If California decided to secede would you be in favor of it?

If California decided to secede would you be in favor of it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 74.1%

  • No

    Votes: 7 25.9%
  • Total voters
    27
#52
#52
SpaceCoastVol said:
Given the softness of the average Californian city dweller, you are probably correct. But I think the country folk there are like country folk anywhere else.

Actually in the Armageddon/zombie type scenario of the destruction of 'society' watching the cities eat each other (figuratively) would be popcorn and scotch worthy.
Click to expand...
There's been a bit of a secession movement from the NorCal country folk wanting to leave CA and the cities' control for some time. I suspect if CA secedes, NorCal would stay with the US and they'd watch from afar as the homeless folks eat the city folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and GroverCleveland
#53
#53
MurphyVol said:
they are one of 13 states that sends more money to the federal government than they receive. Last analysis completed showed that California paid $83.1 billion more in federal taxes than it received in federal funding. This made California the biggest "donor state" in the country.

There are also more than 30 major defense installations in California, incorporating all military services, more than double any other state. California's diverse network of training ranges are a national tool that cannot be replicated

The US government would aggressively fight any notion of a succession by California.
Click to expand...
So what is this mechanism where “states” send money to the federal government? I wasn’t aware of a state government federal tax burden. Are you referring to the Federal taxes paid by citizens as compared to the Federal defined benefits programs paid to citizens regardless of where they live?
 
#61
#61
GroverCleveland said:
But they’re all moving to Texas.
Click to expand...

Some but most are still there. They key is that a lot of them are not exactly in the urban areas but rather the suburbs our outside the cities. California also has very favorable tax schemes and benefits for tech companies that puts them on different playing field than other companies that California is losing (like standard manufacturing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#63
#63
volbound1700 said:
California is actually nutty in both ways. Some of the worse right wing people that I have met have come out of California. It is like the state lives in extremities.

I do think urbanized areas mess with people psychologically. The constant noise and being surrounded by people 24/7 has to impact how you think.
Click to expand...
Yeah. One of my neighbors moved in from California and he makes me say “Hold on a minute, brother!”
 
#64
#64
NorthDallas40 said:
So what is this mechanism where “states” send money to the federal government? I wasn’t aware of a state government federal tax burden. Are you referring to the Federal taxes paid by citizens as compared to the Federal defined benefits programs paid to citizens regardless of where they live? I know federal employees are required to make contributions toward the defined benefit and then once they receive them they're taxable back to the federal government so I'm not sure how you'd back that out.
Click to expand...
Well, I know Federal employees are required to contribute a percentage of their salary toward the defined benefit plan. Then, once they start receiving those benefits, they are subject to federal taxes on them. I have no clue how you wash all that out on an annual cost basis. I know there isn't an untaxed portion like there is for social security. Also, the Federal Thrift Investment Board receives management fees for managing the pension fund. They are called a "government agency" so I'm sure if that's considered that the management fees go to the Federal Govt or not.

Only 13 U.S. states send more money to federal government coffers than they receive, a recent analysis found.
Why it matters: The Trump administration's push for states to be more financially independent brushes up against the reality that many depend on federal money for everything from disaster relief to food aid.

Driving the news: Massachusetts (-$4,846), New Jersey (-$4,344) and Washington (-$3,494) had the lowest balance of payments per capita as of 2022, discounting COVID-19 relief spending, according to a 2024 Rockefeller Institute of Government report.

  • New Mexico ($14,781), Maryland ($12,265) and Virginia ($11,577) had the highest.
How it works: Each state's balance of payments reflect how much federal money is distributed there (in the form of programs like Medicaid and SNAP, for example) versus how much money residents and businesses send to the federal government (via income or employment taxes, for instance).

  • A negative figure means a state sends more to the federal government than it receives, while a positive figure means it gets more than it gives.
Between the lines: "States with large defense-contracting sectors and more military bases receive more federal defense spending, while federal wages are disproportionately concentrated within states with a large federal employee presence," the report notes.

