the basis of your statement about the “truly rich”.
Certainly far more well off than me. They can afford to pay more taxes instead of buying their 3rd BMW 3 series.
Do your realize that what you said makes no sense? The truly rich in blue states do lose and lose badly. They are not making “out like bandits. They are yelping in pain. And what’s the meaning of “purchasing Washington, D.C.”?
They don’t though. Again, most of the superwealthy people regardless of where they live make money off of their investments. Their existing money makes them more money.
The corporate tax cuts in this bill will be repaid directly to investors. They are not going to be invested in paying workers more or any of that nonsense. They are going straight to dividends. Corporate taxes were not just cut by 14% most of the previous loopholes were left in place as well. The amount of money freed up to be paid back to investors will be enormous.
This bill doubles the estate tax exemption which means people with estates up to $5.5 million do not need to pay the 40% estate tax upon their death. So right there it is saving millionaires potentially millions of dollars when attempting to pass their wealth to their heirs.
Yeah, the Dems want to make it sound really one-sided when they try to sell the pitch that this tax reform really benefits the rich more than others. That’s called lying by omission, because what the Dems fail to mention is the other half of the equation. The top 1% of the rich pay 83% of all personal income tax in America, and the top 10% of wealthy people raise that figure to 90%!
It actually is pretty one-sided. The benefits to everyone else are mostly a pittance and will be more than erased by the deficit problem this creates or by cuts to government services later.
Yes it is true the rich pay a large portion of our nation’s taxes. This is because the rich previously, before this current incarnation of American affluence (which is a disgrace to America and everything it has ever been) are traditionally our most successful LEADERS.
And leaders lead the way.
But now our rich don’t want to be leaders. They want to wield power without the responsibility. Which makes, them, thieves.
The tax cuts are estimated to add $1.5T to the debt over 10 years — unless, of course, revenues increase due to a more prosperous economy. But, there DEFINITELY will be AT LEAST another $9T added by entitlement spending!!!! That’s SIX TIMES as much that you hypocrite Dems are not complaining about!!!
We desperately need CUTS in fed gov spending — it’s extraordinarily wasteful and fraudulent!
I’m actually okay with y’all cutting Medicare because you are correct it is unaffordable due to the post WW2 baby boom bubble and the fact that the previous generation didn’t fund it. I’m not down for being bankrupted to support old people.
But I am highly skeptical you are actually going to cut Medicare.
My guess is that the sort of people hit hardest by the SALT cap will be dual income public sector employee couples in states like CA and NY (Think two public school teachers/admins). Pretty easy to get into a +$200,000/yr joint income and a monstrous property tax bill for a couple like that.
Like you said, the really, really rich aren’t paying income taxes.
The “rich” lose salt because of the AMT…the folks who will pay more are blue staters earning less than the AMT floor…I thinks it’s $500k now…
Yes, the AMT is changing too, for the better.
Dude, DC was purchased a long time ago!
Okay I presume the red states will pay for the entirety of our defense spending which primarily goes to those states then? Because it sure seems like we “high tax states” actually pay for a heckuva lot of that….
The red states send the men and women required to actually do the defending.
And of course we are grateful for their service.
But lets not pretend red states are subsidizing blue states this is not remotely true.
Who is suggesting that?
The Red States are most-certainly subsidizing the blue states, especially in matters environmental. Who do you think supplies the wood, gas, petroleum, beef, crops, and other raw materials that allows the coastal cities to enjoy a high standard of living, unencumbered by the pollution and others costs related to extraction and production?
Liberals are constantly reminding us of the enviornmental evil and “injustice” of such industries. Why should those flyover red states have to endure the extreme local effects of evil extraction, replete with coal dust, cow flattulance, and cancerous pesticides, just so red states can maintain those wonderful views and clean air? Hypocrisy of the highest to say that red states don’t contribute to blue.
That is not subsidizing that is called trade we pay you out the ass for all of that stuff.
Not even close to the “real” cost for those goods. As every environmentalist will tell you, we don’t come close to fairly pricing the true cost of these industries. If those materials were fairly priced to compensate for the (obvious) environmental effects, the Red States would have a considerably improved economic picture. Worse, Red States serfs have to compete in a market with countries that lack any semblance of environmental protection, in a world of Free Trade negogiated by Blue State chieftains.
It’s a Red District 13 indeed, paying the price so the Capitol can prosper.
yeah yeah yeah….. we send more than our fair share to fight. My neighborhood is filled with both vets and families that have sons/daughters in the military.
Oh poor baby….It is interesting that the Blue State politicians and media keep saying that the new tax law benefits the Rich at the expense of the middle class. It would surely appear that the single most dramatic impact is on raising the tax liability of the Rich.
It definitely does not raise the tax liability of the rich it slashes their estate taxes and the cuts to corporate taxes will probably be repaid to investors (who are the rich).
