Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RagingHeretic t1_j9s900t wrote

Reply to comment by ExpensiveSwordfish65 in [OC] National Divorce by the Numbers (Politics, Demographics, GDP) by tabthough

I support the idea of dissolving the U.S. But the GOP's inference to a smaller federal government and blue states still paying the bills for the red ones is a non-starter. We're not doing that. Dissolution of the U.S. is fine as long as us Californians are absolved from having to support parasite states like Texas and Ohio. They want independence, they can figure out how to fund themselves, but the best thing that can happen is a breakup of the country into smaller sovereigns free to govern themselves. No more federalism is something everyone should aim for.

−20

Insight42 t1_j9sdc0k wrote

Same goes for NY.

You want to leave the US? We're keeping all the money. No more funding ungrateful assholes sounds great!

11

absolute_yote t1_j9v0p52 wrote

New York is number 1 payer for the us. They take the least federal funding relative to what they take. So wtf are you talking about???

3

Insight42 t1_j9v4scr wrote

As a New Yorker my wallet is painfully aware of that.

As I said, any state that wants to leave, go right ahead - we're not paying for them anymore.

3

Torker t1_j9v9gon wrote

This math never works as simply as most assume. If you paid taxes in NY for 30 years and retire to FL, then why would you lose Medicare and Social Security benefits? If so, those retired would not be paying mutual fund managers in NY. The whole system would collapse for both NY and FL.

1

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9s9yvv wrote

My concern here is Russia and China manipulating those smaller states/unions and slowly taking over the former states of America one by one. But you're dam right about finding them. I'm also in a liberal net positive state and not interested in funding them.

2

DeepJob3439 t1_j9seckw wrote

I personally think each state should go it’s own way, but hold a defensive aid pact. Should any one of them get attacked, the other states must come to their aid. After that’s, states can form their own unions at their leisure. This will deter states trying to forcefully gobble other states or China and Russia interfering.

0

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9skzxn wrote

I think this would work until a state started to get gobbled up and enough states don't want to render aid :/

3

RagingHeretic t1_j9sadab wrote

Russia and China can't even negotiate their own wars of expansion against neighbors. There's no chance they will manage to do it here. "New America" will become a Russian ally on the North American continent...but they have no industry, no education, no public services...just guns. Pacifica, New Canada, and New England all either join Canada proper or join NATO.

−7

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9scj5w wrote

I hadn't considered them joining NATO. Seems unlikely to me though :/

4

RagingHeretic t1_j9scv9f wrote

Joining Canada would instantly give us NATO membership. No approval Turkey and Hungary necessary.

4

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sdq8h wrote

I'm sorry I thought you meant the seditious states joining NATO. I would have thought america would retain membership since were the bulk of its resources to begin with, no?

But we keep the name America, not new america, or anything else. The seditionists can find a new name.

4

Jumpshot1370 t1_j9silwq wrote

The "parasite state" (as you describe) Texas produces a whole lot of oil, agriculture, and has multiple tech companies. It ranks 15th out of 50 in GDP per capita and has a high net migration rate.

2

RagingHeretic t1_j9siy8l wrote

Texas produces almost no crops. It's soil is mostly clay. Everything you buy in the produce section is either from CA or MX. And tech company HQs...for the tax giveaways. TX has no human capital. Tesla's moving its engineering HQ back to CA from TX already. Lol

15

Torker t1_j9v9toh wrote

If Texas has no human capital, why does it have a low unemployment rate and millions of workers? Someone is paying $2000 a month in rent in Austin and they probably have a job. They are probably not all republicans either, so this whole divorce would be mess for sure.

1

RagingHeretic t1_j9vi73b wrote

The divorce would be easier than you think. You put a deadline on citizens in every region to get their affairs in order and move or accept their new passport for the country that it will become. Say, 10 years. Everyone gets 10 years to decide whether they are staying or going before the walls go up. Would there be some chaos? Sure, a little. And it would take some time for the dust to settle internationally, but life will go on. No biggie.

2

guano_guapo t1_j9srbmn wrote

This is just an ignorant statement. Texas is the 9th largest economy in the world, and Ohio is 21st, just ahead of Argentina. You’re looking at the other red states that are parasites. But Republicans are busy running Ohio and Texas into the ground.

−1

RagingHeretic t1_j9u99c1 wrote

I assure you Texas would not be able to support itself. It's culture doesn't allow it and it lacks the human capital and resources. It's got oil and gas. That's it. It's soil is unfarmable, it's mostly arid steppe. TX only has the 2nd biggest GDP in the U.S. because other states absorb a lot of the load TX would need to make up for as an independent country. Without Washington's support, TX is not the powerhouse you think it is.

3

ZombiePlaya t1_j9scy8x wrote

California couldn't even pay itself, and I looked up Texas, which has a massive surplus in state funds.

I don't live in either, but Texas does look cheaper.

−9

RagingHeretic t1_j9sdxkp wrote

Texas has some of the highest taxes in the U.S., particularly if you are middle class. Nonstate is more expensive to live in than Florida. It's weird how people think no income taxes means cheaper.

8

ZombiePlaya t1_j9sfyec wrote

It has lower state tax, looks like property is cheaper besides the property tax and, price for gas is way cheaper.

Can't really see a no income tax hurting middle class.

−4

RagingHeretic t1_j9sg8ok wrote

Their property taxes are insane...and they assess personal property taxes. You'll pay upwards of $13,000 a year on house where in CA your property taxes cannot exceed 1%. If you're RICH TX is super cheap for you.

8

ZombiePlaya t1_j9sihr0 wrote

Just looked it up and it appears to be a local county property tax the varies a lot it seems.

1

RagingHeretic t1_j9siugw wrote

Effective rate of 0.75%. You're incorrect. We tax the income high earners a lot, though, which is the correct way to do it.

4

KindlyQuasar t1_j9tnij5 wrote

I'm a Texan homeowner. I have a modest 1600 sqft home built in the 80s. I pay about $6300/year in property taxes. My effective property tax rate is 2.47%, which is considered low.

Sources online will tell you that the state average is between 1.6-1.8%, but that is because the "agricultural exemption" is used by very wealthy landowners to reduce their tax burden.

Those over 65 can "lock" their tax rate (and qualify for additional exemptions), so even if the property value doubles they don't pay one extra cent in tax --- shifting that tax burden to the younger generation, of course.

Californians pay less in taxes than Texans -- unless you're in the top 1% of wage earners, then you pay a LOT less in Texas. Source: link

1

ZombiePlaya t1_j9ttqbo wrote

From what it looks like, California and Texas have similar tax rates. It's just that Texas splits it to make up for the no income tax, and California takes it at once.

Pay now or pay later I guess, both have really close class revenues I see as well.

All I can say is that I wouldn't live in either, especially when both I hear have energy problems.

−1