So did everyone pay their taxes?

I did. Got a big refund from the Federal government. But owned NY state about the same amount as the refund so I'm a bit bummed at the moment.

What really bugs me about this is that NY state gets about $0.79 back from the federal government for every dollars its citizens pay in federal taxes. Thus, necessitating higher state taxes. Yet states like Alaska gets $1.87 back, Mississippi gets $1.77 back, New Mexico gets $2.00 back. These states all have low or no state income taxes. So my taxes are subsidizing low taxes in those states. There is something very unfair about that.

RI tax day got pushed back a month due to flooding. I'll probably get it done this weekend.
Lazy. Expecting a good check. Just lazy.

before the storms, so I mailed that one, the state one I haven't done yet. Maybe I'll get it done this weekend.

:eyes:

:)

:wow:

Just because the paycheck or project isn't in your state, doesn't mean you don't derive benefits from those spent dollars in other states. That whole concept of "what we get back" is a concept that is related to "bringing the bacon home". And remember, the money spent on a "big dig" in Boston is used basically by the people of New England, but a National Forest in Arizona is used by folks from all over the country, but is considered money "coming back" to Arizona.

Federal money is used to fund things for all of us to some extent or another. The state in which it is spent has little to do with how much the state does or does not spend (or tax).

it is also true that in many of these states they don't provide some minimal essential services to their people. Thus, the federal government has to provide those services. So they get more back from federal taxes while other states who tax their people higher to provide those services get back less.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of. Federal assistance programs are often funneled "through" the state (medicaid comes to mind). State money is required to "support" these programs. And the states constantly complain about "unfunded mandates". I can't really think, off the top of my head, what state spending deficiency would get them "more" money from the feds. Often the reason that you see these variations in "what the state gets back" is because the state has such a small population, and a small economy, that they don't generate alot of taxes. But almost any federal installation, or project, is going to flow alot of cash into the state.

If anything, it is yet another example of the extreme population disparity in this country, and the conversely absurdly large political influence that small populations have, at least in the senate.

education, infastructure, etc. and receive federal money to bring them up to minimum federal standards. But it isn't only due to these states having small populations, they also have low state taxes. Texas is the second largest state but still gets over a dollar back, while New Hampshire is a very small state but only gets $0.67 back. What's the difference there? Texas has no state income tax and New Hampshire does.

Look at the cost of living, or the median salaries, those kinds of metrics. They are low. Texas is a HUGE state with a population denisty that is relatively low, and yet between border issues and military bases, they have alot of federal activity.

And federal assistance funds are required to have some "matching" funds, although not dollar for dollar. None the less, I'm dubious that the discrepency you are observing has much to do with local revenues, as much as it does the local economies.

But the one pattern is that most states with low or no state income taxes are getting back more money from the Federal government than states with higher state income taxes. That is the pattern. You may want to deny it but it exists.

Is the issue that they get "too much money" or that they "generate too little federal revenue". There are two parts to that ratio (three really) and any one can cause it to exceed, or go under, unity.

generate plenty of federal revunue which they get all back.

Lots of congress critters, and a few concentrated areas of population. I'd bet alot of the dollars go towards border patrol activities. Alternately, with the Johnson Space center, they get some cash there too, not to mention the various universities. They'd probably complain about a dirth of interstates. But really, other than concentrated areas of populations, I'd bet the average wage is pretty low.

It is the overall pattern. Most of the states that get more back have have low or not state income taxes, while states that get back less have higher state taxes. So the states with the higher state taxes are in effect subisdizing the ones with lower taxes. And I'll point out that most of those states are red states with Republican Governors who run around proclaiming how their states are such a great example of how successful they are because of low taxes when the truth is their low state taxes are really being paid for by blue states with high state taxes.

The correlation you've found basically is that states with low population densities (outside of major urban areas) have low tax rates. The more densely populated areas have higher tax bases (or at least states with more urban areas). That doesn't mean that we are "in effect subsidizing" them. It's possible I'll admit, but I'm just not sure anyone has taken pains to demonstrate as such. What it correlates well with however is that the GOP is becoming the party of rural America. A trend that doesn't bode well for them.