You have no clue about Estate Taxes or the way the economy works.
Okay. Care to enlighten me as to how I am wrong about this bill’s changes to estate taxes? It’s entirely possible I am wrong I mean a lot of it was getting changed by the minute.
I don’t recall making a statement about how the economy works here.
Took the words right out of my mouth! Notor12 is just parroting all the talking points he hears or reads at left-wing sites..
Just wait till all those white working class people who voted for Trump find out next October that the raise in their healtcare premiums as a result of repealing the ACA mandate far exceeds the miniscule tax breaks they just got. The fact that they have been conned just might sink in at last. Or maybe not!
They won’t be dealing with the Obamacare insurance policy any longer so their cost will actually go down. Just like any Lib you static analysis does not take into account the changes in behavior that occurs when the law or circumstances change.
What if they get sick and they have no health insurance? Will their costs go down then?
Nope! The ones with health insurance and out of pocket will pay for it. Maybe hospitals should deny admission.
Step 1 -eliminate the mandatory purchase of Obamacare.
Step 2- allow competition to Obamacare
Too simple for morons like reality check to grasp.
There is no competition in healthcare. Its a captive market.
No you don’t.
This is the only way that Iowa will ever pare down their bloated state government. 1 in 4 Iowans work for state government.
By “public services” you mean pensions right?
Yes and don’t forget the cost to take care of the precious “undocumented”
You left out Kansas………..
What a joke this is if you can’t even include the best example of the right wing policies and what their results are on everything. If you want to advocate for this position then OWN the failures of it such as the current federal debt caused by the Bush era tax cuts and the failed Kansas experiment where they’ve actually gone back and raised taxes.
What a joke your post is if you can’t even include the doubling of our national debt under BHO as THE single largest fiscally irresponsible administration EVER in our history.
and yet you clearly support a tax bill that will the federal debt increase it another 1 to 2 TRILLION. Hypocrite much? And WHY did the debt go up so much? DO you want to address the Bush tax cuts while trying to fight 2 wars? Or would you like to focus on the fact that for the majority of that time the Congress was controlled by Rs?
Also, do you have any idea whats happened in Kansas. You might want to look that up before spouting off on other things. hat both parties participated in.
Uneducated liberals love to talk about Kansas, an isolated situation involving other issues than just the tax cut, while ignoring the surge in IRS revenue that follows just about all tax cuts such as those by JFK, Reagan, and Bush. As for W, there was little choice but to go to war when even staunch libs like Biden and Clinton beating the drums, joining the vast majority of Congress and Americans who wanted someone to pay for 911. It was however the wrong time for another entitlement program, which, by the way, cost this country countless more than any wars. As for this tax bill, yes, I clearly support something that makes our businesses more competitive and encourages investment and expansion. The dismal GDP growth of the last 8 years calls for bold action. And while the CBO may score the bill as negative, they never do account well for increased economic activity.
Uneducated liberals love to talk about Kansas, an isolated situation involving other issues than just the tax cut, while ignoring the surge in IRS revenue that follows just about all tax cuts such as those by JFK, Reagan, and Bush. As for W, there was little choice but to go to war when even staunch libs like Biden and Clinton beating the drums, joining the vast majority of Congress and Americans who wanted someone to pay for 911. It was however the wrong time for yet another entitlement program, which, by the way, has cost this country countless more than we’ve spent fighting all wars since the American revolution. As for this tax bill, yes, I clearly support something that makes our businesses more competitive and encourages investment and expansion. The dismal GDP growth of the last 8 years calls for bold action. And while the CBO may score the bill as negative, they never do account well for increased economic activity. Anyway, it’s long past time for the government to cut spending and align with revenue. By the way, you probably supported the BHO “stimulus”, nearly a trillion $ awarded to political cronies without any appreciable impact on economic activity, yet are critical of defense spending. Hypocrite much?
LOL….. pay no attention to KS where they did EVERYTHING that the Repubs want to do everywhere and it was a monumentally failure which caused REPUBS to have to go and raise taxes and overcome a freakin veto. And tell me all about what was happening with the economy when for each of those instances and you will find an interesting pattern that does not exist today. Lets see if you can figure it out
Oh that’s right, intellectually challenged libs believe raising taxes is the key to solving our problems. Unfortunately they can’t point to one example, not one, where a country taxed itself into prosperity.
Hey moron…. it was the REPUBS in KS that raised the taxes since they control every part of the gov’t there…… thanks for playing.
(Is everyone on this site really this stupid?)
Knuckle dragging, idiot chant: “Kansas, Kansas, Kansas!” Too trapped by your liberal ideology to recognize the impact of the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan and W. Are all libs on this site really this stupid?
The worst economic recovery since 1949!
