Re: Bunny Trails
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:14 pm
Thank you for being someone I can be honest with. I do apologize if the edge is too sharp, or if I am otherwise lacking in grace, and I hope to grow in this area.Robert wrote:I thought I detected an edge in your comments. Good to know. Thanks for being honest.PeterG wrote:I am struggling with some (but not most of) your thinking.
I suspect (though I should probably eat my own dog food and look it up) that the percentage is much higher than 50% for NYC and for any unit of local government you could identify, including the very reddest. You mentioned housing subsidies, welfare, and SS. Add to that the child tax credit, the EITC, the mortgage interest deduction (my favorite), other misc. tax credits and deductions, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc. (I suppose it could be argued that some of this is apples and oranges, but I see all apples. Different varieties of apples, maybe, but all apples.)Robert wrote:Over 50% of people who live in New York City receive some kind of government support.
First of all, you were talking federal. You said, "New York, Chicago and all of California are about broke and much of the rest of the country supports then with our part of the national debt." I believe that the Mises.org post I linked to indicates otherwise.Robert wrote:I am not just talking federal. I am talking state and local. Although they do pay in a good bit, NYC is spending more than it is taking in with taxes.
Here is an interesting page with lots of details.
https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_state_ ... d_finances
It may be that the state is offsetting some of the costs of NYC. If so, that further shows that many of the big cities are not standing alone but drawing on others in state to support them. California has the same issue. Most the large cities have deficits. When a city is running a deficit, they are spending more than making. Most the time it is because there is a lot of subsidies the cities pay out.
California cities do similar. There are a lot of subsidies and government handouts in CA cities. If a city has a deficit, they are spending more than taking in and it has to be made up somehow. Often the state is subsidizing the city. If the state is, than rural citizens are paying for the cities so the state deficit will balance. This is what I was trying to get at.
Second, it is not clear to me that NYC or California cities are net recipients of state money. I saw nothing in the link you provided that demonstrates this. As far as I can tell, the opposite appears to be true. (The report on which this article is based is here.)
Federal spending per dollar paid in federal taxes, according to the Mises.org post (if you'll allow me to beat the horse some more just in case it's not dead yet):Robert wrote:Because over 50% of people who live in cities are dependent on some form of government assistance, they will most likely vote for the groups who promise to maintain or increase these policies. This is why I think the national map looks like this:
People in the cities are pro bigger government because they are used to government helping them. People in the rural areas are used to government taking from them or being almost non existent.
Mississsippi—$4.70
West Virginia—$4.23
South Carolina—$3.05
Alabama—$3.02
Montana—$2.44
Idaho—$2.08
Kentucky—$2.05
national average—about $1.20 (the $0.20 is borrowed)
California—$1.18
New York—$0.96
I do not believe that these numbers support what you are saying.
I'm not quite that cynical, but I think there's a lot of truth to this.Robert wrote:I am sorry, but I do not believe the DNC really cares so much about immigrants that they are pushing to take care of them. I think they see it as a new voting block to grow their party. I don't think the RNC cares about the rural people so much either. I think they see it as a strong voting block. I think the RNC plays the game of demonizing the big city liberals as much as the DNC demonizes rural people as baskets of deplorables, holding onto their bibles and guns.
Our society needs more of this. The incentives around healthcare spending, in particular, are way out of whack.Robert wrote:I think I told this story here once, but will state it again to make my point. I broke my arm a few years ago. I went to an orthopedic surgeon. he thought I needed to have it pinned. I said it was going to cost more then just wrapping it. He said, "Well you have insurance." He knew I was on Medicaid. I said, "Well someone has to pay for it." He looked at me strangely and then agreed that was true. I told him to just wrap it up. He did. It healed just fine.
TL;DR
As far as I can tell, the evidence indicates that urban areas such as NYC give more in federal and state taxes than they receive in federal and state spending. Many largely rural states that went for Trump, such as Mississippi and Montana, receive much more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes.
EDIT: I see that Ken has posted much that is similar to what I say here. But I worked hard on this post, so I'm gonna post it anyway.