The issue is as the blue people move to the South, they will destroy the South with their bad blue ideas. I am Southern by heritage but my only real association with the South is my love of Southern food.
When you say these people will “destroy” the South, what are you saying that destruction will look like? What “bad blue ideas” will have this outcome, and why?
Heavy taxation, spending on stupid programs, and trying to micromanage people’s lives.
You forgot to tell me what this “destruction” will look like, but I’ll address what you’ve said so far.
So you’re rich enough that wealth taxes would impact you, meaning you have over the last three years either:
- Held at least a billion dollars in assets, or
- Earned over $100 million dollars income
For each of the last three years. That would make sense then that you don’t need social programmes, and would consider them stupid. But the people flipping your burgers, educating your children, and fighting your wars are not in that position, and will benefit from the social programmes you have no use for.
We’ll leave “micromanage people’s lives” as read, because I’m sure you’re talking about guns and COVID, but I think you’ll find curbing voting rights and politicians making medical decisions for people aren’t “blue ideas”.
I didn’t mention a wealth tax. Blue states tend to have high property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. We do not have a sales tax in Oregon but we do have property and income. The income tax is one of the highest in the nation.
We’ll leave “micromanage people’s lives” as read, because I’m sure you’re talking about guns and COVID, but I think you’ll find curbing voting rights and politicians making medical decisions for people aren’t “blue ideas”.
Nice strawman, but when have I ever said an adult couldn’t make their own medical decisions? As a doctor, I strongly believe in body autonomy for adults. While I don’t practice anymore, I still hold that as a gold standard that all adults should choose the care they want.
I have not seen any curbing of voting rights. I have seen changes to make the system better but nothing that prevents a legal voter from voting. In many cases they have enhanced the ability for people to vote.
It’s not a strawman, it’s an educated guess based on the zeitgeist. You haven’t said adults can’t make their own medical decisions, but a major political party is all about controlling reproductive care, and it isn’t the Democrats. You tried say it’s a “blue idea” to meddle in people’s lives, I’ve just raised a counterpoint showing it’s not. That’s all.
And yes, you didn’t mention a wealth tax, but that’s the current “blue idea” on taxation. Blue states tend to have higher-earning populations, hence taxes are in absolute terms typically higher, but poor Californians pay less in tax than most other states: https://www.cato.org/blog/are-taxes-really-lower-california-texas
But those are just numbers, I was interested in what you’re actually concerned about with this “destruction”. So it’s fair to say you worry that a blue influx will result in more taxes, and more regulations curbing personal freedoms? If that’s not accurate, then by all means clarify further.
By the way, if you haven’t seen efforts to curb voting rights, then you’ve had your eyes closed: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/voting-restrictions-state-laws/index.html
Conservatives are not like liberals. We do not share a group mind. We each have our own opinions. The religious right is more prone to be anti-abortion on religious grounds. I am not religious and as such have no qualms with the ethical choice of abortion. I believe each person has the right to make their medical decisions without your sky god being involved. I am not anti-religious though. I do attend mass on holidays and other times throughout the year but it is more for tradition.
Not in absolute terms but in all terms they are higher. In my red state I paid 4.5 for income tax. In Oregon, I pay 10%.
If you look at the Cato article, it discredits California as a low tax state.
But could it really be true that California taxes average families less than Texas does? After looking through the underlying numbers, I do not think so.
Having lived in both states, California is much more heavily taxed than Texas. I admit I was only in Texas briefly but overall the taxes were lower.
The devil is in the details for voting. WIthout a specific example, it’s hard to say. Personally I wish we would not let poor people vote. The founding fathers would never allowed that and I agree with them.
What about being poor makes you unfit to vote? And what is poor, is it a hard line number, is it home and land ownership, what is the corral you would like these voting people to be in? Also this is what we left when we got away from the lords and ladies system of the monarchy, and I think the founding fathers would frown on this idea.