I think your whole low population density arguement is BS because there are blue states with low population density that are getting back less from the Federal government and have higher state income taxes. But if you want to spin for the GOP, that's up to you.

So I don't agree with your premise and so I'm a GOP shill? Wow. You think highly of yourself.

But it wasn't so much the disagreeing rather than the BS obfuscations. Yet the fact remains that GOP Governors like Sarah Palin, Bob Riley, Bobby Jindal, etc. are running around claiming that their states are so successful because they have low state taxes while hiding the fact that they are receiving almost double from the Federal government than they pay to the Fed. and are in effect being subsidized by states with higher state taxes. But if you want to continue defending Palin, Riley and Jindal, go right ahead and do so.

Their states aren't doing so well. And their low taxes aren't generating the kinds of economies they want and need. Which results in lousy returns to the Federal government. Which means the ratio of returns to receipts will favor them. That, however, doesn't make a case for them being "subsidized" by the fed. I live in Florida. They keep cutting taxes and it doesn't improve anything. So they cut them some more. It doesn't improve the economy, and in fact it doesn't generate greater federal dollars. It does improve the ratio however, because their citizens make worse and worse salaries.

47% of Americans pay no income tax at all? Thus, necessitating higher taxes on the other 53%. Same idea.

The bottom 80% own 7% of US wealth and 15% of net worth.







A bit too much bloody perspective. -David St. Hubbins

If a person who has more should pay more, shouldn't a state that has more pay more for the benefits they get?

The average per capita Federal tax burden is $7,940, one of the highest in the country. Plus New Yorkers pay high state taxes as well. But New York only gets back $0.79 for every dollar its people pay in Federal Taxes.

Those who pay in more should get more, and those who pay in less should get less?

Too late to edit but I thought I'd put this in before the grammar Nazis came along.

Should get back an amount equal to what it's citizens pay to the federal government instead of having to subsidize red states who's local governments have low or no state income tax.

Is all the state tax money from NYC going to only NYC, and state tax revenue collected in other localities returned to those specific areas? Does all the state tax collected in Plattsburg, Watertown and Orchard Park go back to those localities, or does the state collect more money in Westchester County (for example) than it returns to them, and spend more money in the Bronx (for example) than it takes in?

I'm saying that I should not have to subsidize people living in Texas, which is an affluent state, not having to pay any state income tax because they get a bigger share back of Federal taxes than New York does.

Some localities have higher local taxes than other, and sometimes those localities receive a higher portion of the state income taxes?

In either case, Texas also pays in more than it gets back, so someone in Texas isn't coming out ahead either.

Here's a list I found with the ratio of federal taxes collected and distributed. I'm not familiar with the source, but this sort of stuff tends to be repuke leaning, so I'm not sure how accurate this info really is.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Texas, Florida, Washington State, and Nevada have no state income tax and are also paying more in Federal Taxes than they get back. Wyoming, Alaska, and South Dakota have no taxes and get more in federal revenue than they pay in.

Now Florida gets more back, so does Texas. But the point is not cherry picking some individual states, it's looking at the overall pattern. Most of the states that get more back have have low or not state income taxes, while states that get back less have higher state taxes. So the states with the higher state taxes are in effect subisdizing the ones with lower taxes. Thus making it harder for those with the higher taxes to attact business and grow their economies.

I was looking all over for something more recent and from a known source. In any case, while I agree that the wealthier are subsidizing the poor states, this happens all over. Richer areas in NY pay more in taxes than they get back, poorer areas in NY get more in state funds than they pay in. It happens not only on a national/state scale, but on a state/local scale as well. Should all the state tax revenue collected in Westchester county (for example) be spent in Westchester county? Should areas with lower local taxes within the state have to raise their taxes so they don't need as much state money?

