Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: How would you design a system to prevent this then? Because there is a very clear race to the bottom and enough affluent people are happy to hop on that highway, even if it may be very shortsighted for them and also in the long run decrease their earnings? In our federal system it would actually be hard. One thing you could do would be to raise federal rates (there is definitely room) and provide more federal services/money at the state level, but I'm not sure that solves the issue at all. One of the big issues confronting a lot (but not all) of the high tax states is their historic pension/retirement plans. They were built on actuarial assumptions that have ended up being relatively untrue (e.g., life expectancy has significantly increased, and population growth has decreased, healthcare costs have ballooned, unwise investments were made, there was corruption, etc.). There is honestly not a good solution for this. A federalization solution is a pipe dream (and we'd get to have the same debate we had at our nation's founding!). A sort of counter intuitive solution might be to reduce federal funding to states that don't have a certain level of local taxation/local services. I am a little uncomfortable that the values of the states in question might not respond the way I would want them to respond and this might cause suffering that we shouldn't support as an ethical matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 27 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: A sort of counter intuitive solution might be to reduce federal funding to states that don't have a certain level of local taxation/local services. I am a little uncomfortable that the values of the states in question might not respond the way I would want them to respond and this might cause suffering that we shouldn't support as an ethical matter. You're talking my federal v. state tax love language here. No state should be allowed to consistently take more than they give from the feds, and frankly as a liberal from a blue state that always gives more than asks, we need to call out the real welfare queens and cut them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Is it, like, legally allowed (to say nothing of financially/structurally feasible) to recruit residents from one state to move to another state? Like a straight-up not-fucking-nazis Good States Good Policies sorta program where California just announces "Hey, you like beaches? You like beaches that don't have garbage in the water? You like weekends that are 4 days every week, guaranteed, instead of some days every year maybe? Come on down to GetTheFuckOuttaRedLand.com Fill out your name. Your current residence. Critical information pertaining to citizenship status- need help interpreting gobbledygook? CLICK HERE before continuing. Do you wanna help save the ocean right now, practically, in ways that matter? Get a wet suit, a bucket, and a sea scooper. You're gonna be hauling garbage outta the Pacific by the metric ton(ne?) on a 3-days-out and 4-days-home rotation for as long as you want! And as long as you're putting in a good faith effort to that effect, the State of California will give you a clean, safe, and private residence at no cost beyond basic maintenance/cleaning services if required, and an adjustable stipend so that your services to the planet and all its people can be rewarded with well-earned respite in all the gorgeous California clichés! Oh, and you don't have any experience on boats? Or you've an ocea-phobia? Maybe it isn't phobic at all. Maybe your feer of the deep dark is totally rational, I mean, if these stupid doubters had been in the tent that night like you were... to here the sear speak so freely as to fear... No matter what your qualifications are, physical or mental handicaps may be, or stupid self-loathing confidence issues come from: The New California Deal is for YOU!!!! If you like folding laundry and watching shows, well you miiight have to work 3.5 days if there's an overflow on laundry. But you're saving the planet, and being well rewarded for your efforts. You can fold those towels and rewatch those episodes. I know you can. Just one more after the next one, eh?" (If EcoState manifestos aren't allowed you can just delete it and I'll get the message) (But also the question is an earnest one. Silly indulgences in phraseology aside. Can a state do that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Like if the Federal court is allowed to make up laws that they can say that buildings with certain classes of names on them are legally like people, can a state court make up laws (and even currency?) to just make a better, more functional, state-within-the-state? Isn't that what the supposed good sides of localized dependency systems is supposed to produce anyway? I have no idea what I'm talking about, btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 I think the approach to this conversation is missing the point. First of all, as mentioned earlier, rich people have been incentivized to move to certain states for a long time. In terms of recruiting businesses as I mentioned, but also at the individual level obviously with no state income tax. Could these wealth taxes cause states to lose revenues? Of course it's possible, but nobody knows that for sure. Economists are routinely and often comically off in their projections - particularly when trying to gauge policy outcomes for measures that have never been enacted before. Much more important, however, is the normative impact of these laws rather than their effect on the balance sheet. For me at least. Policies emphasizing the rich should pay (at least more of) their fair share -- as well as the ideal that this revenue should be re-appropriated to provide for basic/essential services -- is undoubtedly how policies should work in counteracting inequality. And indeed, this is a crucial aspect of "federalism" when a policy fails at the national level. The is the essence of states serving as "laboratories of democracy" in an effort to test policies and show they are worthy of consideration at the national level. Which is exactly how federalism works throughout the history of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 @whatever... you have a problem with states recruiting in other states? Why not? It’s been done for hundreds of years in the US. Some people wanted the adventure of the Old West, but money and land talked loud enough that dangerous journeys filled with night terrors were drowned out by the lure of a new life. We could open a whole thread about the ethics of countries poaching trained citizens out of their countries to fill US jobs. In Canada the phrase was “brain drain”. A huge percentage of those NASA teams that put Americans into space came from Canada, after Kennedy called our PM and told him if he didn’t destroy the plans for a Canadian jet fighter (the Avro Arrow, look it up) the US would sanction us into the ground. And destroyed our aviation industry for decades. And let’s not even think about the hundreds of thousands of medical personnel lured to the US over the decades and decades. Move to California from snowy Buffalo? Hell ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: You're talking my federal v. state tax love language here. No state should be allowed to consistently take more than they give from the feds, and frankly as a liberal from a blue state that always gives more than asks, we need to call out the real welfare queens and cut them off. I do hear this. I do. And it is facially really attractive. I think it is the wrong answer though. Like, why shouldn't dollars from my wealthy state go disproportionately to Mississippi? Because we don't like Mississippi's politics? Nope. If there are natural disasters, are you comfortable letting people die if they happen to live in the wrong state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 20, 2023 Author Share Posted January 20, 2023 2 hours ago, Mindwalker said: Did syou know that George Santos also starred in Lassie? Idk if it was right before or after his volleyball career. Did he play Timmy or Lassie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 25 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I do hear this. I do. And it is facially really attractive. I think it is the wrong answer though. Like, why shouldn't dollars from my wealthy state go disproportionately to Mississippi? Because we don't like Mississippi's politics? Nope. If there are natural disasters, are you comfortable letting people die if they happen to live in the wrong state? I think you're conflating two different issues. Disaster funds should go to any state or community that's in crisis. What shouldn't be allowed is states routinely under taxing their own citizens and then asking for federal funds to fill in the gaps. We see this over and over again with red states. Just look at infrastructure. They don't want to spend the state's money, but then beg for federal money to pay for what they desperately need. I'm not against the federal government being asked to help out a state in need, at all, but if they're intentionally underfunding programs that are obviously needed and then asking other states to cover their debts, over and over again, sometimes for decades, fuck off. I'd think as a wealthy New York tax lawyer you'd be especially offended by what some red states are doing and how they're asking you to pay for their terrible governance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Gallego set to launch Senate bid, teeing up potential Sinema challenge: Quote The progressive Gallego is set to announce his bid as soon as Monday, according to two people familiar with his plans. Gallego has been teasing a run for months and recently hired battle-tested campaign aides to assist his bid against Sinema and a Republican candidate in a purple battleground. The Thursday decision by Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) to forgo a Senate run solidifies a path for Gallego to win the Democratic nomination. Arizona Democrats have been frustrated with Sinema for years, a rift that only grew as Sinema bucked her caucus several times over the past two years — refusing to amend the filibuster and pushing back on some tenets of President Joe Biden’s agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 I am seeing increasing xenophobia from the denizens of Red states, particularly as it applies to folks fleeing high tax blue states. The mentality is 'you are welcome but leave the liberal crap in California.' More and more this xenophobia applies to large cities in Red states as well, that are automatically viewed as crime infested hellholes. That said, I also see commentary from Blue migrants to Red States expressing unhappiness with everything from the quality of education to road conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Quote I'm not against the federal government being asked to help out a state in need, at all, but if they're intentionally underfunding programs that are obviously needed and then asking other states to cover their debts, over and over again, sometimes for decades, fuck off. The problem is they have hostages, their own residents. I'm mainly interested in politics as a means of getting services to people. Doing anything that cuts services off to poor people in a red state would hinder my own goals. We should probably stop bailing out rich homeowners building in stormy areas though. Talk about welfare queens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 More context to DeSantis's latest attack on education. I don't see his decree standing up to a court challenge. Ron DeSantis bans African American studies class from Florida high schools | Ron DeSantis | The Guardian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: I think you're conflating two different issues. Disaster funds should go to any state or community that's in crisis. What shouldn't be allowed is states routinely under taxing their own citizens and then asking for federal funds to fill in the gaps. We see this over and over again with red states. Just look at infrastructure. They don't want to spend the state's money, but then beg for federal money to pay for what they desperately need. I'm not against the federal government being asked to help out a state in need, at all, but if they're intentionally underfunding programs that are obviously needed and then asking other states to cover their debts, over and over again, sometimes for decades, fuck off. I'd think as a wealthy New York tax lawyer you'd be especially offended by what some red states are doing and how they're asking you to pay for their terrible governance. Nope, not conflating. Look, I hear you on some level, and yeah, I do resent the way the balance of payments (so to speak) has worked historically (though I will note that New York has been rightsideup since the pandemic). I just think that if you are serious about redistribution at the federal level, the fact that states f*ck stuff up is irrelevant. By the way, I think I'm consistent because I think the only way some states (*cough cough* New York) dig their way out of their own pension mess without imposing signficant suffering is through federal money. Wait, wait, wait, am I more left wing on an issue than Tywin? $h*t, something is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 36 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: the fact that states f*ck stuff up is irrelevant. I guess where I'm coming from is that I find a lot of it to be intentional. I'm not talking about mistakes being made, mismanagement or acts of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 48 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: The problem is they have hostages, their own residents. I'm mainly interested in politics as a means of getting services to people. Doing anything that cuts services off to poor people in a red state would hinder my own goals. We should probably stop bailing out rich homeowners building in stormy areas though. Talk about welfare queens. From comments elsewhere, most of those poor Red State folks would not thank you. Most of them have no clue how truly dependent they are on federal monies and programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 2 hours ago, LongRider said: Did he play Timmy or Lassie? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 GOP at it again on the abortion front...what was the name of that series? Giliad? Doesn't matter. I figure if these measures somehow pass they will lead immediately to court action and backpedaling. 2 States Introduce Radical Bills To Prosecute Pregnant People For Abortions (msn.com) Republicans in Arkansas and Oklahoma introduced bills this week that would allow authorities to criminally prosecute pregnant people for seeking abortion care. The legislation offers a terrifying preview of what’s to come in a country that no longer has federal abortion protections. Oklahoma Senate Bill 287 and Arkansas House Bill 1174 were proposed with the specific intent to criminalize anyone who gets an abortion. The Oklahoma legislation aims to amend the state’s near-total abortion ban to eliminate language that protects pregnant people from prosecution. The Arkansas legislation would let the state’s homicide laws apply to aborted fetuses and give them due process protections, while also repealing protections for people who “solicit, advise, encourage, or coerce a pregnant woman” to get an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 11 hours ago, LongRider said: Did he play Timmy or Lassie? The Well. Thus his stage name: Orson Welles. (yes, that silly joke was the entire point of this post). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 On 1/19/2023 at 9:51 PM, Martell Spy said: Anyone buying this? Santos denies having been a drag performer Hours later, video surfaced showing a person in a dress, who appears to be the first-term New York congressman, talking about performing in drag. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/19/santos-denies-having-been-a-drag-performer-00078515 It's only a matter of time before the Reindeer stuff comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.