California To Secede From U.S.A.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jan 17 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]376809[/snapback]</div>

Well, yeah, of course. That's because the Blue states have high population concentrations, and are where all those (gasp!) Evil Corporations are located. You know, all those Evil Corporations that are owned or controlled by evil rich white Republicans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 17 2007, 09:08 AM) [snapback]376797[/snapback]</div>

You're probably correct on this. I just found the 2004 numbers for the amount returned to each state, and it proved even more severe than the 1999 numbers. For every dollar California sends to the federal government, the government returns 79 cents to the states in federal funding. Nevada, Washington, and Oregon are $0.73, $0.88, an $0.97 respectively. The core midwestern states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois all send substantially more to federal coffers than they get back, as do some of the northeastern states (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Here's a link to the numbers: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-20060316.pdf

So, using this logic, breaking away from the federal government would mean that Californians would no longer be supporting the rest of the country, and would immediately save over 20% of the amount currently being sent to the IRS. Makes for an interesting argument, doesn't it?

Dan

 

Thanks Dan for the link. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-20060316.pdf

Jeeze, look at NJ. For every dollar they send to Washington they get only half in return. This is a huge political football worthy of significant investigation. I'm not against some states being 'donor' states all things being equal. But they're not equal. In my mind equality includes state tax rates being similar and sales taxes being similar. For some states to simply keep their state and sales taxes purposely low knowing it will be 'made up' by sucking on other state contributions in unconscionable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 17 2007, 04:13 PM) [snapback]376952[/snapback]</div>

Halleluiah! MarinJohn speaks the truth. The rich should keep their money and the poor should do without! Equal tax rates for all and the benifits you receive from the Federal government should be proportional to the amount you pay the Federal government!

Could it be that the states that the "donor" states are the ones full of the rich people who get taxed at high rates and pay 50+ percent of the Federal revenue, and that the "sucking" states are the ones full of poor people?

 

have you ever been to jersey? Actually scratch that... have you ever come withing smelling distance of jersey?

(i have to pick on it - a close fraternity brother is from jersey, and it ends up as the butt of a lot of jokes around the fraternity)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 17 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]376965[/snapback]</div>

I hope you are being facetious, or you truly shame my hometown county of Bucks.

For the record that's not what I said or implied. To clarify there should be tax parity, but revenue sharing is important in times of natural disasters. Given that some states would choose no parity, and maintain low tax rates, they should 'pay the price' by lower standards of living. If you wanna live where it's cheaper, then do so, but statistically you will live in areas of higher crime, poorer roads, unhealthy populace etc.. However, if you choose to live in such a state and a natural disaster strikes, your state should be able to receive federal funds to bring things back to the condition they were in before the disaster, not to be construed as a gravy train to 'upgrade' at federal taxpayers expense.

If you choose to live in a state of higher taxes, you would benefit by better grade public services, and in the event of a natural disaster, your state should again be able to get federal funds to bring your disaster area back to the condition before the disaster strikes. This means if you live in NM and a tornado strikes, your state would not get the same revenue sharing as say NJ for similar tornado damage. Concept is simple and fair.

In my mind an easier way to deal with the whole thing is every state gets back from the feds a similar amount they pay in. (I didn't say 'exact' as, again, some inequity in revenue sharing is natural in order to 'save' for a 'rainy day' fund for natural disasters.) Then states which wish a lower tax rate should keep their state and sales taxes lower. States for whom quality of life is more important would charge higher state and sales taxes.

As for the rich keeping their own money and the poor doing without, not exactly. When I am benign dictator, I would make it that there is a very low federal tax rate, but very high inheritance tax. That is, you make it you get to spend it. When you die most of what's left goes back into the national kitty. After all one of the premises of our nation is all are born equal, but when you are born with a fantastic trust fund you are NEVER equal to the masses born without.