Who cares about Kansas look at states like Utah and Idaho higher growth in the economy than California low public debt fastest growing states in percentage terms in population.
Yeah, who cares about the one time we enacted all of this stuff and it almost destroyed the state. Lets do it everywhere and hope it goes differently this time.
YOU should care about KS because its a monumental failure by anyone’s measure.
Your data on KS is old. You need to get new talking points.
you do realize that the KS Repub controlled congress had to overcome a veto to RAISE Taxes because it was going so well……..
Kansas is an energy producing state; energy policies have been low for a long time. That’s what caused the problems out there. But they have raised taxes to reduce their deficit. Tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts and should be commensurate with the needs of each jurisdiction
It will be interesting to watch the blue states demise as their respective economies crumble under the weight of unsustainable union wages, pensions and benefits, forcing taxes skyward and jobs and people outward.
Oh, yeah, we certainly don’t want to be like California, which has the 7th largest economy in the world and leads the U.S. in economic growth over any period of greater than 5 years in history.
We should emulate red states like Alabama and Kansas.
Seriously, do the people at American Thinker ever stop to think about unbelievably dumb their blind ideology has made them?
Of course they don’t! Any facts that contradict their narratives or go against their wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are ignore or discarded. It would be fun and interesting if we could rationally debate them starting with the observable and verifiable reality that seems to elude this group of shrinking echo-chamber denizens that only memorize and repeat nonsense. Maybe someday?
Since they are so rich they obviously don’t need any tax deductions. Why is the left suddenly the party of the rich, now, huh?
Is CA the 7th largest economy in the world because of high taxes or in spite of high taxes? You are confusing cause and effect.
What is wrong with you California is in decline Utah has a higher growth rate we can be like Utah wake up. California only did well because of its large population not because of what idiot democrats did.
Seriously? Cali’s population exceeds 23 red states combined!
California is a dump. It has hemmoraged millions of white middle class residents since 1990.
I got out in 83 just before the whole state started going batsh*t crazy. Thank God!
no need to stop and think. We just have to read your posts.
California is full of ignorant Hispanics and has high rates of crime. Not to mention forest fires, sanctuary cities, rotten and corrupt unions, Hollywood, and high taxes. I prefer Texas where they know how to deal with illegal immigrants, dangerous black people and allow citizens to defend themselves with guns.
IF you’re “happy” with CA, great. Stay there. There are a lot of people else where who are just fine with that.
Actually, its the sixth largest.
One word rebuttal: Kansas. ????
Because Mississippi is such a success story?????
Hilarious how the Left is suddenly the party of the rich when Republicans go and tax the rich people specifically. Now we can see for a fact who the useful idiots are, lol.
I’ve lived in Texas my entire adult life. I am well aware Texas has no state income tax, but I learned of these SALT deductions only 1 month ago.
so I have to ask, how many other cheats does the code include exclusively for blue states?
Blue states are rich, they can pay it.
Plenty and much of it is on the other side, meaning subsidies. Finance is subsidized. Universities are subsidized. Unionized labor is subsidized. City and county spending is subsidized. Urban schools are wildly subsidized.
Parasites and maggots, the lot of them.
the states pay for em unlike certain poor ones.
We shouldn’t forget the concrete difference between high- and low-tax communities. Many of the services that high-tax communities provide are ones that families in low-tax communities must cover themselves. Professional soccer coaching for kids is a good example. Giving those in high-tax communities a tax break for unnecessary community services that those in low-taxes communities must pay for is doubly unfair. The latter has to pay more in tax to cover the tax breaks given to the former AND to pay for those services.
This ends that unfairness.
Soccer coaching? Huh?
just some bullcrap to avoid mentioning the high taxes are largely due to costs of enriching government employees and the costs of being sanctuary states and cities
In Michigan voters voted against that model with their feet thus flipping the Presidency to Trump. Same for Wisconsin. This is a clear pathway to saving the nation. These employees are always shocked when the public hates them. Lavish trips to Vegas conventions, rampant graft, and criminal cronyism are their downfall.
Simple get rid of public employee unions and you get rid of the political corruption that unionism entails. Unions are parasites that act on their own self interests and to hell with everyone else. They are corrupt monopolies that are a major source of corruption and undeserved political power. Get them out and you cut the Democrats balls off. Another idea; bring back literacy tests that will eliminate a lot of ignorant voters from showing up at the polls. Too many idiots vote to redistribute money to others who refuse to work.
I asked this question of another poster, but I’d like to ask it here as well. What if public sector unions were only allowed to negotiate over things like working conditions, hours, workload, but salary and benefits were off the table?
