Sorry. Each person pays X amount of federal taxes, whatever state they're in. Then each state gets Y amount in federal spending and programs and stuff. One would think that for every $1 in federal taxes spend, your state would receive $1 in federal spending on whatever. Yet people in nominally lower-state-tax/more-freedom states receive Y>X amounts of federal spending to compensate for the fewer state services provided, and thus higher amounts of federal influence which they claim to loathe.
As an extreme example, one of the arguments against statehood for Puerto Rico is that they would have to pay federal taxes, which they do not pay right now. Yet if they became a state, they would start paying federal taxes AND receive the benefits of federal spending, which they do not get right now, and are instead currently paid for by local taxes. Their federal taxes would (theoretically) go up, their local taxes would (theoretically) go down, and their tax burden would (theoretically) stay the same.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-17 12:10 am (UTC)As an extreme example, one of the arguments against statehood for Puerto Rico is that they would have to pay federal taxes, which they do not pay right now. Yet if they became a state, they would start paying federal taxes AND receive the benefits of federal spending, which they do not get right now, and are instead currently paid for by local taxes. Their federal taxes would (theoretically) go up, their local taxes would (theoretically) go down, and their tax burden would (theoretically) stay the same.