Landownership is the old standard. It was the standard used during the days of the founding fathers. We could use another standard such as actually paying taxes or not being on social welfare.
Personally I wish we would not let poor people vote. The founding fathers would never allowed that and I agree with them.
I just have to address this first. You’re tipping your hand there a bit, mate, but I’ll engage with it. First off, this only makes any kind of sense if you take the view that people are poor because of bad choices, rather than being kept there by lack of opportunity and/or the systems we have in place (educational, correctional, social, governmental/administrative - you name it). If you think that intelligent people can be poor, then you shouldn’t take this view as you’re limiting the potential of our whole nation. Secondly, barring a very few outliers the reddest states are consistently the poorest, and consistently rank worst in education. If you want to ban the poors from voting, you hand the country to the Democrats and their “bad blue ideas”.
I cannot believe that you, a doctor, would argue for throwing away our best and brightest just because they aren’t born into privilege. I know you’re going to say that’s not what you’re arguing, that if they’re that clever they can make something of themselves, or some other bullshit rooted in the theoretical - don’t bother. It won’t work like that because the world isn’t theoretical, and it’s been tried before in various forms. You should reconsider that position.
You may be right about tax rates. It’s a complicated question; as that Cato article also points out by noting that their findings are in direct opposition to findings from other organisations, and that much of the detail is in how you measure it. How else do you explain getting opposite answers with the same data? I think if you would allow me to correct myself, I would say the “effective” tax rate is higher in Texas and other red states, for the poor. That is the demographic disproportionately affected by (for example) natural disasters, unconstrained energy bills, medical emergencies, and a lack of social programmes.
As to your personal experience, you yourself say you are a doctor, so you are absolutely not in a lower income bracket, and that you’d pay less income tax in a red state is a given because a lot of them don’t have income taxes at all. That’s the whole point, though. If you’re gonna have an income tax, people who make $30,000 a year should pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than someone making $100,000 a year.
(I’m going to skip the more complex parts of calculating income tax because I don’t think it’s relevant, but feel free to correct me (and show your work please) if I’m incorrect about that.) I’m sure you can see that 4.5% of $30,000 ($1,350) is a much bigger hit than 10% of $100,000 ($10,000); there’s a minimum amount a family needs to buy to live, and things still cost what they cost whether you’re making $30k or $100k. Therefore, it’s a lot easier to live on $90,000 for a year than it is on $28,650 for the same period, no matter what state you’re in. Gas, food, electricity, water, etc all cost roughly the same (for rich and poor people in the same region, not across the country obviously) regardless of your income; sure, you can spend more on it if you make more, but there’s only so low you can go in the other direction. Meanwhile the ability to spend more also saves money in the long run, as the necessities you buy like clothes and tools will last longer before they need repair or replacement.
This maths is the main reason I support a wealth tax (on people who are statistically likely to have a lot more money than you, but if you’re actually by chance a billionaire - yes, on you, but I’ll let you pay up front at a discount, DM me for details). The only reason it’s possible to earn that much money in the first place is because of infrastructure that we, as a society, built and pay for. Businesses run by our collective labour. If you make money via use of that infrastructure, you should pay a proportionate amount back for maintenance and expansion. If you make money off our labour, we deserve a fair cut. And if you don’t think I’m right about the importance of the infrastructure, or the labour, by all means go buy a derelict oil rig and build your own nation, with your own infrastructure - I’m sure it’ll go swimmingly, this time around.
Conservatives are not like liberals. We do not share a group mind.
If you wanna compare “group think”, the right are overwhelmingly single-issue voters, and we are seeing exactly what they’ll excuse before they vote any other way (for my money, it sure doesn’t seem like there’s a line that won’t be crossed). It’s astounding that you can look at how the left talks about Biden, or how Democrat politicians are held to account far more strictly than Republicans, and think there’s more “group think” there than the right and their fawning over fascist assholes like Trump and DeSantis. The projection with this statement is nothing short of ridiculous.