Jennifer; Public sector unions are incompatible with the proper functions of government. The military, CIA and FBI are not unionized for very good reasons. Elected officials and only elected officials should determine how public institutions are run. Unions are not elected by or responsible to the public. They are not subject to any degree of public accountability or regulation. Furthermore unions have a right to force people to join whether they want to or not. No one should be forced to join a union in order to work. That is a violation of economic freedom. Unions are simply state sanctioned monopolies that are designed to keep people out of the marketplace while extorting money and benefits from the state. They constitute an economic berlin wall that redistributes money from taxpayers to public employees. When corporate monopolies act in ways inimical tot the public interest they are subject to anti trust laws; unions are not and they should be. Finally, unions engage in partisan political activity; they have a sickening and incestuous relationship with the Democratic party that badly serves the public interest. You cannot serve the public interest while serving a partisan interest as well. Because of their political power it is difficult to fire unionized employees even those that are corrupt, engage in sexual harassment or act in ways that are otherwise unethical if not illegal. The public is badly served by public employee unions and their power. They are responsible for the fiscal problems of every state that allows collective bargaining. All of these states have high levels of regulation and taxation thanks to collective bargaining; and all of them have unfunded pension liabilities that are going to exacerbate these crises in years to come. For all of these reasons -especially the corruption and conflicts of interests that unions create- they should be abolished if not by the states then by the Congress.
This is asinine. I live in NJ and I never realized people in red states were paying my state and local taxes. Oh that’s right, they weren’t. This won’t do a thing to change our state or local tax burden or our model of government. That is magical thinking. It will just mean people in blue states will pay higher taxes. NJ already receives less in return for the money it send to Washington than any other state. Now deadbeat red states get an additional break.
Perhaps it has something to do with your illustrious Senator Menendez focusing on other matters.
It is quite simple. People like you were paying less in Federal tax simply because your state and local taxes are higher. Eliminating this discrimination means people in blue states will pay the same as people in red states. EQUALITY FOR ALL!
It’s called improved distribution of wealth…thought you guys were all for that?
I’m aware that blue state residents contribute more to federal taxation than they receive. But that’s because you have more high-income earners. This law will fix that, since your millionaires will now be paying for all of your demands, including union demands, and will tend to move to red states to avoid your union-demanded state tax rates. Soon, you’ll be in balance, with less going to the Feds and more coming back. And red states with all that new-found wealth will be paying more in, fixing that end of the balancing act too.
You should love this law. It addresses one of your continual complaints that blue states are supporting red states. That will be fixing itself now.
cry me a river…I feel your pain
It’s pretty amusing to watch ‘blue staters’ whine about how the tax reform legislation only benefits the wealthy and in the next breath whine about how the wealthy are getting a raw deal by having to pay more taxes.. because they’re wealthy. It makes me smile.
Illinois led the nation for citizens leaving a state. The taxpayers blue states cannot afford to lose. The law of unintended consequences.
the end of Federal income tax payers subsidizing the high state and local taxes of others is a great victory for freedom. Bravo President Trump.
The only problem with this is the folks fleeing blue states will go to NV, ID, UT and demand what they left. We are seeing it in NV already.
Yeah, liberals fleeing the failing blue-state model are a big problem to red states. Liberals are like locusts that denuded the state they came from, but then want to embrace the same ideology that caused them to flee in the first place. Austin is a perfect example. Hopefully it will work out over time. When I was born, New York had 48 electoral votes. Now it has less than 30 and losing more every census. Some of those who leave will see the error of their previous voting habits, so there is reason for hope.
We are being invaded by people fleeing Mexifornia into AZ, They want the freedom from taxation but still want to keep their liberal/progressive programs that cause the high taxation.
I am not as optimistic, look at UT, NV, and CO.
The only thing holding back the red states are the big blue democrat controlled government dependent cities in the red state.
If those big businesses turn out to be hypocrites and abandon CA for low-tax states like Texas and Florida, then CA can be free of greedy corporations and can begin to live its socialist, diverse dream without them.
What was that famous Obama response? “I won”…”…elections have consequences.”
Seems fitting now too.
This was a great expose’ of the impact of the SALT deduction impact from region to region. But when you bring in the cap on mortgage interest deductability, the disadvantages of the Dem’s blue state strongholds are even more stark. It will be very difficult to address the unfunded public sector pension liabilities (and long term pension commitments) any time soon. Interstate migration is the fastest way for a family to respond to their plight (higher taxes, falling property values, failing schools and services) so that will be (and already is) the near term effect. The final measure of transition away from the old blue state power base will be (is being) reflected in shifts in congressional representation (and related legislative influence) and the electoral college. Ready or not, here they come!
The article contains a pretty big error. It claims that “businesses” can continue to deduct state and local taxes. This is false. The vast majority of businesses in the U.S. are either pass-through entities like partnerships, LLCs or S corporations, or are sole proprietorships. These can no longer deduct state and local taxes, except up to the $10,000 limit. Taxable C corporations, however, can continue to deduct them. These corporations represent a minority of businesses but make a super-majority of political contributions to Washington, which just might explain the disparate treatment.