Although we're talking about states here instead of individuals, my freeper brother makes a very similar argument.

It is not a rich state vs. poor state issue. It is a blue state vs. red state issue. The states that are getting back more, thus having lower state taxes, are typically red states while the states that get back less, thus having higher state taxes, are typically blue states. Then you have GOP governors like Sarah Palin running around saying how the success of their states prove that lower taxes it the key to that success when the truth is they are being subsidized by states like New York, California, Massachusetts, etc.

Subsidies are okay, but it's unfair that one group of people is subsidizing another group of people with different political leanings. You can say it's not a "rich state vs. poor state" issue, but the aren't most of the red states also poorer states? And those states are taking for granted the support we provide them.

to subsidize another group with different political leanings. But it is wrong for the second group to lie about being subsidized and use the advantages they gain from it to politically and economically attack the group that is subsidizing them.

but I've heard freepers make the same argument on a rich versus poor basis.

The poor aren't going around saying, 'Hey look at how successful I am which proves my theories on taxes' while hiding the fact that they are being subsidized.

The poor are out there taking the subsidies, blaming the wealthy, and working (and voting) towards punishing "the rich" for screwing them over. Essentially, it's the exact opposite, "Look how unsuccessful I am, which proves that the system is unfair" while hiding the fact that they are subsidized and the system is helping them. Being tax day yesterday, I got this whole rant from my brother on it. I'm not saying I agree with that assessment of the situation, but that's what it is.

Just because a freeper says somethng doesn't make it true.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

over 5 million jobs have been lost since the recession officially began. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. That means the greater share of wealth exists at the top. Someone who is not working still pays sales tax..state tax..etc. but


Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36498521

edited for mispelling

We see right through Luntz's talking points because we deal in FACTS around here, not regurgitated fallacies.

...so, no.

is either unable to afford food for their families or just barely scrapes by and people like you complain that they aren't paying their fair share. I have no problems paying more so that those families can eat.

AND that with that small income, they DO have to pay social security, medicare, property, and sales taxes.

Tell you what, would you like to trade places with someone who pays no income tax?

47% pay no FEDERAL income tax...they may well still be on the hook for state income tax, if their state has one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then you wouldn't have to pay taxes either.

And General Electric paid...wait for it...$0.00.

What's your point?

I'm self employed. It sux.

Yes ney pay-in states are subsidizing net pay-out states at the Federal tax level. Usually this is a function of wealth, population density and military installation density. Emptier poorer states need more road help, etc, and have more empty space to put in AF bases etc.

However that's not the reason state taxes are high or low. TX for example has no state income tax and is a net pay-in state. State taxes go towards different uses than Fed taxes, and are more driven by amount of state employees, levels of government etc (and I am sure I don't need to tell you of the mulrtifarious and redundant levels of goevrnment that can be found in every NYS jursidiction from pissant burgs in the middle of nowhere to NYC itself).

Each of the nine states that have no state income tax belong to one or more of the above categories. It isn't the services they provide. It is either another source of state income (oil or tourism), or so few people the state would never collect enough money to pay for anything anyway and end up living on the federal dole instead.

I don't care how much of my tax money goes to New York or Alaska or comes home to Michigan. I just wish my tax money wasn't being burned up in Afghanistan and Iraq.

:hi:

I have no problem with that. I'm glad I didn't end up floating the Feds a 12 month, no intrest loan this year.

We are pouring it into the home remodel :)

Had all new windows put in, two new french doors, and are starting on the floors this weekend.. (getting rid of the icky tile in the house & I am leaning toward marble..nothing fancy..just a nice shiny floor)

then we rip down two walls & gut the kitchen :scared:

If not..... nope. :smoke:

California changed some things so I had to pay some which is unusual. In the end it was a wash compared to years past.

but to be fair, my withholding also dropped by about 1/2 from the previous year.

like a few others we got a bigger refund (a little bit) than last year. Sorry you have a state tax. That does sux. You're right about the nanny states.

