No, poor states work on the premise that a small number of wealthy and powerful should have as much as the wealth as possible. They maintain this by casting others as worse off than their own people, and apply fear of becoming one of those people if anyone attempts to alter the status quo.
Really don't care in the long run. Y'all gonna either move to the donor states or die from opiates, and then your leaders can rule over a wasteland, whining about not getting enough tax money from us. That doesn't mean we have to be particularly fond of being insulted in the meantime.
My contention is that leaders in the "poor" states have created a false narrative that their states are rugged individualists who do not rely on the help of others in order to further their efforts to maintain power and, much more importantly, their own personal fortune.
They accomplish this by insulting those of us who live in the donor states.. Which then leads to people like you attempting to re-cast the reaction to the insults as some sort of larger-scale political discussion, when it's entirely "At least we're not those people!!".
IOW, it's way simpler than you're trying to make it out to be. Holding power and wealth in those states requires making enough of the poor believe that someone else is worse off, and any attempt to shift the dynamic would make these believers fall.
Right... politicians aren't in the least bit responsible for how they vote in Congress
No, politicians defer to "experts" because no politician can be an expert in everything they vote on. Those experts don't always come with pure intentions.
Could you point to a recent election where a union leader won? Or even ran?
Or is this more along the lines of "political ambition" in the form of "lobbying", which is an excellent business practice when corporations do it, but horrifyingly evil when unions do it?
since so many people don't seem to understand the incredibly simple concept of w-4 withholding and your ultimate Federal tax burden/refund being intertwined.
The W-4 instructions say I should be claiming 4 allowances.
I'm up to 12 allowances and still getting a significant refund.
We blue states don't begrudge sending you money. What we begrudge is your complaints about our people are moochers while claiming your people are self-reliant uber-Randian supermen.
but those figures do not enter into the equation of the argument that "high tax states" do not receive their money back.
Whether or not those are included depends on which study you're talking about.
Shifting what counts and what does not count moves the edge cases a bit, but the major trend remains - the "blue" states are subsidizing the "red" states.
Which is fine. We're all one union. It just gets annoying when the folks from the "taker" states whine about the feds not helping them enough or preach about self-reliance.
Amazon could leave after two tax free years and such improvements would benefit the next occupant of the property
Their plan was to build a new building, so the infrastructure would only be needed for their new building. No building, no need for infrastructure changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet you insult them along with everyone else in the state.
In fairness, the so-called "blue" states _produce_ almost nothing of value
You have an odd definition of "value". Especially considering you're using a computer on a network to communicate to a web site.
No, poor states work on the premise that a small number of wealthy and powerful should have as much as the wealth as possible. They maintain this by casting others as worse off than their own people, and apply fear of becoming one of those people if anyone attempts to alter the status quo.
Really don't care in the long run. Y'all gonna either move to the donor states or die from opiates, and then your leaders can rule over a wasteland, whining about not getting enough tax money from us. That doesn't mean we have to be particularly fond of being insulted in the meantime.
My contention is that leaders in the "poor" states have created a false narrative that their states are rugged individualists who do not rely on the help of others in order to further their efforts to maintain power and, much more importantly, their own personal fortune.
They accomplish this by insulting those of us who live in the donor states.. Which then leads to people like you attempting to re-cast the reaction to the insults as some sort of larger-scale political discussion, when it's entirely "At least we're not those people!!".
IOW, it's way simpler than you're trying to make it out to be. Holding power and wealth in those states requires making enough of the poor believe that someone else is worse off, and any attempt to shift the dynamic would make these believers fall.
Right... politicians aren't in the least bit responsible for how they vote in Congress
No, politicians defer to "experts" because no politician can be an expert in everything they vote on. Those experts don't always come with pure intentions.
or political ambition
Could you point to a recent election where a union leader won? Or even ran?
Or is this more along the lines of "political ambition" in the form of "lobbying", which is an excellent business practice when corporations do it, but horrifyingly evil when unions do it?
I'm sure with a damaged building that there's no possible path to get water to it.
That's why they tried to freeze all the groundwater in the area. Because there's no possible path for water to get to it. :eyeroll:
The containment structure is made of concrete. Concrete isn't water-tight. You could not capture all of the water with a pump.
If your claim was actually true, the wealthy wouldn't be working so hard to cut taxes. Taxes would be irrelevant because the wealthy dodge them all.
Almost like they can't actually dodge them all.....
I eagerly await your reply that conflates tax rate with tax bracket.
I don't remember there being a line for "Board Member of H&R Block" on my ballot.
Politicians don't write the tax code. They pass tax code that is given to them by lobbyists.
Reminder, it's not Tax Attorneys that write the tax code, that's on the politicians we (collectively) re-elect year after year
Those politicians turn to Tax Attorneys to actually write the tax code that they pass.
since so many people don't seem to understand the incredibly simple concept of w-4 withholding and your ultimate Federal tax burden/refund being intertwined.
The W-4 instructions say I should be claiming 4 allowances.
I'm up to 12 allowances and still getting a significant refund.
It's not at all a simple concept.
Who exactly should Alabama tax?
Alabamans.
We blue states don't begrudge sending you money. What we begrudge is your complaints about our people are moochers while claiming your people are self-reliant uber-Randian supermen.
but those figures do not enter into the equation of the argument that "high tax states" do not receive their money back.
Whether or not those are included depends on which study you're talking about.
Shifting what counts and what does not count moves the edge cases a bit, but the major trend remains - the "blue" states are subsidizing the "red" states.
Which is fine. We're all one union. It just gets annoying when the folks from the "taker" states whine about the feds not helping them enough or preach about self-reliance.
There's the problem of where the now-radioactive seawater would go after you pumped it in.
As long as you don't expose it to any water that then seeps into the ground.
Which is probably unlikely on an island, right?
And instead, the money can be spent on repairing and upgrading the infrastructure for existing buildings, which desperately needs to be done.
In other words the infrastructure was *not* Amazon specific and would apply to any user of that building
It's difficult to have infrastructure support a building that does not exist.
The infrastructure changes were to support Amazon's new building. No new building means no infrastructure changes.
Amazon could leave after two tax free years and such improvements would benefit the next occupant of the property
Their plan was to build a new building, so the infrastructure would only be needed for their new building. No building, no need for infrastructure changes.
Amazon wasn't going to be using an existing building. The infrastructure upgrades were just for Amazon and their new building.
[Citation Required]
The region already has a huge housing shortage. 25,000 more employees are not a good thing for rents.
Nonsense is forgetting that Amazon coming to NYC also causes government expenses to rise and completely leaving that out of your analysis.
Somebody is going to be paying that $3B. And if it's not Amazon.....
Oh, and forgetting that the $3B also included some grants and Amazon-centered infrastructure projects. Not just tax breaks.
What Amazon was getting was a lower tax rate
Nope. Amazon was getting a lower tax rate, some grants, and some Amazon-centric infrastructure projects.
So, there was actual cash leaving NYC's and NYS's pockets.