I lived in California and we were paying $9,700/yr in real estate property taxes, about $18,000/yr in state income tax, $1,000/yr in car tax, 8.5% sales tax, $1,200/yr in airplane tax, $2,200/yr in SDI tax, $3,000/yr in business personal property tax, $35,000/yr in business state income tax, who knows how much in gas tax, and I forgot how much of environmental tax.
For all those taxes, I got schools below the US median performance, moderate crime, trashy freeways, graffiti everywhere, non-responsive government, and fabulous pensions for government employees.
We moved to Texas and that dropped to $11,200/yr in real estate property taxes (identically sized house), 8.25% sales tax, and half the state gas tax. That’s it.
At the same time, the schools are in the top 2.5/3% in the nation. There is hardly any crime, the roads and freeways are nice, I have never seen graffiti in my Texas county, and the government is highly responsive.
I like nice weather and having an orange tree in my backyard, but at some point, it isn’t worth it.
The red states lead in obesity, poor health, poor education, child mortality, maternal mortality and many other negative indicators. Why would we want to follow that model?
You are describing the Democrat constituents that burden the Red states.
Yes. We want all states to be like red states. If you are stupid and can not be smart (college or even high school graduates) than you want to make smart people stupid like you. You want all states to be net consumers of taxes and not net payers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/06/are-red-low-tax-states-subsidizing-blue-high-tax-states-through-the-tax-code/?utm_term=.619ec252eb7d http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/. Oh — and per capita income is higher in blue states, but bankruptcies are higher in red states http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/size-red-blue-economy. Oh, their residents are more likely to be convicted criminals: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4wvGM0JvYAhUmwlQKHW95ALIQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_U.S._states_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate&psig=AOvVaw1Xp02L805RmizuBoU7iVY0&ust=1513963582562931
red states. By almost all measures poorer, more stupid, less educated, more sick, more criminal, and less productive than blue states. I am sure that some of you can find some exceptions because conservatives also excel at cherry picking.
I am sure that red states excel in an attribute shown here: unsubstantiated name calling. If you have neither facts nor logic on your side than you do what children do. Call someone names
By almost every known measure red states are dumber, sicker, have more crime, more disease, including STD’s, more abortions, more teen pregnancies and higher incarceration rates, so are clearly less moral. Basically the deplorable want to make everyone deplorable like they are. And that makes us great in what way exactly???
Well, maybe blue states will start doing like the red states do and lower their state taxes so they can leech off everyone else’s federal tax input.
No, actually all of us Red-Staters refuse to pay the government to hire people to meddle in our every affair. I lived in New York, and left because someone in government, either by overly restrictive laws or senseless regulation, was micro-managing every aspect of my life. I took responsibility for my own life and moved to a state where I don’t have to pay all of those busybodies to do what I would rather do myself.
didn’t read/can’t comprehend the article…there’s stupid…there’s REALLY stupid and then there’s YOU bless your heart.
I have another window open to an article with this title: “Illinois Lost 1 Resident Every 4.3 Minutes In 2017, Dropped To 6th Most Populous State.” You can include our family in this statistic! We moved to Florida in June, and as soon as we moved, they raised taxes to deal with their blue state insanity. And we got a pay raise! Liberalism enervates wherever it goes, and in due course Americans will get it in spite of the cultural dominance of the left.
All rhetoric. High tax states will have to lose a huge number of high income residents before the loss will put any serious dent in state finances. People have been predicting a mass exodus from CA for years now, especially after 2 propositions passed that levy a significantly higher tax burden on richer residents, and there is no evidence of any kind of mass rich-people exodus. Yes, many businesses are leaving, but CA still manages to balance its ginormous budget every year, thanks to wealthy people living in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and elsewhere. Now, IL is losing people at a rate of 1 every 4 minutes, or so I read, but IL has fiscal problems so big no one wants to be around when the dam finally breaks.
I don’t know what drugs you’re on, but you are really getting your money’s worth:
(CA) State spending increased from $56 billion in 1998 to $131 billion in 2008, and the state was facing a budget deficit of $40 billion in 2008. (for a little history…btw, that $40 Billion didn’t just disappear)
now, “Less than four years after declaring California’s budget balanced for the foreseeable future, Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday said the state is projected to run a $1.6-billion deficit by next summer (this from LAT 1/10/17)
btw, BILLIONS in unfunded public employee pensions…that’s BILLIONS
$1.6 billion out of a $150 billion plus budget is peanuts.