If you vote Republican, it doesn’t matter how you feel about reproductive care personally. “Her body, her choice” is one of those “blue ideas” you hold in such disdain. “Abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances, even if carrying to term is medically inadvisable or would outright kill the mother” is a “red idea”. That’s not unique to the right, though - if you vote Democrat, it doesn’t matter how you personally feel about (for example) war crimes or genocide being committed in Gaza. Sure seems like the Dems gonna fund it regardless.
I think we might actually even agree on taxes, if we sat down and hashed it out. Again, statistically, you and I are in the same income bracket as far as I’m concerned (and I do not make six figures - closer than many, but not by much). But while I do think an influx of Democrats to the South will change it, I remain unconvinced it’ll look anything like “destruction”. Edit: I also have to say that I appreciate your choice of username, given the context and actions of Wintermute in Neuromancer. Quite appropriate, as our conversation so far has shown.
First off, this only makes any kind of sense if you take the view that people are poor because of bad choices,
due to the length, I am just taking snippets. I believe you should have some skin in the game to vote. When people can vote for more, but don’t have to pay for it. It dooms the system. We have a serious issue with overspending in this country. You will hear the left scream, we need to tax people more. Even if we took all the wealth (Not income) from the top people in America, that wouldn’t even cover a year of expenditures. That is how bad our spending problem is. As such, if someone can’t manage to own property or whatever criteria we use, they shouldn’t be deciding how to set direction for the country. That is why we are spending more than we bring in each year as it is.
It’s a complicated question; as that Cato article also points out by noting that their findings are in direct opposition to findings from other organisations,
It is a very complicated issue. As Cato points out it’s not a fair comparison since they are trying to mimic the same numbers which isn’t the same lifetstyle. A 243K home in Texas may be reasonable but that won’t even buy you a home in the majority of California.
I would say the “effective” tax rate is higher in Texas and other red states, for the poor
That would be hard to judge. The poor pay fewer taxes in general but they do pay indirectly property taxes if they are renting. The poor can get food stamps to help with food, reduce electricity or gas depending on the state, and housing vouchers to help with housing. Now I would like to see many of those removed and replaced with a true living wage as I don’t think people should depend on the government. I think most people would rather earn their living than be given a handout.
I support a wealth tax (on people Wealth taxes can only be done by states but they will only drive the wealthy away. On a federal level, they cannot be implemented because the Constitution does not allow it. I assume you are not American since you used the phrase mate and that means something different in American English. Income taxation required a constitutional amendment to implement and it limits how we can be taxed. Remember we are a country that rebelled over a small tea tax. I am against any sort of wealth tax as now we are taxing people on income that is not earned and then taxed again when it is realized. It is just a really bad idea and would do more harm than good. There are better ways to capture the money through legal taxation such as increasing the capital gains, preventing the billionaire loans, or increasing estate taxes. Let’s take Elon Musk as an example, on paper he is worth billions, but he is cash-poor. His annual salary is less than mine. The only way he can get income is by selling his stocks which is why he lives off loans. If we pretend that was real cash and tax him, when his stock drops, are we going to refund him money the next year? That is why wealth taxes fall apart quickly since the rules would be unfair and it would discourage investment.
And if you don’t think I’m right about the importance of the infrastructure In infrastructure is paid for my fuel taxes, other fees, and use fees. We have let it decline and that is a shame.
If you vote Republican, it doesn’t matter how you feel about reproductive care personally. “Her body, her choice” is one of those “blue ideas” you hold in such disdain.
I lean more towards Haley as she is the only one who wants to compromise on abortion. I will admit that is where I disagree with the Republican stance since that is the religious right pushing the anti-abortion agenda.
I think we might actually even agree on taxes, if we sat down and hashed it out.
I would like to see a flat tax. Maybe with a slight progressive take on it. That would be ‘fair’ but would also tax the high income earners more. Our current system is overly complex and favors those who can higher accountants and lawyers to do their taxes. It should be much simpler and we would capture more revenue.
