Attached is a link to an article from the latest issue of Fortune Business Magazine. The article discusses the imbalance between Blue States and the Red states in Federal tax dollars paid and benefits received.

<a href='http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,781000,00.html' target='_blank'>Fortune Magazine</a>

<a href='http://www.fortune.com/fortune/pdf/2004_fortune/gue29_map.pdf' target='_blank'>Fortune Article Map</a>

After reading this article my initial reaction is that Bush is right, This Country does need a tax overhaul. Not because my taxes are too high, but one that brings my Federal tax dollars back to my State. The Right likes to trash the liberal Hollywood types, but it is their tax dollars that are subsidizing a lot of benefits for many of you. The $50B payment imbalance in 2003 for CA makes clear that things are out of control in Congress. We can stand a lot out here, Earthquakes, getting screwed by Enron with a phony electricity crisis, but if allowed to continue this injustice would be the ultimate insult.

Fine, bring the taxing authority back down to the state level. Push the decision making process down closer to the tax base. Let the state's make those kinds of decisions and leave the money closer to where it is earned.

Just don't mandate federal compliance with laws that require those states to use the taxes for something that the state did not approve.

Listen this is basically a roads issue. Federal money comes to states, in most cases, to build and maintain roads for the interstate highway system. Of course, large, mostly rural states are going to have more miles of roads than smaller, mostly populated states. California, for its size, does not have many total miles of interstate highways. There is basically only one north/south route that runs the length of the state. The east/west routes are not very long due to the relatively narrow corridors. While federal funds do go to other road systems such as U.S. highways, the interstates are the biggest capital expenditure.

Coincidentally (or not), California's famed congestion could be related to this.

why don't we just repeal the income tax system and go with a percentage tax of 22% embeded in everything. ask Rebel kev he has more info on this.

RandyMc Wrote:Listen this is basically a roads issue.  Federal money comes to states, in most cases, to build and maintain roads for the interstate highway system.  Of course, large, mostly rural states are going to have more miles of roads than smaller, mostly populated states.  California, for its size, does not have many total miles of interstate highways.  There is basically only one north/south route that runs the length of the state.  The east/west routes are not very long due to the relatively narrow corridors.  While federal funds do go to other road systems such as U.S. highways, the interstates are the biggest capital expenditure.

Coincidentally (or not), California's famed congestion could be related to this.

Sorry, but your road length to subsidy theory doesn't hold water. The total miles of Federal aid highways in California is 54,389. That is second only to Texas with 78,154.

<a href='http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hm15.htm' target='_blank'>2003 Highway Statistics</a>

At best, roads only make up small part of the imbalance issue. A quote from the article states: "The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states, plus subsidies for farms, oil, mining—"extractive" industries that skew red. There are exceptions (Texas is a loser, Pennsylvania a winner), but the map on this page shows the big picture. The heist is more impressive considering that the winners have only a third of the U.S. population."

Actually, If you look at the numbers from 1998-2002 California contributed $14.502B to the Feds in Highway tax dollars and received back $13. 956B. We are the largest contributor among the states in this category, but 1998 Federal legislation (TEA-21) mandates a minimum return to a state of 90.5% of the total dollars paid in. We actually achieved a return of our tax dollars of 91 cents on the dollar. So while we lose something there it comes nowhere close to the $50B imbalance recorded in the last fiscal year.

<a href='http://www.fundingfairness.com/article/SHARE%20Equity%20Primer.March%202003.pdf' target='_blank'>Federal Highway Funding Sources/Uses by State</a>

I think the problem lies exactly where the article says it does. Higher taxes due to higher wages, (because it costs more to live here) and subsidies to industries in other States.

Out here we have a lot of Agriculture, but subsidies in that area don't come close to making up the shortfall. Oil, we have a little of that in the southern part of the state but again those subsidies obviously can't amount to much in total. Extractive industries, well timber and mining aren't what they used to be so we aren't getting it there.

Those of you that propose a flat tax don't recognize that the problem lies with the division and the direction of the tax money not the amount we pay.

A Federal flat tax will not solve the problem for us because average incomes are higher here and the money to fund the huge Republican deficits will need to come from somewhere.

Also, Bush's contemplated consumption tax simply puts a bigger target squarely on our backs. Higher prices=Higher taxes.

No, what I want is my money back! I am tired of having my State run huge deficits because we get screwed by the Feds and Texas corporations like Enron. To quote from the article: ""the citizens of the blue states (like CA) have a right to live with clean air, efficient automobiles, good schools, honest corporations, and universal health care." We make no apologies for it, but what we want is equitable treatment.

The problem lies with the Republican Congress and this Administrations unwillingness to set a balanced agenda. The Dems don't control anything now in terms of policy, fiscal or otherwise, so you can't blame them. It is all on the Republicans watch and the terms "fiscally responsible" and "balanced policy" are not concepts they understand.

Reno79 Wrote:The Right likes to trash the liberal Hollywood types, but it is their tax dollars that are subsidizing a lot of benefits for many of you.

I love how you keep repeating this, even though it is BS. You keep harping on "The blue states support the red states" and give NO support for your accusations. Your accusations would ONLY be true if EVERYONE in the blue states voted for Kerry. The people that are SUPPORTED in the red states.....VOTED for Kerry.

We do need tax reform, in the form of a national retail sales tax. Not progressive enough for you? Well guess what, the government wasn't FOUNDED to punish the ones that are successful. Democrats TRY, they just fail to realize that is stifles growth as poor people don't create jobs.

Oh, and can the Hollywood BS. Those guys are getting tax breaks out the @@@. the difference b/t them and Conservatives? The conservatives admit it, they don't talk out of both sides of their mouths. Take a look at Kerry and his beast's tax return last year. 12% on 7 Mil?

Those "red states" are ALSO more generous when it comes to charity. If I show you the proof, will you shut up about Blue States supporting Red States? Trust me, without the blue states, the reds will do just fine.

Rebelkev;
I don't understand you. I provide links to my sources in my posts and you say I don't provide documentation. Here is a tip, the idea behind a link is that you click on it and actually READ what it says. I'm not sure why you seem to be having such a difficult time with the Blue state/Red state tax subsidy concept. The Editors of Fortune Magazine, a respected, national business magazine didn't seem to have any problem at all with it, after all, they were the ones that ran the story in the first place. If there was something wrong with the story's premise I think they would have caught it before publication. But maybe you should write them a letter and let them know. I'm sure they would be interested because unlike you, they have a reputation to maintain for factual writing. BTW, the source for the data in the Fortune Magazine article was nothing less than the conservatives favorite, The Heritage Tax Foundation.

But lets continue with your post. Bush's National Retail Sales tax idea is basically a non starter with the inital rate estimates in the November 22 issue of Business Week (another bastion of liberal thought) placed at 22%. And that was just to raise the same amount of revenue that the current tax code provides. Plus the 22% was only the Feds share, State and local taxes would be layered on top of that. Not polliticaly workable for this Republican Congress more than likely.

Now lets discuss Kerry's personal taxes, not that he had anything to do with this thread, but I know you like to bring him up just for effect. I checked his actual return, not some partisan weblog and he paid $102K or 29% on income of 346K. Here is the link:

<a href='http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/Kerry03.AMENDMENT-4.15-fed.pdf' target='_blank'>John Kerry's Tax Forms 2003</a>

Furthermore, lets look at his wife's return She paid 628,401 on income of 2,023, 596. Works out to 31%. Don't believe me, here is the link to the actual return so you can see for yourself. When you include state taxes the percentage rises to 35%. The 12% number you mentioned simply isn't true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

<a href='http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/101504_thk_tax_filing.pdf' target='_blank'>Heniz Kerry Tax Forms 2003 Final</a>

And yes it is entirely legal for John Kerry to file seperately from his wife and he has always filed that way since he has been married.

One more thing, I am glad you mentioned charitable giving because you negelcted to mention that Heinz Kerry gave $4.6M through the Heinz family charities last year. Some beast, we should have more beasts like that.

Finally in your last paragraph you tanatilize us with a vague promise of maybe showing data about charitable giving that wasn't even relevant to the tax discussion, I admire all the folks that give to charity and I particularly admire your feeble attempt at changing the subject from taxes, but let me fill you in on a fact of life. Charitable giving is optional, Paying taxes aren't.

She made over 5 million last year, don't be so obtuse.

Line 40 Taxable income $2,023,596. Fully complying with the letter and intent of the tax code. Why should she be any different than any other American. Oh that's right, she should be different because she is John Kerry's wife.

To quote a somewhat misguided conservative (you) from a few post back:

"Whats wrong, (is the tax code) not progessive enough for you. Well guess what, the government wasn't FOUNDED to punish the ones that are successful".

I suppose next you are going to tell me that she doesn't deserve all that money because she wasn't successful, after all she inherited all that money after her husband died.

However, If you will recall, it was the Republicans idea to repeal the estate tax. Along with bankrupting the Federal Treasury, it was one of George Bush's big first term acomplishments. Oh, and I almost forgot, it's not the Estate tax it's the "Death Tax" The Conservatives found that name sold better to the American public. Smart move.

Finally let me close with another quotable gem from your earlier post: "Those guys are getting tax breaks out the @@@. the difference b/t them and Conservatives? The conservatives admit it, they don't talk out of both sides of their mouths."

No, but by condeming her you are. Sorry, Rebelkev but you should "stop being so obtuse".

Let's get down to the real issue Reno, as we both agree that the tax system needs a MAJOR overhaul:

You think the blue states support the red states. "I" contend that if that is true, they only support the people in the red states that voted for the blue guy in the first place. Again, you also failed to realize that many people in the blue states....voted for Bush. I would contend that many prosperous counties in the blue states also voted for Bush. I live in Georgia and am from Mississippi. I also know South Carolina....all red states, yet have blue counties. The blue counties in these states are the inner cities. I ask anyone from other states to post their comments on their respective states and their voting patterns. I would contend that it would be the same result, SF, LA, and New England aside.