Blue States have themost segregated schools
Blue states lead the nation in income inequality
Income inequality is more acute in states that voted for Obama
The best run states are all solidly Republican
Republican states are better for Vets
Red States give more in charity
States with higher minimum wages have higher unemployment
Red States income is growing faster than Blue States income
People are moving from Blue states to Red states
Blue States Getting Redder and Red States Getting Redder
The blue state model worked fine in an industrial economy, not when Wal-mart employs more people than General Motors.
Raise the taxes on Democrats all you want. Stick it to ’em good and hard! Maybe you will get some splash back on me or you but it’s worth it, isn’t it? Yep.
No problemo. Y’all only need to forego your contributions to the DNC to break even. ;)
Conservatives are such blatant hypocrites when it comes to federalism. In effect, they only support states’ rights when it comes to states enacting conservative policies. Scumbags
What’s your point? Dems don’t support states which enact liberal policies? Liberalism costs money. Money taken from productive people and given to unproductive people and programs.
Democrats don’t pretend to support states’ rights, the way lying hypocrite conservatives do. And it is the red states that tend to mooch off of the blue states.
As usual, there is lots of strawmen particularly with GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS. *****BOTH PARTIES HAVE THEIR HANDS IN THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNION POT**** GOPs give Police & Firefighter unions whatever they ask for even as ALMOST ALL STATES HAVE STRIPPED ALL UNION NEGOTIATING FUNCTIONS FROM ALL OTHER DEM UNIONS. So ****In reality the only government employee unions of any meaningful consequence are GOP UNIONS******
Especially in states like Wisconsin. This is a 100% IRONCLAD FACT! This is why I’m a LIBERAL WHO IS 100% Against ALL UNIONS….ALL OF THEM…..ALL OF THEM! My only goal as a Liberal, is to advance Progressive policies. Unions have completely failed in that the last 30 years. All Unions have done is galvanize support AGAINST Liberal Progressive policies. We no doubt have made many Progressive victories in the last 30 years, particularly in the last 9, but they had nothing to do with Unions. ObamaCare subsidies, tax credits, and minimum wage hikes have done far more than unions in the last 30 years. I say make GOPs OWN UNIONS. GOPs are the only ones to benefit from them.
CA, IL et al are DEAD STATES WALKING due to HUGE unfunded public employee pension obligations…won’t be long…a hard rain is gonna fall
Democrats have become the party which champions the corrupt and racist liberal, special interests entrenched in places like Illinois, New York, California, etc. It is those special interests which degrade the quality of life in those places by degrading the public health and safety, and public education system, etc. in order to favor narrow interests within the vast liberal constellation of special interests. For example: High taxes are needed to pay-off public employees. Being soft on crime is necessary because some liberal constituencies have too many family members in the criminal justice system. Being in favor of illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is a no-brainer because the Democratic Party benefits from La-Raza-inspired racism and illegal voting and ballot fraud from illegal aliens. The Democratic Party has to find a way to fool people into wanting to live in places like Illinois and California or New York, …or try to make what liberalism has done to those places sound attractive.
Not going to happen.
The deduction should be knocked down to just 2500. My fear is that low tax states will purposely raise theirs to just below the limit.
What’s needed is a 5-year residency rule before one is allowed to vote in a state.
Even FDR knew that allowing public employees to unionize was a very bad idea. It still is.
I’m curious; supposed public sector unions were only permitted to negotiate on issues like working conditions, but salary and benefits were taken out of the equation?
I agree with most of this article, except for the perfunctory, hopeful ending. This will inflame the relationship between red & blue states. I think it’s the right policy, but it definitely has winners and losers.
What this bill will do is force many of those wealthy individuals claiming residency in these higher costing states (like California) to buy homes in lower costing states (like Texas) and control how much time they spend in a high tax state versus the lower costing state they choose to live in.
I suspect the higher tax states will then adjust their tax codes to get rid of the residency loophole which some wealthy home owners are already taking advantage of.
This will lead to a change in how these wealthy homeowners contribute to campaigns with more of their campaign dollars going towards state and local races shifting away some of their campaign donations from federal races.
This will lead to turmoil within labor unions as they increase their dues to compete against the increase in campaign donations from those paying the higher SALT rates who will be less supportive of liberal or “progressive” tax and regulatory policies.
The problem is going to be that the legacy costs of public union defined benefit retirement plans are going to require constant input for decades. There are two ways that can go – one is more union members paying more in but getting less out themselves later or a public bailout while new state employees are migrated to defined contribution plans like 401k’s. The shortfall is going to be an unbelievable pain point for residents in those states that cant escape. Truth is that it all had to end eventually or it would just collapse (it still will but it could be worse). The sooner its tied off and dealt with the sooner these states can get back to serving the needs of their residents and not their employees.