I also would like to see better regulations around PE, VC, and hedge funds. The tax system should reward those who create good paying jobs, and punish those who destroy value. Companies that lay people off should be penalized and to provide stability to the economy.
if you vote Democrat, it doesn’t matter how you personally feel about (for example) war crimes or genocide being committed in Gaza.
I am glad Israel is finally crushing Hamas since the Palestinians have waged genocide on the Israelis for years. You would think the world would have learned after the holocaust to stop trying to kill the Jews, but they haven’t. I am not Jewish but I respect their right to self-defense. Israel will finally be able to stop the war crimes against them and that is a good thing. The region needs stability.
Wintermute in Neuromancer
I have to say Kudos to you, most people do not get the reference or don’t get the deeper context.
Blue states are literally funding red states. Blue states have lower crime, longer lifespans, better education, all kinds of stuff.
Ah the old blue state myth. I can see you didn’t read the fine print on that chart.
Which part is a myth?
It isn’t true. THat the blue states pay for the red states. If you read the fine print you will see it includes things such as military pay, social security, etc. That isn’t the North subsidizing the South. That is people retiring to warmer climates and military bases tend to be in the south for many reasons.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/502321-no-blue-states-do-not-bailout-red-states/
Blue states pay more in taxes than they get in federal spending, your own Hill article says so and here’s another less biased source
Yes and the article explains why and why it doesn’t mean the blue states are paying for the red states.
It does show how bad some of our laws are written though
The article explains how it works, rich people more likely to live in blue states. Which is still blue states funding red states.
No, it’s states funding stated. The list is about even as the article points out. If blue states didn’t have such high cost of living, they wouldn’t be screwed by the progressive tax system. It’s why companies are moving to the red states. They’ve kept cost low.
Note that “go woke, go broke” is no correct.
I have another theory: enshittification, but irl.
The “blue” areas are wealthy. As such, it’s relatively easy for income and wealth to be extracted from other wealthy people.
In contrast, thanks to hateful politicians (Democrat or Republican is inconsequential) in the south that would rather see a black person with a third world disease than govern, “red” areas are cheap. With the areas being largely underdeveloped, (relatively) rich people can move away from places of wealth, which are expensive, and begin their own process of buy, borrow, die.
In short, it’s all about retaining their wealth.
So, in a very roundabout way, I agree with you: blue people moving to the South will destroy the South with their bad blue ideas. Economically, the south needs helps, and wealthy liberals are going to help it the same way a billionaire moving to Florida helps that state. In other words, it really doesn’t, but it looks like it if you care about apparent economic indicators. Dig any deeper or, god forbid, turn to sociology, and you’ll just see a vast array of social isolation compounded by conspicuous wealth. Politically, eh…I doubt much will change. The South is trash all around in that regard and will fight like hell, quite literally, to keep it that way .
. Economically, the south needs helps, Depends on what part of the south. Mississippi does, Florida not so much.
Since the article was about the south, I will admit one trap we all fall into. There isn’t one south other than geography. Mississippi is very different from South Carolina. Since you were Navy, I suspect you spent some time in the south since the navy has a large presence there. I went to BCT at Ft. Jackson, AIT in Texas. The two are different different.
Money doesn’t care about culture wars. It flows along the path of least resistance. Less burdensome regulation creates jobs, people follow the jobs, and the money follows the people.
“Wokeness” can lead to companies making bad decisions that cause them to be less profitable, Disney is “woke” and they aren’t going broke anytime soon even if they are wasting money on bad ideas and pandering. Small startups making bad decisions can accelerate the demise if they have a bad business model. If they were going broke because of wokeness then it’d be trivial for another business to replicate the business model without the wokeness and succeed.
People moving from California to Texas or New York to Florida aren’t moving to BFE. They are moving to Austin or Orlando, so I don’t think you have to worry about them “ruining the south with their bad blue ideas”
