Can blue states cut federal funding to red states?

[Marius25]

So I don't really know how this works. We all know that blue states massively subsidize red states. Red states would be 3rd world countries without money from places like California.

Why can't blue states eliminate that funding? Don't states have the right to decide where their funding goes?

[FBaggins]

1. Nope

Any other questions?

[elleng]

4. ;-)

[elleng]

2. No, states don't have the right to decide where their funding goes.

[FBaggins]

5. Nor do states really fund the federal government

The people in those states pay federal taxes.

[WarGamer]

3. No. Simply can't be done.

The closest you can get...

Is California. We in this great State have State "rules" about doing BUSINESS with States like Texas or Florida.

It cuts away income to the State.

For example... the California Air Resources Board can't take their annual "Convention" (if such a thing exists) and go to Dallas.

[GenThePerservering]

6. Maybe we can force them to

"ask nicely."

[kimbutgar]

7. I always thought they should change the laws to that states only get the funds the tax payers

Of the states put in. All those red taker states that we blue states subsidize always pissed me off. I don’t want my taxes to go to those anti abortion, anti education and anti health states.

But I know we are the “united” states but it’s still bs.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. No -

And this has been reasons for the Lift Salt Cap activism.

It literally takes money from the middle class in select blue states - and hands it over to the red states. Same tax scam in 2017 eliminated the 'workfare' clause of SNAP, TANF, financial aid for poor white people in rural areas.

Those people voted for Trump - twice. JMHO - There's a reason why- they believe they have 'earned' this money. IE -they are entitled to the earning of a family of 4 in NJ making 110K - which is only middle class. They DON'T believe in wealth taxes or billionaire taxes - they just want to stick it to people who dared to do better than them, and who believe in the right to privacy, equality, education, opportunity for all.


Basically - they hate our guts.

The GOP and the Trump Admin did this - they gave the red states these handouts as a reward for voting for them - so they could appoint three SCOTUS Judges.

Sorry - rambling - but the only way is to elect more Democratic Members of the house from Purple states and and Senators wherever we can.

It's our only way out.

[PoliticAverse]

12. Lifting the SALT cap overwhelmingly benefits the rich. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Nope - it doesn't false in NJ n/t

[PoliticAverse]

17. If you believe that then cap by income not tax paid. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

19. Nope - you've been lied to

I trust Katie Porter and Tom Malinowski - not you. You probably have a 30-50K income, live in an apartment, and live in a red state, in a red district - if you believe that.

[PoliticAverse]

21. Did you read the bill you posted? - they are doing exactly what I suggested - capping by income. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

23. I did read it - but you aren't impacted

Which is why you think my neighbors young couple - making 110K a year - should have to pay their state income taxes twice: Once to NJ (reasonable we actually do for OWN) and once to the Fed Government.

Their 9K property taxes on a 1600 sq foot late 19th century fixer upper only allows them (since 2019) to to claim 1k of their state income taxes. BTW - she's a paralegal, and he's a public works worker - didn't go to college -just a typical working class couple in NJ.

And did I 'read' the bill? I personally got that couple in front of Tom Malinowski . . . so you might say I CONTRIBUTED to the bill.

[PoliticAverse]

24. You aren't "paying state income taxes twice". You are paying state taxes and federal taxes.

> And did I 'read' the bill? I personally got that couple in front of Tom Malinowski . . . so you might say I CONTRIBUTED to the bill.

Again - the bill caps based on income not tax paid, exactly what I suggested if you don't want elimination of the SALT cap to benefit the rich.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. Porter and my Congressman, Malinowski

https://malinowski.house.gov/media/press-releases/representatives-malinowski-and-porter-introduce-salt-act

The state and local tax (SALT) deduction exists to prevent Americans from being taxed again at the federal level on income already taxed and taken by their state. That is why this deduction has been in our tax code for over a century, since the inception of the federal income tax in 1913. In 2017, then President Trump signed a tax law that imposed a $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction through 2025. This cap discriminates against taxpayers — who earn the same incomes — based solely on where they live, and punishes states where residents have chosen to pay for better schools and services with higher state and local taxes.

Specifically, the SALT Act would:

Eliminate the SALT deduction cap for single or joint filers that make under $400k;

For filers making $400,000 and above, the SALT deduction cap would start at $60,000. The $60k SALT cap would then be reduced at a rate of $10,000 for each $100,000 of income in excess of $400k.

Require all tax filers claiming SALT deductions to attest that their total assets do not exceed $1 billion; and

Direct the revenue raised by this bill to a new Medicare vision and hearing trust fund.

The Tax Foundation estimates that the bill would raise $150.9 billion over ten years compared to the status quo policy of maintaining a $10,000 cap through 2025, and then letting it expire entirely; this amount would fully cover the cost of creating a Medicare hearing and vision benefit. According to CBO, Medicare vision coverage would cost $30 billion, and hearing services $89 billion, over ten years.
Click here to read the full text of the bill.

[Ocelot II]

9. No.

[PoliticAverse]

10. How do you think they "fund" the red states - it's by people and businesses in the state

paying federal taxes (like the federal income taxe). This is a little like rich people complaining that they "fund poor people".

[Scrivener7]

18. It's a little more like normal people complaining that they fund the fascists running "taker" red

states.

But each to their own.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. Brava!

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

11. No

N/t

[Scrivener7]

14. I live in a "giver" state, and it galls me that the answer to your question is "no."

We should be able to. I'm pretty sick and tired of paying for the crap that goes on in the "taker" states.

But we can't.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. They don't pay state income taxes and/or property taxes

At a rate to sustain their own schools, first responders, local roads, etc. etc.

They weren't paying them before the SALT Cap, and they aren't paying them now. They took that money and gave it to the rich in those states to do stupid rich people stuff - like sue kindergartens for teaching CRT

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Consumer spending is not irrelevant.

There are red states I won't buy from, if I know about it and can help it. It's not much, but there are 80 million of us.

[LeftInTX]

25. No. The only thing that can do is limit state or local employees from traveling on official business

These limits are non-binding boyoctts.

I think the city of Los Angeles is boycotting Texas. All this means is that officials from the city aren't traveling to Texas on official business. Employees are free to travel to Texas to visit family or vacation.

[demosincebirth]

26. The founders gave of the states too much power.