Secession isn't just about politics, it's about finance

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Seccession isn't just a political matter. It's one of personal finance. If you simply look at where the federal government gets most of its tax dollars from, and where it spends them, you realize that citizens in several states could save a bundle if they didn't have to subsidize the rest of the union.

The best clues can be found in a fascinating study conducted two years ago by the Tax Foundation -- a philosophically conservative, but non-partisan, think-tank in Washington D.C. The study uses government data to track federal taxes and spending by state.

Bottom line?

New Jersey should secede. Right now, the Garden State is getting hosed. Citizens paid in, on average, about $3,200 more per head than they got back from Uncle Sam. That would make for one heck of a tax cut.

Connecticut should ankle, too. Residents there paid in about $2,700 more than they got back. Likewise Nevada ($2,500), Minnesota ($1,900), Illinois ($1,500), California ($1,300), New York ($1,200) and Massachusetts ($1,100).

The flinty folk of "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire famously like low taxes. According to Tax Foundation numbers, they might save about $1,800 each by going it alone. Perhaps most remarkably, these states have been paying in far more than they have been getting back even while the federal government has run a hefty deficit overall.

...

"Ironically, there is a sort of red-blue divide," admits Mr. Ahern. It's because states with much higher per capita incomes pay the most federal taxes. "In states like New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, you could have fifty military bases… and there's no way you could spend enough to bring it equal (to the tax take)," he says.

If they walk, it would be bad news for the states that currently depend on heavy federal subsidies- - like Alaska, much of the old South, and New Mexico and the Dakotas. But I guess that's just too bad. You can't make Freedom Fries without slicing a few potatoes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123991102176626251.html

[Peikko 1,575]

Just suppose for one moment that any of these secession bids actually went ahead, how would a seceded state interact with the rest of the US? Would they set up borders and border patrols (not cheap), would they have to have a standing army? (not cheap) would they have to maintain their own infrastructure (I presume most interstate highways are subsidised by the federal gov?). Would they impose an import/export tax? (potentially very dodgy). Have these people in fact thought this through to a logical conclusion - that it might be cheaper to stay within the Federation?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Not only that, they lack infrastructure for immigration processing, etc...And, what about prisons? There's so many things that could cause dramatic change which makes it unbearable to even secede from the US. A single state will probably need to support it's own soldiers, international relations...it's a mess.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Not only that, they lack infrastructure for immigration processing, etc...And, what about prisons? There's so many things that could cause dramatic change which makes it unbearable to even secede from the US. A single state will probably need to support it's own soldiers, international relations...it's a mess.

It's manageable. No one said it'll be easy.

[EasyRider 3]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Not only that, they lack infrastructure for immigration processing, etc...And, what about prisons? There's so many things that could cause dramatic change which makes it unbearable to even secede from the US. A single state will probably need to support it's own soldiers, international relations...it's a mess.

It's manageable. No one said it'll be easy.

It's manageable with massive monetary damage before a state could secede successfully. It'll take years before it can completely become its own country.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

well of course, that's why the states with the most rednecks are up in front right now.

but what this article posits is that it may actually be a good idea for blue states as well... in fact it might be a better idea for us

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

well of course, that's why the states with the most rednecks are up in front right now.

but what this article posits is that it may actually be a good idea for blue states as well... in fact it might be a better idea for us

And for a multi-hued state like California, it would be wonderful!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

Isn't Barry supposed to be trans-racial? It's wonderful how the country has become even more stupidly race conscious ever since his undeserving azz took office.

[c_and_a 0]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

If it were solely about race, the Republican party would be even worse off than it is right now under Michael Steele.

Oh, that's right, there's only one kid of African American, the liberal one, and all conservative blacks are sell-outs.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

Isn't Barry supposed to be trans-racial? It's wonderful how the country has become even more stupidly race conscious ever since his undeserving azz took office.

The people voted and got what they wanted. He won. Get over it and start thinking about 2012.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bullsh!t. It's about losing power to a Black man. Plain and Simple.

Isn't Barry supposed to be trans-racial? It's wonderful how the country has become even more stupidly race conscious ever since his undeserving azz took office.

The people voted and got what they wanted. He won. Get over it and start thinking about 2012.

You mean when the world is supposed to end? America's two biggest parties, and I can't find where they are hiding the beer!

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Adding to the list

Indiana Senate Passes SR42 Claiming Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment on 4/9/09

[Texanadian 10]

I'll always have a soft spot for New Hampshire. No state income tax. No state sales tax. They vote on their budgets on a line by line basis. Their state politicians earn $100/year salary. Raising their salary would mean a constitutional vote. Nobody wants to bring that up. The state constantly ranks in the most healthiest, highest income, most business friendly, and best states to live surveys. They've turned down federal highway money in the past just because accepting it would mean having a seat belt law. No helmet laws are in effect in New Hampshire either. The state attracts people from surrounding states with their no sales tax. And they have a constant idea that making their state cigarette tax lower than all the surrounding states will bring in people to buy cigarettes. It works. They're the lowest taxed state. (Officially they're #2 while Alaska is #1 but since Alaska gets highly subsidized by the Feds while NH doesn't, I count NH as number 1 lowest taxed state).....Who is next door? Vermont which is ranked the 50th lowest taxed state. Maine which is 49th.

Massachusetts wants NH to charge MA residents sales tax when they drive to NH to buy new tires. NH isn't budging! MA also wants NH to give them the money collected. MA is weird that way. MA also voted 70% against getting rid of their state income tax last year. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...es_taxes_in_nh/

Getting back to the state secession debate. I could see some places doing it. Others I couldn't.

Texas has more fortune 500 companies than New York. They've got the agriculture, the shipping port, the large national guard, and a sense of independence even before this tea party idea came around.

Montana has always been a hermit like state. Large land, low population.

Alaska while they like to say they're self sufficient and so far from the continental US that they're practically their own country have long been mooches at the federal tax payer's trough.

California is broke beyond belief and has been for a long time. Let's face it. They have the highest income tax rates. The highest sales tax rates. The housing has always been too expensive. Businesses are moving to Nevada (no income tax) and residents are moving to Oregon (no sales tax, less crime, cheaper property) or Nevada or Arizona. They run deficits that in the past have been MORE THAN THE COMBINED DEFICITS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. This year they're giving taxpayers I.O.U's for anybody expecting a refund on their state taxes. And their debt per capita is the worst of every state. What a combo. Highest taxed and most in debt. California couldn't survive on their own.

I could see NH going on their own.

Heck, even when I lived in Canada, being that I lived out west in British Columbia, I was always more British Columbian than I was Canadian. I couldn't relate to the "Ontario/Quebec runs the show" aspect of being Canadian. We always got the short end of the stick on federal financing anyways.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

California is broke beyond belief and has been for a long time.

If they didn't have to pay so much into the Federal treasury and get so little back in return (it mostly goes to red states, as you know), would they still be broke?