Gavin Newsom threatens to cut off California's federal taxes in Trump rebuke. Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense.

[jacks]

If all governments went away, would the world be better off?

 

[The Barbarian]

That money they send to those federal facilities benefits the whole nation, they just happen to be located in certain states where it makes sense.

But the economy of that state benefits from the spending.

 

[The Barbarian]

If all governments went away, would the world be better off?

Necessary evil, I think. But we should give government no more power than is needed to do essential functions. And we should trim it back every now and then, just on principle.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If all governments went away, would the world be better off?

No.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But the economy of that state benefits from the spending.

Land commandeered by the federal government (for federal use) would've been out of the control of any current state-level government.

Nor does the state-level government have any real control over what private business opt to bid on federal contracts for things like defense.


The point I was making was that donor vs. recipient states (by the shallow metrics people use to define it) isn't a reflection of "which type of governance is better (liberal vs. conservative)" -- but that's how it's spun.


California: "See, we're clearly doing it right, because we send more money to the government then we get back -- the fact that <insert red state here> needs more federal money coming is is proof that the liberal way is the right way"

...when that's not the case at all. The uniqueness of the situation that states like California and New York are in (due to historical things that have nothing to do with their current style of governance) are what gives them that edge.

 

[The Barbarian]

Land commandeered by the federal government (for federal use) would've been out of the control of any current state-level government.

Nor does the state-level government have any real control over what private business opt to bid on federal contracts for things like defense.

But the money goes into the state economy. And that's the point. California is providing welfare payments to many red states.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Land commandeered by the federal government (for federal use) would've been out of the control of any current state-level government.

What land is that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What land is that?

How do you think the federal government acquires the land that federal facilities are on in the first place?

Combination of negotiated land withdrawals/swaps, direct purchase from private owners, and eminent domain

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But the money goes into the state economy. And that's the point. California is providing welfare payments to many red states.

That's not "welfare" in the way you're trying to depict it.

Welfare implies that it's a bunch of people sitting on their butts collecting checks financed by other people who are working.

In the case of federal contracts and federal facilities, it's payment for a service.


For example, the EPA has locations all over the country, one of the largest being the Breidenbach R&D Center in Cincinnati... it costs hundreds of millions to operate and staff. Yes the employees who work there live in the states of Ohio & Kentucky and receive a salary, but that's not a "welfare payment". They're conducting research that's used broadly for the nation as a whole.

 

[RDKirk]

The State of California doesn't collect federal taxes. There is no mechanism for them to do this.

The only thing they could do is to physically protect individual California taxpayers when IRS-CI agents or U.S. Marshals eventually come to arrest them.

 

[RDKirk]

The only caveat would be for military and federal highways because they are essential for national defense. California has numerous military bases, and national defense is a responsibility of the federal government. Perhaps, instead of a tax, the federal government could levy tariffs on California to offset the costs of maintaining all those military bases.

You just contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next.

 

[RDKirk]

Trump's threat to illegally cut federal money to California merely points out that California would benefit by an end to transfers of money between Washington and California. Red states depend on the welfare they get from blue states.

Stupidity oscillates.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course it's illegal for Trump to hold up federal funds because he's mad that Newsome made him look foolish. Just as it's illegal for Newsome to withhold funds to Washington in revenge. Bottom line? Trump has more to lose than Newsome. But he's too dumb to have realized it.

Stupidity oscillates.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's not "welfare" in the way you're trying to depict it.

Transferring cash from the people who earned it, to people who claim to need it. Sounds like welfare to me.

Welfare implies that it's a bunch of people sitting on their butts collecting checks financed by other people who are working.

Yep. You phrased it differently, but there it is. The people of California and some other states are giving up their income to states that don't earn as much.

 

[RDKirk]

The 4th biggest economy in the world is a huge benefit to our country. I'm sure the Pacific States would vote to join Canada in a minute rather than remain in one dictatorship under Trump with misery and repression for all.