As for the poor, since there would be free health care and education for all, the playing field is considerably leveled. If you want a 'better' quality of life, make something of yourself using free federal opportunities. Wanna lay back and get drunk and not work? OK by me. Live a life of poverty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 17 2007, 05:08 PM) [snapback]376974[/snapback]</div>

You mean the state that has the highest 4-person-family median income in the US? Yeah, that New Jersey.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 17 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]376979[/snapback]</div>

That would also be the state that's perpetually at the top of the property tax lists. The most recent data I found was from 2004, when we were number 1. :angry:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 17 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]376974[/snapback]</div>

Smells pretty good where I live. That salt air will getcha every time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 17 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]376976[/snapback]</div>

Thats just plain bad... Say i sit back and earn a couple million, but get run over by a train on my way to work when i'm 30... i leave behind two young kids and a widow who hasn't done anything since she dropped out of college except raise the kids - should my inheritance go towards providing a decent lifestyle for them? a lifestyle they otherwise would have gotten? What about the entrepreneur who starts up a company from nothing and makes it big? If he still owns the company when he dies,then does that mean the government now owns it? what if, on his deathbed, he sells to company to his son for a buck?

Our nation wasn't founded on the premise that all mean are born equal - some are born into situations that are better than others. Instead, it was that all men are created equal - that we are granted certain unalienable rights by the mere fact of our existence.

A nation like the one you described, where all personal wealth is given back to the government upon death stifles innovation and creativity. It smacks of socialism, since all wealth eventually goes back to the government. We may start with hardly any wealth being controlled by the government and it all being in the hands of the people. in as little as one generation people will die, and companies, land, and personal possessions will all belong to the government. In just one generation there will be no room for new ideas or new companies, because the entire nation will be one large company. One company that isn't concerned with promotion or advancement, with rewarding personal abilities. No, it's just concerned with maintaining the status quo and keeping people happy. Because those in power want to stay in power, and the only way to stay in power is to keep the country alive.


Besides, you solution wouldn't help - those who are rich will send their children to the best schools (because they can afford it) and pay for their campaign platforms (because they can afford it) and basically give their children the leg up to establish their own personal wealth with only a modicum of ability actually needed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 17 2007, 05:11 PM) [snapback]376976[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, I guess what I'm pointing out is that if you compare your list of federal spending versus federal taxes paid to my list of median income per state, you will discover that there is a very strong correlation between the two.

For instance, you pick New Mexico, which get's the highest return for it's federal tax dollars and New Jersey, which gets the lowest return. It's not too much of a coincidence to discover from my list, that New Mexico has the lowest median income for 4-person families, and New Jersey has the highest.

In fact, if you were to order my list from lowest to highest median income (it's alphabetical right now), you would find that the two lists fairly closely match.

So... I would have guessed from all your other posts that you are a fairly classic liberal, in that you believe that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the poor and the poor should receive more assistance from the government than the rich. It would seem to me that we've got exactly that happening. The rich states are subsidizing the poor states. The rich tax payers are subsidizing the poor tax payers.

Yet your posts in this thread imply that you think that New Jersey's should keep it's money (or at least get back a benefit proportional to what it paid) and that New Mexico should just suffer.

It just seemed ironic to me that it sounded a lot like a "the rich should keep their money, and the poor should do without" kind of position. Due to what I believe your political leanings really are, it was quite amusing to me.

EDIT:
In case it's still not clear... What you are seeing is the rich (of which NJ has a high percentage) paying more taxes than the poor (of which NM has a high percentage) who receive more of the benefit. It's your basic socialist redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who need. That is how you believe things should work, is it not?

 

I love it! All these liberals spouting out very non-liberal arguments!

"Why should the industrialized (rich) states which earn lots of money from their industry, ports, and natural resources, help support the agricultural (poor) states that don't have ports or natural resources and that make very little money?"

which is very similar to

"Why should the rich who earn lots of money with their jobs, education, and resources help support the poor who don't have the jobs, education, or resources?"

So Godiva, why do you think places like California and New Jersey have such high real estate prices and costs of living, and places like Missippi have such low real estate prices and costs of living?

It's because all the rich people live in places like the West Coast and the North East, where things like ports make them great places to locate the industries which provide them the jobs that make them rich.

So, when you tax the rich to the point that the top 25% pay something like 80% of the Federal revenue, and then concentrate the rich in certain places, and then distribute the tax money to the poor that live mostly where the rich don't, then you will find that tax money is transfered from the rich places (West Coast, Great Lakes, and North East) to the poor places (Alabama, Missippi, etc.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 18 2007, 10:02 AM) [snapback]377142[/snapback]</div>

No.

