undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSpooky233y ago0 comments

Not really. Flyover and southern states in particular mooch off of the productive locales.

So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.

You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them.

0 comments

gwbrooks3y ago

> So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but... (snip)

Wouldn't the most effective solution be to reduce the number of things the federal government does? Rich blue states make their choices and keep more of their revenue within state boundaries and residents of red states get to decide if they like their current choices lower (or no) federal subsidy.

Practically speaking (not politically speaking), that seems like a point the left and right should be able to agree on.

Spooky23OP3y ago

I’d prefer to live in a modern society where we get to share the immense wealth of our nation in a way that promotes the general welfare.

I’ve run into so many people in my time who’ve had to suffer in various ways because of senseless circumstances. One person lost their home due to a medical condition and the associated costs. Had it happened 6 months before his employee health plan changed, his family’s life would have taken a dramatically different path.

inglor_cz3y ago

My European experience says that even relatively small countries the size of Mississippi themselves have a fair share of folks kvetching that the richer parts subsidize the poorer parts. Few places are small or homogeneous enough not to experience that. A continent-wide country like the US can hardly escape the same.

It is even worse if there is an ethnic difference in the mix (e.g. the Flemish vs. the Walloons in Belgium).

Also, I wonder whether New York / California liberals would really welcome soldiers among them and whether the military could recruit enough people there. Amazon got kicked out from New York for being too capitalist.

It definitely seems to me that the coastal elite wants a strong military to protect their trade empire, but preferrably located far away and with someone else's kids doing the dangerous parts of the job.

corrral3y ago

A crucial (though obviously not the only!) purpose of the US military is to provide a jobs program with nearly European/white-collar-US level social benefits (healthcare, college, retirement, even housing) to people with few options. It stands to reason this means volunteers disproportionately come from states with weak economies.

anamax3y ago

> I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.

Which your area benefits from....

1 more reply

yial3y ago

I’m not sure about the wealth of the country , but many people still don’t have running water or plumbing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-generations-of...

That’s a problem that seems to Mostly being addressed by nonprofits very slowly, and not the government …

gruez3y ago

> Not really. Flyover and southern states in particular mooch off of the productive locales.

Addressed in my original comment (although it was edited in a few minutes after initial posting so I'll let it slide):

>This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.

kortilla3y ago

> I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them

Do you know what military bases do? They aren’t there to protect just a local region.

nosianu3y ago

But that's not the point. Aside from what military does when military does something, military installations are a huge factor in the areas where they are. When Trump threatened to remove US military bases from Germany - where I live - the main issue here in Germany was the significant economic impact on those local areas, often in less developed more remote regions.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-towns-face-economic-hit-should-... -- "German towns face economic hit should US troops go"

Much of the military is used by politicians as an economic tool for certain regions, independent of their fighting value.

So, you certainly have a mostly local economic impact of military bases.

https://www.areadevelopment.com/siteSelection/june09/militar...

https://www.tpr.org/military-veterans-issues/2020-06-22/texa...

OPs flippant comment reminds me of the equally un-serious suggestion I read somewhere, some time ago, that people should pay for their jobs so that it can be made visible how valuable they think a job is.

User233y ago

Your offer is acceptable.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse