Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: combjelly who wrote (504500)	8/13/2009 1:18:49 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 1576004

And yet both Texas and Florida get less federal spending than is paid in taxes. I can't comment on FL, but in TX property taxes and sales taxes have long been considered revenue sources in lieu of state income taxes. But as I've previously pointed out, some states are going to be net recipients of federal funds, while others will be net contributors. TX and FL (and CA and NY) ARE wealthier states -- for a number of reasons -- if nothing else, simply economy of scale. I'm not sure what the point of this argument is. The meaning of it really depends on what interests someone. For example, AR pays a higher per capita federal tax burden than FL or CA. Sure we get more back, but why should we be paying more to begin with? There is a lot that goes into this. One could argue, for example, that Texas OUGHT to pay more because Texas, with so much more area, ought to have the burden of a bigger allocation of national defense costs. But we don't do that. It really just depends on what you're interested in, and you guys are selectively picking figures that bolster your argument while ignoring those that don't. Which is the way YOU, IN PARTICULAR, tend to operate.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next