A couple of things should be noted. Only about 1/3 of taxpayers itemize. The author gives an average for those who do in some blue states. If the average of those states is $15,000, the distribution of taxpayers around that average is probably not symmetrical. There is far more room for outliers on the high side to pull the average up. All of which means there could be more taxpayers itemizing with less than $15,000 (where there is no impact from the tax bill if <$10,000 and minimal if between $10,000 and $15,000). Say only about 40% of itemizes are on the high side of $15,000, that means the tax bill only impacts 1l3 * 40%= maybe the highest 13% of the population.
The labor unions are too strong in some blue states, but there is much that is right with blue states. Note that 90% of all venture capital goes to blue states. And when venture capital is invested in red states, much of it goes to very liberal cities such as Austin, TX. More importantly, there are no 1st world countries that are to the right of blue states. If fact all other first world nations are far to the left of the US. On the other hand, all of the 100 or more countries that have lower taxes than the US are 2nd and 3rd world countries. Why do we aspire to be like Mexico or Egypt or the Philippines rather than Canada, France or Germany?
I know of no Americans on the right who aspire to have the U.S. be more like Mexico. Who is it that wants to import more left-leaning Mexicans into the U.S?
And if you think France, Germany and the UK will be 1st world countries in 50-100 years, given the current demographic trends, I have some beachfront property in Omaha, NE to sell you.
Your point about labor unions is solid, however.
I think that national Democrat leaders erred seriously in not even trying to work with Republicans on the tax bill. Had they concentrated on the SALT issue being abandoned, this master stroke which may well destroy the Democrat Party would have been stillborn, given the tendency of Republican politicians to want to ‘get along.’
Tough luck for the Democrats, good news for the rest of us.
LOVED this article, Mr. Piereson!!! I have saved it for future reference! You seem to see the “big” picture!!!
Reducing the deduction for state and local taxes is a good start. However, if we want to prevent Progressives from taking over, we should promote suburban sprawl twice as aggressively as Progressives promote smart growth, regionalism, and public transportation. Build extra lanes of roads and highways radiating out from cities like our lives depend on it. In 2005 Steve Sailor noted a “dirt gap” phenomenon where a body of water that forces population density is associated with Blue States. http://www.vdare.com/posts/the-dirt-gap-2012-version
“Let`s look at the 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the country. Of
the ones in blue states, 73 percent of their population lives in
cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, where physical
growth is restricted by unbridgeable water, compared to only 19 percent
of the population of the biggest red state metropolises, such as
Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix.”
“The Law of Supply and Demand controls housing prices. The greater supply
of available land for suburban expansion in red metropolises keeps
house prices down.”
and highways clogged. Smart move. Who allows building on wet lands?
I don’t understand. The democrats are complaining that this new tax plan gives all the breaks to the rich, and in fact increases the tax burden on the rich – mostly the democrat rich. What are they complaining? This what they want, isn’t it?
I live in San Francisco. Today it is 65 degrees with not a cloud in the sky. Unemployment is under 3%, incomes are surging and there is an unbridled construction boom. There is near universal health insurance financed by the the city’s program which is supplemental to the Affordable Care Act..
I grew up in the red Midwest. There is no question for any one with half a brain which is a better place to live. I don’t hear that things are going so well in Kansas, by the way.
So, San Francisco, presumably along with the rest of the Bay Area, is such a wonderful place to live, huh?
This statement kind of flies in the face of what others have reported:
What a load of doo doo. Absolutely no facts to support any of this and in fact the “blue” states pay more in than they receive in taxes to the fed. “Red” states are still high welfare states. Just a fact, sorry Mr. Piereson.
Another victory for Trump!
“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”
Well, actually, Blue states are where the money is.
…and come April 15th, a number of residents in those blue states will have their Christmas present for Donald Trump, handed to him through his Treasury Secretary.
Yeah, but not me, alas.
Now, as the author says, maybe if we bust up some public sector unions we can fix up the roads around here and get a decent rail connection to LGA.
But how are we going to keep our good schools? They couldn’t sort that out in Brownbackistan. Maybe he just ran out of time?
And this understates the insidious impact of the SLT deduction. It’s as if you and Jim go out for a dinner and a show and toss $1,000 into a hat and agree that this should be enough money and to split the bill, but if it’s not you will make up the difference. Sure, enough when it comes time to pay the bill Jim discovers he won a 10% off coupon. And now you must make up the difference because the total cost is fixed. This allows localities to transfer some of the costs to others, who never agreed as a group to make up the difference. You both could have agreed how to share the bill, but that would mean a vote in Congress, so you representatives would be held accountable every year. Ok, but it’s for a good cause that really benefits California, Global warming, higher minimum wage, attracting the Amazon Headquarters, a new football stadium. and raising the costs that exceed new revenues of new immigrants in your sanctuary cities, or even better 100 new abortion mills. Where all this is paid for by someone who did not get a vote, or even favor the policy. So now Jim and you need to borrow some money to pay, where the interest accrues year over year until you both go bankrupt, and you first.
