I give you the Socialist Republic of Illinois....
This is what happens when politicians run out of things to tax....
California is next.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-dissolving-illinois-kass-met-20170620-column.html
Message Board Archives
For those who love the Democrats....
There is an economic migration occurring in the US, the flow from heavily taxed and bankrupt states to ones which are not.
In reply to Ninetenjack
Trump's piss will trickle down and you'll all be singing kumbaya like 2008.
In reply to Ninetenjack
You should really stay away from stuff you know so little about.
Two states: California--Kansas. Go read up on the experiments and experiences.
And there is a third one: Louisiana.
In reply to JOJO
Enlighten me great one.
In reply to JOJO
De man have his mouth wide open looking up for Trump's golden offerings to come flowing down.
In reply to JOJO
I was going to say the same thing about Kansas. This is just plain picking and choosing.
Democratic states have performed better than conservative states. The poorest states are in the south, (with the exception of Texas) which has been the stronghold of republicans.
In reply to black
They also really like their cousins down there.
In reply to SnoopDog
True.
In reply to black
What's the population of all the poor southern states combined versus the Social Republics of Illinois and California?
Lets not get choosy even the city of Seattle is getting into the act...
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-council-to-vote-today-on-income-tax-on-the-wealthy/
In reply to Ninetenjack
What does population have do with it? Your argument is about taxes.
Compare the tax policies of the red states vs the tax policies of the blue states. Simple, my dear Watson.
In reply to SnoopDog
thank you, please show me some facts and figures to back up your claims...
In reply to Ninetenjack
Um...you're the one making the claim Dingbat. It's your argument to prove.
In reply to SnoopDog
Just as I thought, you are a chicken shit posting lots of hot air with nothing of substance to back it up.
Here goes the 10 most indebted US states are:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/the-top-10-most-indebted-states-in-the-us.html
Out of the top 10 one went Republican in last elections "Utah"
In reply to Ninetenjack
Who started this thread Bro? You, or I?
I merely restated the historical validity of trickle down piss economics, a.k.a Reaganomics.
Oh, and your link doesn't work.
In reply to SnoopDog
From his link:
I kid you not that is before you read the list.
In reply to Ninetenjack
Are you making a correlation between indebtedness and poverty?
I hope you know Rihanna debt levels are far higher than ours combined. Are you claiming to be richer?
In reply to nick2020
Let the banna hang himself Bro. I was just giving him a lil more rope.
They hate socialism but want rich people to benevolently trickle down their wealth. Go figure.
In reply to SnoopDog
What do you think of what is going on in Connecticut ?
In reply to djdrastic
What's going on there? Is the tap water as fresh and healthy there as in Flint, Michigan?
In reply to SnoopDog
You should look into it when you have a chance.Massive taxes on fsckin everything.
I have a friend who lived there back in 10-13 , and he always complained about the astronomical cost of living over there.
In reply to djdrastic
...but do utilities work?
In reply to djdrastic
But the problem isn't taxes per se. Every society, since the earliest civilizations, has to find ways to redistribute wealth for the public good. Roads, hospitals, schools, armies, etc. don't pay for themselves.
The problem is more to do with the government's ability to redistribute wealth (ie. tax dollars) in a fair and efficient manner. The Chicago School of Economics disciples argue that smaller government is better and more efficient as the free market will take over the essential public services and there will be more incentive for people to start businesses since they won't be taxed up their ying yang. But we have seen time and time again that this model fails because business people and rich people simple don't redistribute profits back in the economy. They hoard their cash into offshore tax free bank accounts, re-locate their businesses where labour is dirt cheap, and (like the PussyGrabber-in-Chief) they avoid paying taxes altogether.
Both the socialist and the capitalist argue for the redistribution of wealth. The socialist says "let's redistribute wealth through proportional taxation". The capitalist say "let's redistribute wealth through trickle down economic/fiscal policies".
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Sure as long as you're willing to pay probably 2-3 times its worth.
Summed up as everything is expensive but it's probably not worth it.
The state's biggest expense is public employee salaries and benefits.
Seems like a good place if you are uber rich and can afford to live in the massive gated communities...
Middle class not so much.
In reply to djdrastic
There has to be a balance. You can't have tax policies which provide zero incentive for businesses (small or big) and yet you can't have policies or laws which allow businesses do whatever they want and not pay taxes altogether. Look at what happened after 8 years of Bush's deregulation of Wall street - massive economic depression as a result of financial malfeasance.
More currently, the Moron-in-Chief is only now realizing that he needs tax dollars to pay for his stupid fcuking wall. He needs to redistribute wealth. But will he cut the over bloated defence budget? Hell no! He'll cut social programs which help poor and middle class people.
In reply to SnoopDog
I don't disagree regarding trickle down economics/supply side economics being massively overstated or even being a big fat lie.
The main problem with trickle down economics is it can only really work where you are working with a massive regulated and closed off system effectively stopping from siphoning money into tax shelters or havens.Let's be real here.This ain't happening ever At the end of the of the day the money/gains tends to go horizontal not vertical.
Look regarding Connecticut , I don't subscribe to the republican model of "A simple solution for a complex problem" however ...
There's a lot of variables in there but massive employment overheads and taxes do factor in there.
In reply to SnoopDog
Agreed regarding balance.
Search
Live Scores
- no matches