That would mean withdrawal of all federal installations, all military bases...some of their largest cities would become "zombie cities" even if the rest of the state managed well. It would mean all industry that benefits in business with the rest of the nation by being part of the same nation (rather than having to become "international") would also have to move, such as any business with major federal contracts or that depends on interstate commerce.

It's the same issues have been debated endlessly over Texas seceding from the Union.

 

[Fantine]

That's not "welfare" in the way you're trying to depict it.

Welfare implies that it's a bunch of people sitting on their butts collecting checks financed by other people who are working.

In the case of federal contracts and federal facilities, it's payment for a service.


For example, the EPA has locations all over the country, one of the largest being the Breidenbach R&D Center in Cincinnati... it costs hundreds of millions to operate and staff. Yes the employees who work there live in the states of Ohio & Kentucky and receive a salary, but that's not a "welfare payment". They're conducting research that's used broadly for the nation as a whole.

The EPA...do you mean the soon-to-be-ex-EPA?
Sounds like a lot of people from Ohio will lose their jobs. I hope that they know who to blame and who not to vote for in 2026 and 2028.

 

[DaisyDay]

Welfare implies that it's a bunch of people sitting on their butts collecting checks financed by other people who are working.

That's your inference.

In the case of federal contracts and federal facilities, it's payment for a service.

The Trump administration cancelled payments for services already rendered and refused payments for contracts fulfilled - go DOGE!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yep. You phrased it differently, but there it is. The people of California and some other states are giving up their income to states that don't earn as much.

But in the case of the examples of federal services I mentioned, they're not "giving up their income", they're paying for a service.

Now, one can debate the merits/logistics of compulsory participation in various federal services...

But that just turns into one of those debates like
"I don't agree with our military involvement, why should I have to chip in for it"
or
"Why can't I opt out of social security and just manage my own money"


And that still doesn't negate what I mentioned earlier, which was that the position states like CA and NY are in of "having a higher concentration of rich people, therefore more federal income taxes to pay" is the result of things that happened over 100 years ago (or built in geographical advantages), and little to do with the current style of governance or proving "which style of governance is better - liberal vs. conservative"

Which states contribute the most and least to federal revenue? | USAFacts

In 2023, New Yorkers paid about $89 billion more to the federal government than they received.

usafacts.org

Per an analysis by these folks (certainly no slouches)

It would appear that when looking for correlations, both between GDP and Taxation rates

It's all over the board. There's every combination of "low-to-high GDP" and "low-to-high taxation rates" plotted against a spectrum of "low-to-high federal dependency"

The "California vs. Alabama" dynamic just happens to be a convenient one progressives toss out as "evidence" of "See, the liberal way is the right way, so everyone should be doing things our way"

And as I've laid out, many of the reasons why California and NY are such large "donor states" have nothing to do with their actual style of governance, but rather a combination of fortuitous geography, and institutions that became seated in those places over a century ago.


New York was still a large donor state back when it was under Republican George Pataki (and Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of the biggest city in the state)

Likewise, California was still a large donor state in the early 2000's (an era when Richard Riordan - a Republican - was the Mayor of LA, and the governor was The Terminator -- Arnold was also a republican)

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you think the federal government acquires the land that federal facilities are on in the first place?

Combination of negotiated land withdrawals/swaps, direct purchase from private owners, and eminent domain

Most federal lands were "acquired" through treaties with native peoples and have never been disposed of. Land to build a new federal building in downtown was probably in private hands, but I don't see what land tenure has to do with the silly "balance of payments" argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

It would appear that when looking for correlations, both between GDP and Taxation rates

That would be a dodge. The question is whether a state gets more money from the federal government than it sends in. As you see, California has one of the highest disparitys, paying much more than it gets. The welfare does indeed tend to go most to states with the highest number of federal facilities. But that's states like Louisiana, not California.

Pretty much says it all. The reason is not entirely in defense facilities, although that does matter.