Got the biggest refund I'd ever received due to the new student credits.

But it wasn't nearly as bad as we thought it was going to be and that made dh very happy. We do try to keep our returns as close to zero as possible, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Thought it woud be thousands but we ended up paying hundreds, which is OK by me.

:woohoo: :bounce: :party: :applause: :woohoo:

We're buying new porch furniture and holding the rest for any future home repair bills...fearful of needing a new roof soon, argh...

Paid more this year than last. Luckily, I'm getting a state refund, so it won't be too painful.

just have them withold more each paycheck. They'll do it. I don't advise it. I always shoot to owe them money.

I should pay them the $$Thousands I owe now or if I can earn more in interest in the Stock Market than I would have to pay out in interest and penalties to the Govt. for paying them late. Hmmmm.....

...and I'm 6'2".

We always have to pay the local so we wait until the last day.

We try to get it done as soon as all the necessary paperwork has arrived; I don't like it looming over my head and breathe easier when it's all done.

Like others, we got our biggest refund ever this year - mostly because we had to pay quite a bit last year and changed our withholdings, but also thanks to the MWP credit. I try to shoot for as close to zero as possible.

Ha ha, they're hilarious.

The "refund" itself doesn't have anything to do with the taxes, only that you overpaid throughout the year. Ideally you shouldn't want a refund so you can use your money during the year rather that letting the govt. hold it interest free.

we'll call that interest.

Single and renting means pay up.

i've filed non residence returns in mississippi any number of years and their state income taxes are no fucking joke

mississippi gets back a lot of federal tax money because it is one of the poorest states -- before casinos, there was actually an area of mississippi so poor it was called this country's little ethiopia because of the hunger there

there is something v. unfair about lumping in the poorest and most helpless, some of the truly impoverished of the mississippi delta and lumping them in with some rich artists not paying tax in new mexico...

or maybe your info on new mexico is just as bad and shitty and wrong, who knows? i sure don't and i doubt you do either

We owed over $3,600 federal and are getting back about $1600 state.

My husband and I make a good living combined, and I have no problem paying taxes. We have been fortunate and appreciate the fact that our jobs are stable.

and a tiny refund from the state.

A whopping $17 from Illinois. Wooo.

Got a bigger one from the Feds because I was a first-time homebuyer last year.

I'm a western stater, so of course I have a different take on it (my state does NOT get a huge differential back). However, almost literally in my backyard is a National forest bigger than many Eastern states. They (Fed licensees) log and mine that land and the money goes into the U.S. treasury--what % of natural resource income does NY contribute? The feds actually own more of this state than the private sector and state governments combined. So, yeah, seeing as the government owns half my state, I expect them to take care of it.

I truly don't know where the "fairest" place to be is, but that is really a trivial point. The point is that YOU don't pay taxes to THEM--WE pay taxes to (and for) US. We're a nation, not a bunch of city-states. There are times when the money is going to be invested/spent in other areas, but they are all OUR areas.

and getting back a lot more than they payout in federal taxes enabling them to have low or no state income taxes while other states get back very little forcing them to have high state taxes.

but had to pay double that to the state :(

Got a big one. I have a good accountant.

Should get a modest refund which I will use to do my part to stimulate the economy.

Twice as large as anything I have ever seen before. Of course, I did a qualifying energy upgrade on my house and sent my daughter to college, and took both tax credits, but I was getting a nice refund before I added these in.

The refund was large enough to fully fund a very nice vacation this summer, at least by our standards.

unfortunately your complaint sounds too much like "I don't want my hard earned money going to those that don't deserve it" ...coming from those loonies in the tea party.

I am on disability, so it's a fixed income. And with that I am still in the realm of 150% of the poverty level. So, no taxes. I did read somewhere, don't know exactly where, that even if I don't have to file, I might want to, as there is a possibility of some sort of refund or cash back I could be getting. But since I am not familiar with it, I hesitate, and probably won't get it done.