  • That at least partially explains the results in states like Virginia and Maryland, which are both relatively high income but have lots of federal workers, contractors and agency offices thanks to their proximity to Washington, D.C.
1740361828993.png
 
#65
#65
MurphyVol said:
Well, I know Federal employees are required to contribute a percentage of their salary toward the defined benefit plan. Then, once they start receiving those benefits, they are subject to federal taxes on them. I have no clue how you wash all that out on an annual cost basis. I know there isn't an untaxed portion like there is for social security. Also, the Federal Thrift Investment Board receives management fees for managing the pension fund. They are called a "government agency" so I'm sure if that's considered that the management fees go to the Federal Govt or not.

Only 13 U.S. states send more money to federal government coffers than they receive, a recent analysis found.
Why it matters: The Trump administration's push for states to be more financially independent brushes up against the reality that many depend on federal money for everything from disaster relief to food aid.

Driving the news: Massachusetts (-$4,846), New Jersey (-$4,344) and Washington (-$3,494) had the lowest balance of payments per capita as of 2022, discounting COVID-19 relief spending, according to a 2024 Rockefeller Institute of Government report.

  • New Mexico ($14,781), Maryland ($12,265) and Virginia ($11,577) had the highest.
How it works: Each state's balance of payments reflect how much federal money is distributed there (in the form of programs like Medicaid and SNAP, for example) versus how much money residents and businesses send to the federal government (via income or employment taxes, for instance).

  • A negative figure means a state sends more to the federal government than it receives, while a positive figure means it gets more than it gives.
Between the lines: "States with large defense-contracting sectors and more military bases receive more federal defense spending, while federal wages are disproportionately concentrated within states with a large federal employee presence," the report notes.

  • That at least partially explains the results in states like Virginia and Maryland, which are both relatively high income but have lots of federal workers, contractors and agency offices thanks to their proximity to Washington, D.C.
View attachment 724109
Click to expand...
Nice copy/paste. No state has a federal tax burden only citizens do. All states receive money from the Feds. All “states” are net takers. The 13 states you referenced, many are among the highest cost of living in the US. People move to lower cost of living when they change to fixed income and leave the work force. And they’re normally on the receiving end of SS and Medicare when they do.

I laugh every time I see that ill formed argument pulled out. It isn’t due to some magnanimity of those 13 states it’s more driven by state taxes and cost of living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and hog88
#67
#67
NorthDallas40 said:
Nice copy/paste. No state has a federal tax burden only citizens do. All states receive money from the Feds. All “states” are net takers. The 13 states you referenced, many are among the highest cost of living in the US. People move to lower cost of living when they change to fixed income and leave the work force. And they’re normally on the receiving end of SS and Medicare when they do.

I laugh every time I see that ill formed argument pulled out. It isn’t due to some magnanimity of those 13 states it’s more driven by state taxes and cost of living.
Click to expand...
You won't get an argument from me that states that collect higher taxes often have a lesser need for federal assistance. That's typically just straight up math. I'd like to see some resources on all states being net takers and who are the largest and smallest takers if you have links to those studies.

As to the topic of the thread, I highly doubt that the US govt would be interested in seeing the state that pays 15% of all federal income taxes collected succeed. They'd probably be more likely to let someone like West Virginia break away.
 
#68
#68
MurphyVol said:
You won't get an argument from me that states that collect higher taxes often have a lesser need for federal assistance. That's typically just straight up math. I'd like to see some resources on all states being net takers and who are the largest and smallest takers if you have links to those studies.

As to the topic of the thread, I highly doubt that the US govt would be interested in seeing the state that pays 15% of all federal income taxes collected succeed. They'd probably be more likely to let someone like West Virginia break away.
Click to expand...
Why would they care when what they spend isn't correlated to what they take in? I mean the politicians would make your argument in public. But they don't pass spending bills based on that. They just spend what they want.
 
#69
#69
MurphyVol said:
You won't get an argument from me that states that collect higher taxes often have a lesser need for federal assistance. That's typically just straight up math. I'd like to see some resources on all states being net takers and who are the largest and smallest takers if you have links to those studies.

As to the topic of the thread, I highly doubt that the US govt would be interested in seeing the state that pays 15% of all federal income taxes collected succeed. They'd probably be more likely to let someone like West Virginia break away.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree on either points. And yeah I’m on a derail path so I’ll drop it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top