Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

friedchicken_2020 t1_jcvunw4 wrote

Reply to comment by AllyEmmie in We're #3. Not a yay. by RedRipeTomato

Wow...astute comment

Any substance to this or are you just a one word wonder?

−23

Successful_Order_638 t1_jcvwgjh wrote

u/AllyEmmie is likely referring to the fact that the "social programs" you complain about are largely, if not entirely, block funded by federal money, not VT tax money.

20

AllyEmmie t1_jcvvhk4 wrote

Nope :) Strawman bullshit doesn’t deserve discussion.

5

friedchicken_2020 t1_jcvwdjt wrote

It's not "strawman bullshit" if it's true. The more social programs you have the higher your taxes are going to be. It's basic economics. I'm not saying this because I oppose social programs I'm saying this because it's reality.

6

yertspoon t1_jcw63o2 wrote

Is the amount of taxes the reason it’s more expensive to live in Vermont, or is it more the cost of living?

3

Willie_the_Wombat t1_jcx01hj wrote

Same thing, have you paid your property tax lately?

3

yertspoon t1_jcyi6ac wrote

i mean, I see how they’re related. However, I’m really just asking because the article is pretty clear that they’re not using taxes or social programs as any of the metrics, making that other guys entire point moot.

Like an article showing taxes across states would be interesting, but those weren’t the metrics in the article so IDK why that guy is bringing up social programs. Unless i’m mistaken about something?

1

mobydog t1_jcvwynw wrote

As a Pennsylvanian I can verify that's not true. We have the second highest number of retirees after Florida, we have very low taxes for retirees, and tons of programs at the county and state level.

2

VWSpeedRacer t1_jcwp1qa wrote

You also have a lot more people per square mile to share the cost of infrastructure. However, the big picture is far more complex than either my or your statements, and the average citizen doesn't want to put the effort into understanding it so they just look for a single data point that draws their desired conclusion.

5

justreadthearticle t1_jcw6zdv wrote

MA and CA have more social programs than VT.

2

inthepines3000 t1_jczbjj5 wrote

Yes. And those states have MANY more high earners paying taxes and actually some decent sized companies you may have heard of. Vermont's largest private employer is a dying remnant of IBM with less than 1000 workers. Vermont has become a rich persons playground along with a large number of borderline destitute and desperate people. With fewer and fewer middle-class in-between.

2

justreadthearticle t1_jczdt07 wrote

Yeah, MA and CA definitely have more high earners and more companies. The point is that saying that more social programs = higher taxes isn't necessarily true. It ignores factors like the size of the tax base, where state income is coming from, and the outcomes of those social programs. Many social programs like free family planning or a housing first model of treating homelessness end saving the government way more money than they cost.

1