I think it's a false sense of Rich.

Sure there are rich in California. Must be quite a few since we also have a huge number living at or below the poverty line. We'd need some uberwealthy to balance out the number of working poor to get our median income so high. And as I pointed out and you ignored, the housing market makes dollars in California worth a lot less than other states. Our higher price of gas too. High cost of living cancels out too. And it's the free market the Republicans tout that is driving the housing market. Do you watch "What you get for the money"? Do you really think that two bedroom, one bath in Santa Barbara is equivalent to the five bedroom, four bath in (insert red state here). Once you get someone (stupid) to pay over market value, that becomes the new market value. And so on, and so on.

I'm saying take it ALL in and you'll find that the blue states aren't the "RICH" you claim them to be and we are being bled to support the red states. Neocons are the ones with the pay your own way pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps work harder NO WELFARE flag wavers. So put your money where your mouth is an PAY YOUR OWN WAY.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 17 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]377008[/snapback]</div>

Hi Marlin, I guess I'm not your typical liberal (and I wear that term with pride). I'm a liberal with an attitude. I 'made it' on my own with no help from family, government, law suit winnings, or inheritances. Marin County, like Bucks County is home to rich, famous and many forward looking people, and because of it's beauty and proximity to urban centers, costs considerably more to live in than most other places. Therefore, I feel if I can do it almost anyone can, and I do not support handouts to the lazy or incompetent. I DO support limited help to people in circumstances beyond their control ie, a family who has a made a nice lifestyle for themselves because the parents both work, but which family is wiped out by high medical costs, for instance. I do believe the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the poor, but that those taxes go to the common good like improved roads or to provide educational benefits to enable members of society to become more productive. I am against giving the excess taxes to those unwilling to give it their all (or in the case of indited congresspersons, pensions) or to corporations who in effect give that money away to their top CEO's, calling it 'salary'.

I don't mean to imply in my example in an above post NM should 'suffer' (your words). I think they should raise their (graduated) income and sales taxes to parity with donor states. I specifically say or imply 'parity' does not mean dollar for dollar return, but close to it with some (small) wiggle room. Because of higher populations in some states, even parity in taxation will not provide the same living standards, but then again, the person in NM would get some perks that a person in NJ will not get (like lower density of population and associated problems with density). Conversely, the person in NJ will get some perks that one in NM won't, like more access to 'traditional cultural events'. Still, per population there will be financial parity.

So, perhaps either your personal definition of 'liberal' is slanted or my beliefs don't fit your definition, I'm not making that judgment. Although I don't know you or your habits, I would suggest you read more liberal media and unplug from entertainment 'faux' news and I don't just mean FOX. Perhaps you would come to realize, like I have through my daily reading of conservative pubs, that as a nation we have much more in common than the partisans would have us believe. Remember, pundits on both sides of the aisle are creating false impressions of the other in order to make their agendas more palatable to their self-conceived constituants, and to protect their turf. It's up to the individual to weed through the BS and come to their own hard-earned conclusions, NOT to take some pundit's definition and blindly run with it. Unlike my idea of the 'ideal' parent, pundits don't have YOUR best interests at heart, but rather their own, so you can't believe them. Perhaps this leads back to education (which I have stated should be open to all who want it). Education teaches you to think for yourself. I'm thinking perhaps many others listen and believe what they hear, and blindly repeat those thoughts as fact, thereby enforcing their own thought processes.

 

MarinJohn and Godiva... I actually agree with you. Everyone should pay their own way. Everyone should pay equal percentage of taxes. All good stuff here. What tickles me is the fact that you agree with me.

All I've been doing is pointing out how un-liberal your positions are. (and I'm not to use 'liberal' as a derogatory term, but rather as classification of political ideas)

The 'Blue' states are predominately the ones with the natural resources and industry. Therefore their economies are greater and they produce much more tax revenue than the 'Red' states, which are predominately agricultural. Therefore the Blue industrial states are the ones who "have" and the Red agricultural states are the ones who "need" and any good liberal government is going to shift money from the haves to the needs.