The problem is that the red states have the worst (low paid) cops and worst justice systems, civil forfeiture robbery, speed traps, prison for marijuana, etc. I’d rather pay the taxes and feel freer and safer.
I have heard that there is an effort in California to declare Federal taxes as charitable contributions and, therefore, deductible.
This is a very fine article, but there is no reason to beat around the bush: High taxes in “liberal”/”progressive” states are to finance the Democrat machine which runs on graft and political kickbacks of money and influence and political favors. The Democrat Party patronage system is extremely expensive in tax monies and societal decay. All political jurisdictions unable to escape the Democrat patronage system are destined to slowly transition through the stages of decline such as CT, IL, CA eventually to Detroit, and if still not corrected, Venezuela.
Not a word about the fact that the blue states pay most of the bills in this country.
Not a word about the fact that most of the red states are welfare bums, supported by their more prosperous neighbors.
If CA and NY were to withhold their portion of Federal taxes, much of the rest of the country would face economic disaster or they would have to raise taxes.
It is fun to pretend to be conservative when other people are paying your bills.
I have a hard time believing that California is collapsing. Perhaps Kansas?
So the big federal campaign lie exposed!
“Pay their fair share”!
All red USA on the way!
Congressional Republicans have proven that they only care about deficits when then don’t want to help a President of the opposite party to lead the country and its citizens out of damaging recession, they only care about states’ rights if a state is doing what they want, they only care about double taxation when it affects the very richest of the very rich, and they only pass legislation that directly benefits them. They are a bunch of double-talking scumbags who have done nothing for the American people.
(As an aside, I’m sure that several red states would love to have the educational and economic achievements of California, New York, and Massachusetts.)
If you’re about Greatness, why do you have a WordPress site?
The “red states” need to get serious about property tax reform. They called a special session in Texas to address the issue this year, but it ultimately stalled. Most of property taxes in Texas go to support the Independent School Districts. States with high illegal immigrant populations are really slammed as a result. Maybe when these elite Texans realize how much of their property taxes they are going to have to eat on their Federal taxes, we will get something done in this area, too. Personally, whatever method of taxation is used to support the State, I do not want it on income or property. Even sales taxes gives you a little bit of personal control in that you can cut back on what you buy.
Assuming, of course, that Dems don’t repeal this provision the next time they’re back in power.
That would be a hard sell since it would help only a small percentage of very very rich people
But …. they might do it
Coloradons left the state than came in by almost 80 thousand……savesfun https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/77222878cdadf6452c7c849cd3e2694b29a3ac940444374ffdb4266428114f39.png
I appreciate the insight of this article living in NJ and paying over $50k in SALT taxes. However, states like NJ will NEVER lower taxes or pullback on public unions. NJ ONLY RAISES TAXES AND INCREASES SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR. I live in Bergen County, in a small town (about a square mile from the center anywhere), where there are 14 police officers making an average salary of $15k, 20 year early retirement, pasdding of overtime in final 2 years for huge $3.5 million dollar pensions, free medical for life, exorbitant cash out upon retirement of any accumulated overtime pay (hundreds of thousands generally).
NJ just elected Phil Murphy, a Goldman Sacks Limousine Liberal Progressive, who wants free college for everyone and to close the gap on a $90 billion dollar pension deficit. He will push to increase taxes significantly over the next 4 years. NJ already has the highest tax migration in the nation. The Dems here complain about the trump plan, but then cap SALT deductions at $10k – complete Hypocrites.
NJ could of recently elected a former Sheriff as the governor, who wanted to convert public pensions to 401k equivalents – But Kim Guadagno was slaughtered in the election.
NJ will never end the high taxes, the only chance is financial collapse, but with a willing voter base they will just keep paying up until well over 50% of their earnings are taxed. You nailed it when you said the only hope for Many is to vote with their feel. Ironically Trump will force many to become landlords, as the SALT deductions are still usable as a business deduction. People like myself who are being evicted from their own homes, but will profit from the extraordinary high rents commanded, because private home ownership will be on the decline.
You are right as far as you go, but eventually, NJ’s tax crunch will be felt by landlords as taxes spiral ever higher. Then the landlords will start divesting their properties, many ultimately abandoning them because of the tax burden and no willing buyers because of, you guessed it, the tax burden. Then the state will wind up as the majority landlord, with no taxpayers to pay the maintenance, just like Venezuela. Of course, long before this happens, the NJ government will implode.
GREAT, INFORMATIVE ARTICLE JAMES PIERSON !
Bloated government costs money… a lot! The Marxist-Democrat Party will scream unfair and Trump (not in that order); however, this is a 100% state caused problem. Blue states, heal thyself.