Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Again, the idea isn't that the state "wriggles out of federal taxes" — it's that they keep paying them, and then collect the taxes for the now-defunded popular services themselves — your "parallel" system — on top of those taxes. Or else, yes, cut the programs.
So, it seems that you're saying that even for the red states with the best economies, the requisite "belt-tightening" necessary would simply be far more than most anyone is willing to endure (yet). Is that right?
Yes. Texas has the biggest red state economy and is the second wealthiest per capita(behind Wyoming), and is both not a low tax state and dependent on federal block grants to maintain its budget(the federal block grants are less than federal tax receipts from Texas- an independent Texas with the same economy could maintain services with a lower taxation level than current day- but they also make up like 1/3 of the state budget).
Again, states can go without their highway funding or family planning money or other small potatoes for a while if they’re otherwise fiscally healthy. But rejecting all federal funding is a bridge too far; even a strong GOP trifecta with gerrymandering can’t get rid of CHIP and Medicaid and section 8 and food stamps and cut infrastructure spending and etc etc.
While there’s room for taxation to go up in most red states, there isn’t room for tax receipts to rise by a third without massive economic growth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link