Now, where it really gets ticklish is when MarinJohn suggests that people in the states that don't earn as much should pay the same sales and state income tax rates as those who live in the states that earn a lot. I could be wrong, but I would have expected MarinJohn to be in favor of Progressive taxes, where the rich pay a greater percentage than the poor. I would not have expected him to propose what amounts to a flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate regardless of their means. People who support progressive tax rates would usually consider a flat tax to be regressive.

Now we have Godiva lamenting that the people in the Blue states that have median incomes twice that of many of the Red states are not really rich because the cost of living in those areas is higher. That gives me the ticklish thought of a millionare living on Park Avenue in NYC saying that he's not really rich because it costs a lot of money to live on Park Avenue.

You have to admit that the two of you are sounding very Republican in this thread.

In reality, I realize that the positions you have taken are based on your desire for the Blue states to stick it to the Red states (which is what this thread was about) and you are willing to abandon your liberal roots in pursuit of that position. If the "donor" and "sucking" states were all Blue states, you probably would not be holding the positions you have so stubornly. It still makes me giggle to see it though.

 

Godiva isn't it amazing. We spend time and research and clarify with our well thought out posts, and all we get back is more misinterpreting, purposeful twisting, and the assumption that all we want to do is stick it to someone else? I give up! A closed mind is such a terrible waste. Do you think there is a one way genetic difference in thought processes between liberals and neocons? Liberals can understand what the cons are trying to get across, but they are simply incapable of same?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 18 2007, 08:50 AM) [snapback]377212[/snapback]</div>

Marlin,

Since I'm the one that brought up the whole issue of federal tax dollars returned to the state, and the inherent inequities in the deal, let me just clarify a couple of points.

State to state welfare acts as both a safety net, and a method to increase the overall value of the whole community. When a disaster occurs, any state may need to tap the resources of the federal government for relief. Further, when an area of the country is unhealthy, it affects the rest of the nation. Increasing the welfare of specific areas (redistributing wealth) increase the overall health of the nation. Most of the time, this is a good system, but sometimes, though, the support seems to go to the no-good brother-in-law that could work, but doesn't bother.

Look at Alaska, where the Federal government spends $1.87 for ever dollar sent to Washington. Alaska has no personal state income tax (although Anchorage has a small municipal income tax). Some municipalities also levy a small sales tax, but the state itself does not. So, Alaskans pay nothing overall to support the operation of their state. In fact, the Alaskan Permanent Fund actually pays each Alaskan citizen a specific annual amount (in 2006, the amount was $1106.96) just for being an Alaskan. Is this redistribution of wealth for fair social purposes, or should Alaska be required to return some of those Federal dollars and use the money it currently distributes to it's population to 'run' the state? A good example would be the infamous 'bridge to nowhere', a federally funded bridge to an island that very few people actually live on (which already has ferry service). Should the federal government be required to build a expensive bridge that benefits an incredibly small number of people, or should the state have to make the decision to fund items like that, and pay for them if necessary. To me, the amount of federal funding in Alaska doesn't seem fair.

One of the points made here is that states with no sales or income tax that take more from the Federal government than they put in should increase their state tax rates to minimize this disparity. It essentially makes the rich in any individual state pay more to support the poor in that state. Of course, we do this at a federal level currently... this idea moves it down the rungs a notch or so. Is this a good idea? I honestly don't know. In some cases, it might make sense... in some, it might not.

Should every state be required to 'net' to zero between what it gives and what it receives? No, that doesn't make any sense... they might as well be separate countries. Should the Federal government begin looking at states like New Mexico and Alaska, and reducing spending there based on the fact that their state taxes are too low? Probably yes.

If a major disaster happened in California (like an earthquake, fire, or Matt Damon making another film), they would likely tap federal funds for relief. Just as other states have done in the past. The 'family' of states that all watch out for each other build this kind of support into the relationship. However, when a family member feels that they are consistantly at the short end of the deal, they have the option of cutting those ties and leaving the house. The deal works both ways, though... if California seceded and suffered a major disaster, California would be on its own to cope with the damage. Now, I'm a liberal myself, and believe that it is the federal government's responsiblity to redistribute wealth in a reasonable manner. When the redistribution reaches the point where it isn't reasonable anymore, then one has to examine what to do. I'm not saying that California has reached this limit... that is for California to decide.

