As someone who left CA and ended up in TN - yup.
No income tax, better internet, better entertainment. I’m frankly confused how long CA will continue towards its own destruction.
No income tax, better internet, better entertainment. I’m frankly confused how long CA will continue towards its own destruction.
A casual search shows that Tennessee receives USD 1.46 for every USD 1 it sends to the federal government. The rest of us seemingly pay for Tennessee's refusal to increase personal income and peoperty taxes.
All infrastructure requires maintenance and the statistics I get hung up on is that it costs over a million dollars to pave one lane mile of road. This is something we need to pay every thirty years. Think about how much road we have in the US or in your case just Tennessee. Do you think Tennessee can pay for all public roads (other than the interstate) with state and local money? How do you avoid taxes from going up while also avoiding infrastructure from crumbling?
That said, they don’t offer much (which is fine). Infrastructure is not really expensive compared to social programs. Maintaining infrastructure is often way cheaper than building new infrastructure. Where as maintaining social programs are massive year-over-year.
Look at California's expenses: https://open.fiscal.ca.gov/transparency.html
Most is healthcare (>=50%), followed by education (~25%)
Compare that to Tennessee https://www.tn.gov/transparenttn/state-financial-overview.ht...
If you look at Tennessee education is (>=40%) and healthcare is second (~25%).
From what I’ve seen the massive church network in TN combined with targeted social programs work well for TN.
That said, often those funds are allocated based on defense contracts, military bases present, assistance for the poor, education grants, etc. for instance, the federal government grants funds for roads based on drinking age (among other things).
Even if that was your argument, California is granted more than it pays in.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid...
Texas actually has more of its budget come from federal funds than from Tennessee (and New York only has 1-2% less than TN).
The Tennessee model works because they don’t spend as much money, so they tax less.
This is accounting. The production of one provides for the other.
> California is granted more than it pays in
Whoops, my bad. New York and New Jersey, then.
> Tennessee model works because they don’t spend as much money, so they tax less
This is part of the story. Without those other states wealth redustribution, Tennessee would have to tax more or provide less.
Again, that’s not how the system actually works. The federal government quite literally prints the money. No work was done, no taxes collected, funds are just handed over. Later taxes are collected and the “accounting” is “done” (ie bonds issued for the deficits)
The US government is currently running a >$1T deficit per year (more than all states receive combined btw).
> This is part of the story. Without those other states wealth redustribution, Tennessee would have to tax more or provide less.
It’s not part of the story really.
All states effectively receive 30-50% (with TN right in the middle at 40%) of their state budget from the federal government. It’s kind of a moot point because they receive those funds often for unrelated things (such as military bases).
Every state simply wouldn’t provide services that aren’t being funded. I really don’t see the argument, particularly as many of the reasons states receive these funds are because the federal government provides them (many are healthcare services, distributed based on population). New York may reject some funds based on the desire not to issue some program, for instance.
I think the fact it’s assumed California pays more into the system (without research) is just highlighting the lack of knowledge on the topic.
It’s not really highlighting how TN doesn’t work, when NY received a similar percentage of funds for their states budget (~40%).