Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
I think a lot of the opponents of this are arguing semantics. 80% of the public will see positive numbers from this for the next 7 years. That seems like a good thing.
Further, I doubt that the 20% that see "pain" will see overarching NEW federal tax burdens killing them. - it's funny to me that the ones who may see the most pain are the ones who have the highest state taxes, simple solution, vote in local legislatures that will reduce state outlays - I'm looking at you CA and NY)
- also funny, the high tax states like NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT, how many voted for Trump or Republicans? Is it really THAT shocking that they see the least benefit or are going to receive the least consideration.
- Here is a map of the senate election results - geography quiz - how many republican senators were elected from NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT?
- geography quiz #2 - how many high tax states have a plurality of Republicans in Congress? again, here is a map of the House votes by party holding plurality in each state to help you out
|
To the bold section. I think that was designed to directly target high state taxes by removing the federal deduction to fit congressional republican agendas. High state taxes allow states to provide essential services and rely less heavily on the federal government. Most federal money takers are low tax states. I think this causes a push towards less state reliance and decreased state taxes and will cause the states to rely more on federal funds to meet essential needs which is what congress wants imo.
To the italicized section. That was also a slight towards "blue states" Not having a voice since the republicans basically eliminated the democrats from the conversation. Is that because of an agenda to push those states into turmoil in order to gain political influence or partisan politics as usual?