My home state, Nevada, only gets $0.73 back from the Federal government (2004 numbers) for every dollar we send. This is less than California gets back. An interesting question: would the threat of western state secession force the Federal government to address issues like the amount of money going to Alaska and New Mexico, and bring it down to a more reasonable level?

Dan

 

What gets me is the generic liberal black-washing. ( not white-washing since we are the enemy.)

I'm a liberal.

I also believe in the death penalty. (I actually believe three strikes and you're dead, but we won't go there.)

I believe in a women's right to choose.

I believe in fiscal responsibility.

I don't believe in assuming poor people are lazy, it's their own fault and it's sink or swim.

I believe it is the government's responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens, and it should not be "outsourced" to churches or private corporations.

I do not believe evenything should be a "for profit" enterprise nor should it "make money". Education for one. Medical care for two.

I believe the welfare system should be revised, not disbanded. Same for Social Security.

People who work should not be homeless or hungry.

People should not lose their homes and everything they have worked a lifetime for just because they get sick.

I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake from the start. I think I've been proven right on that one.

I believe competition, within reason, is a good thing. But I don't think all monopolies are bad. I think the break-up of AT&T was stupid and the result didn't save anyone any money.

Deregulation? One word: ENRON.

and a lot of other stuff I'm not going in to.

When Florida has a disaster, they get money immediately hand over fist.

When California has a disaster, it takes forever and isn't enough to cover everything.

I won't repeat the Enron prejudice.

Because that's what it is. It's prejudice. It's the political/state equivalent of racism.

California has been discriminated against by the Bush administration. Losses in California aren't as important as losses in Florida. (I won't get into Global Warming either.)

Mostly I'm sick to death of the term "liberal" being the new "nigger". If Republicans spent as much time solving our current problems as they do trying to trip up liberals and make them look like hypocrites, maybe something would get done. If Republicans would try to be a little less partisan, realize that team playing is playing together and NOT just playing for the Republican team for the good of Republicans only, maybe we'd get somewhere. Do the Democrats do it? Sure. But NOT to the extent the Republicans do. Democrats don't have a K St. initiative. (And we can thank the Republicans for the results of K St.) Blow all the smoke and buy all the mirrors you like. You can't make the Democrats responsible for as much as the Republicans are in all of this. (IRAQIRAQIRAQIRAQ. ) But that doesn't stop Republicans from trying. Part of that misdirection thing they're so fond of.

And enough about Bill Clinton already. He's not the president anymore. Get over it. Maybe Republicans should have spent more of that 8 years working on real issues instead of trying to "get" Bill Clinton. (The result of never accepting that Clinton won....twice. In the words of Republicans....he won; get over it.)

Time to grow up and work together on a solution or shut up and get out of the way. I'm tired of politics being treated like professional football. This is not your team against our team. This is not "no matter how badly our team plays we are going to root for them and dis the other team.) This is everyone on the same page trying to solve problems. We've had six years of Republicans in charge and we're worse off than we ever were. If anything showed the values of a two party system, it has been this last six years.

So enough of the name calling. Not all Democrats are liberals. Not all liberals are the Anti-Christ. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. Our constitution guarantees the rights of liberals to have and express different opinions. And history has shown that some liberal ideas are actually good.

And part of being a liberal is the ability to continue to gather further data and reassess based on new information. And change course if the situation warrants it. Halleluia. If only EVERYONE practiced the same open mindedness and problem solving.

So step up to the plate and start to do something. I'd suggest not doing the same thing only more of it. Because the same thing hasn't been working. You'll just get a bigger, more successful FAILURE.

This thread started as a fun joke. But now I think it may be in the best interest of the "LIBERAL" states to secede from the United States, kick their economic butt and then scream TOLD YOU SO.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 18 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]377212[/snapback]</div>

$51,000 isn't twice what it is in a red state.

And nothing you have said justifies Federal disaster relief that goes more "liberally" to red states than it does to blue. That's discrimination.

 

California can never be an independent nation until we kill all those savage redskins that have set up casinos here, and are stealing all our dollars. Where's John Wayne when we need him??

 

What will Ecotopia do after the U.S. cuts off the water and electricity from the Colorado River and the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams?