Can’t be done given the state of politicians putting getting re-elected ahead of the best interests for the country. For every dollar of tax revenue raised, politician will spend $1.20. No ability to prioritize. All good ideas must be funded now.
Especially if you are a state that can’t pay your own way. It is amazing that the lowest taxing states take the most from the federal government and hence from the rest of us. I propose that each state pays their own way.
Talk about a failure of imagination. Yeah, I can’t think of any other approach either. /sarc/
Seems to afflict an entire generations.
Fabulous reply. The problem isn’t lack of tax revenue, the problem is insatiable endless (unsustainable) spending. Just look at the (dead for now, but probably not forever) Build Back Better bill. A garden of seedling programs that would transform American into a Euro-like place, with huge taxes, spending and redistribution. And those behind it STILL weren’t satisfied. Unless and until we decide to limit spending, there isn’t enough revenue in the world to tax to the satisfaction of the spenders (on both sides of the aisle, by the way).
Especially if you are a state that can’t pay your own way. It is amazing that the lowest taxing states take the most from the federal government and hence from the rest of us. I propose that each state pays their own way.
Notice the states that think that taxes are bad that rely on the rest of us to pay their way.
Andy
I see this argument frequently. But it’s flawed. Those in the so-called red states that receive more from the government than they pay in didn’t ask for it. Yeah, many have become dependent and wouldn’t want the free stuff taken away. But this is similar to Social Security. Had I had my druthers 40 years ago, I would have opted out and invested the FICA contribution amount on my own. But I had no choice, so, ok, I’ll accept the benefits as promised.
I don’t think the data in the article says anything about taxing policies of the states. Since
states tax income, property assets and/or sales in different ways the conclusion that a lack of
an income tax is using federal funds to “rely on the rest of us” is certainly not the case.
Howie52
Taxes are intended to provide for common needs - some places see needs more expansively than
others. And some places are more or less “inventive” in obtaining funds from “productive
sources” to pay for those needs.
Much like other charitable causes - some charities are able to obtain donations more effectively
than others.
I see this argument frequently. But it’s flawed. Those in the so-called red states that receive more from the government than they pay in didn’t ask for it.
Wow that is what you call a flawed argument. Sure they asked for it. Their Senators, Governors, House of Representatives all asked for it. It’s just like the infrastructure bill that was passed and lots of politicians voted against it and then went back to their states praising it after it passed. Or the Obama care bill that is now giving healthcare to people that want it but don’t realize how they are getting it because their states are lying on how they are receiving it. It’s really easy to not accept money if you didn’t want it, just don’t hold your hand out.
Yeah, many have become dependent and wouldn’t want the free stuff taken away. But this is similar to Social Security. Had I had my druthers 40 years ago, I would have opted out and invested the FICA contribution amount on my own. But I had no choice, so, ok, I’ll accept the benefits as promised.
I would have rather opted out to but no matter what you or I think it has kept a lot of people out of the poor house just like Medicare. With society, as a whole, both of those programs have been very successful without question.
I would have rather opted out to but no matter what you or I think it has kept a lot of people out of the poor house just like Medicare. With society, as a whole, both of those programs have been very successful without question.
Totally true, but has nothing to do with the fact that many people would have rather have not been forced into the system, just as many red states take what the system they are forced into gives, but would rather have “less government” if given the choice.
…just as many red states take what the system they are forced into gives, but would rather have “less government” if given the choice.
People are people: if they’re doing fine now, they want less gubmint; when they are not doing so well, they seem to appreciate the gubmint benefits they get, but often still think others shouldn’t get them. This reminds me of the 2009-2010 era when many folks were saying “keep big government out of our lives - don’t let them touch my social security and Medicare.”
People are people: if they’re doing fine now, they want less gubmint; when they are not doing so well, they seem to appreciate the gubmint benefits they get, but often still think others shouldn’t get them. This reminds me of the 2009-2010 era when many folks were saying “keep big government out of our lives - don’t let them touch my social security and Medicare.”
Again true. But again still true the argument that “because red states get more redistribution per capita, therefore they are hypocrites” is still flawed.
But again still true the argument that “because red states get more redistribution per capita, therefore they are hypocrites” is still flawed.
I didn’t see your quote about being hypocrites anywhere else in the thread except from you. I had assumed, possibly incorrectly I admit, that the point was that red states should pay their fair share, the same as blue states do, and also being good capitalists and anti-freeloaders and all.
With the 1031 you pay nothing in taxes. You probably need a lawyer and a holding company, and the costs come to around $10,000 (depending) but that can be a lot better than paying $200,000 when trading up. And though it’s called a “like kind” exchange the rules are quite flexible. You can exchange a rental house for a duplex or apartment building. An industrial property for something else. Developed land for a farm. Or lots of other stuff.
It is even better than that. I did one in 2019 (in the before time). You need an exchange company to hold the bag between selling and buying and there are some generous time deadlines you need to meet. But not hard. And the exchange company only cost a thousand bucks, IIRC.
While we’re swapping anecdotes, I bought a SFR in 2010 pretty much at the bottom of the market with $40k down. It took a couple weekends to get it tenant-ready, and then another weekend rebuilding the deck stairs, other than that I haven’t done anything other than maybe call a yard guy. I sold it at the end of 2019 and made $100K, so a CAGR of about 13.4%. But it was better than that because it was cash flow positive from day one and there are the tax advantages. So true rate of return was something more than that. Dunno exactly how much.
Then I sold and 1031’d it into a property in Hawaii. Thanks to COVID, that property has not been cash flow positive the last two years, but is on track to be healthily in the black this year. But like lots of places there has been incredible price appreciation in the last couple years.
I’d guess that original $40k is now worth about $350K. A lot of that was dumb luck, I couldn’t replicate that again, I don’t think. But it worked out for me.
Letting people opt out of Social Security would impoverish even more Americans that the 40-yr experiment replacing defined benefit pensions with IRAs and 401ks. Less than 10% of the population is better off doing this investment stuff on their own – and hiring an advisor screws you even more.
Letting people opt out of Social Security would impoverish even more Americans that the 40-yr experiment replacing defined benefit pensions with IRAs and 401ks. Less than 10% of the population is better off doing this investment stuff on their own – and hiring an advisor screws you even more.
intercst
Despite the fact that I wish I could have invested my legally required Social Security contributions on my own and opted out of the system, I completely agree that we need the system. Or we’d have way more people starving on the street who would have to be fed with public funds anyway. I am not anti-Social Security. That being said, my original point was the analogy to the red states who get more Federal benefits than they pay in. Up to them, the Federal redistribution system would be much smaller. But since they can’t stop it, they take what they are entitled to. The fact that they get more out than they put in doesn’t mean they want the current system.
Letting people opt out of Social Security would impoverish even more Americans that the 40-yr experiment replacing defined benefit pensions with IRAs and 401ks. Less than 10% of the population is better off doing this investment stuff on their own
Years ago, I also used to be in the opt out camp.
Now, I would just rather the SS money be invested in target date funds where neither I nor anyone else has any access to change the funds. Should still result in a better outcome for recipients (including the creation of generational wealth) and the govt could still take their skim in the form of fee reimbursements, life and disability insurance expenses, etc. from whomever is managing the program.
Of course, while it might be a better result for recipients, it would not be so good for taxpayers. No easy way to replace that revolving stream of revenue.
Daryll: "Despite the fact that I wish I could have invested my legally required Social Security contributions on my own and opted out of the system, I completely agree that we need the system. Or we’d have way more people starving on the street who would have to be fed with public funds anyway. I am not anti-Social Security.
That being said, my original point was the analogy to the red states who get more Federal benefits than they pay in. Up to them, the Federal redistribution system would be much smaller. But since they can’t stop it, they take what they are entitled to. The fact that they get more out than they put in doesn’t mean they want the current system."
No but it reminds me of the hypocrisy of Claude Rains blowing his whistle, shuts down the Cafe Americain and telling Rick that he (Captain Renault) is “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here” immediately before Rick’s employee pays Captain Renault his winnings.