Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

North Carolina next to get rid of state income tax?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,952 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:32 AM

It's a difficult proposition as a higher tobacco tax would undoubtedly effect the growers still in the state, although that number seems to be shrinking regardless. Seems to me a limited time subsidy to tobacco growers derived from the tobacco taxes or an incentive program to change what product is being grown might be an alternative. A lot of the tobacco fields surrounding the areas I've lived in the state are now growing something else.


Thank the Dems for high taxes and crazy methods for ABC stores or highway funding or how schools are doing.

With respect to the alcohol taxes, I'd never seen state run alcohol businesses until moving to NC back in the early 90's. I don't understand it except as a source of revenue for the state, but even without the ABC, there are still state taxes collected on alcohol when it is brought in to the state. Privatizing the liquor store business would create more jobs, reduce the state's expenses on maintaining these stores, payroll, purchasing, etc. and put it all on the private businessman. The state will still collect the taxes and collect revenues from the sale of liquor licenses.



#32 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,504 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:36 AM

Texas is the Saudi Arabia of the United States.

 

Florida is the most popular tourist destination in the U.S. They get more money from tourism than from any other industry.

 

NC has very little in the way of oil or gas like Texas and while we have a decent tourism industry, it is nothing like Florida.

 

All states are not equal so you cannot say "It works in state x so it will work in state y too."

 

I'm not saying it WON'T be a good thing, I just don't see how we make up for the lost revenue and don't think it will work in NC. We don't have the ability to rely on outsiders (whether visiting as tourists or buying natural resource exports) to take the burden off of residents like Florida, Texas, Alaska, and Nevada can.

 

You're also crazy if you think that wealthier people consistently purchase things that are costing several times the norm. It just doesn't work like that. Some things yes, but the majority of wealthy people are just normal people.

 

One last thing, it is not about the overall burden, it is the burden in proportion to income. Increasing the consumption tax on poor people and lower middle class people will simply push more people onto government support programs to make up the difference. They currently pay very little, and sometimes nothing, in state income tax, yet they still struggle to make ends meet. If their cost of goods goes up with increased consumption tax, they're losing ground and more will end up on welfare programs.

 

And North Dakota was flyover country until people actually started shale oil development and natural gas fracking...we could have the same semblance of that industry in NC with natural gas and offshore oil.  As for this debate, we need economic growth here in the state and the California/Texas migration of companies in the past 5 years should be indication enough that this state could benefit from that.  There may be a small transition period, but in the long run huge growth to the state.
 



#33 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,643 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:45 AM

"...the California/Texas migration of companies in the past 5 years should be indication enough that this state could benefit from that."

 

Only 2 ways the state benefits. Putting people to work in those industries and collecting corporate taxes, and with the Repubtards in office, we know the latter will never happen. So, while it may provide some benefit to the state, most of that will come on the backs of the workforce.



#34 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,504 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:47 AM

"...the California/Texas migration of companies in the past 5 years should be indication enough that this state could benefit from that."

 

Only 2 ways the state benefits. Putting people to work in those industries and collecting corporate taxes, and with the Repubtards in office, we know the latter will never happen. So, while it may provide some benefit to the state, most of that will come on the backs of the workforce.

 

You do understand there's really no such thing as a corporate tax?



#35 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,643 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:57 AM

You do understand there's really no such thing as a corporate tax?

 

In the minds of the clueless and delusional Repubtards, yes, I understand.

 

"Corporate income tax is imposed at the federal level on all entities treated as corporations, and by 47 states and the District of Columbia. Certain localities also impose corporate income tax. Corporate income tax is imposed on all domestic corporations and on foreign corporations having income or activities within the jurisdiction. For federal purposes, an entity treated as a corporation and organized under the laws of any state is a domestic corporation. For state purposes, entities organized in that state are treated as domestic, and entities organized outside that state are treated as foreign."

 



#36 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,504 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:59 AM

In the minds of the clueless and delusional Repubtards, yes, I understand.

 

So you really don't understand...
 



#37 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,643 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:01 PM

So you really don't understand...
 

 

definition above, I felt I needed to provide it for you since you obviously are unaware of its existence.



#38 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,468 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:09 PM

And North Dakota was flyover country until people actually started shale oil development and natural gas fracking...we could have the same semblance of that industry in NC with natural gas and offshore oil.  As for this debate, we need economic growth here in the state and the California/Texas migration of companies in the past 5 years should be indication enough that this state could benefit from that.  There may be a small transition period, but in the long run huge growth to the state.
 

Gas reserves in NC are incredibly low. It was known for decades that ND had a ton of shale oil, there was simply no economic way to extract it at the time. It wasn't like they just stumbled across it one day. They have a pretty good idea of how much oil and gas reserves exist in most areas on land.

 

NC's coast is rich in NG, but not so much in oil. I would not support oil drilling off an east coast state anyway. While an oil spill in the gulf is relatively contained due to relatively docile waters, oil spilled on the east coast will be picked up by the North Atlantic Current and spread throughout the oceans. Not worth the risk IMO.

 

It doesn't really take much effort to see that much of the recovery data that oil companies have given about the gulf are bullshit. Fishing yields are still down and marine mutations are significantly higher. One accident can cause significant damage and I don't want to see that happen again. I'm not a super-greeny liberal hippie, but I value our oceans. They are the most important eco-system on the planet.



#39 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,872 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 05:34 PM

Repubtards

sigh

#40 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,018 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:22 PM

I don't smoke at all and don't drink much (outside of Panther Tailgates). I was just pointing out that the high gas tax is a result if lower other taxes. I remember several years back when there was a proposal to raise the cigarette and alcohol tax rates....there was screaming that this would be unfair to the poor and muddle class.

 

Its also a result of having more miles of paved road per capita than just about any other state. 



#41 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,005 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:35 PM

Repubtards

sigh


I know right. That is so offensive to mentally challenged people.

;)

#42 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,468 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:49 PM

Its also a result of having more miles of paved road per capita than just about any other state. 

Can't remember which governor it was, but one of them had the genius idea of having a paved road to almost every citizen in NC. Millions pissed away on rural roads that service only a handful of homes. They're just now nearing the completion of that plan.

 

I imagine that is one of those things that sounds great and noble when you think it in your head, but in reality, it simply isn't a good financial decision.



#43 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,786 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 11:12 AM

We have the highest gas tax because we have one if the lowest cigarette and alcohol taxes.


And we also have ridiculously low traffic fines and a great amount of construction and alternative transportation methods that dip into the highway fund. Think about how much is going on in Charlotte alone: pressure for sidewalks, light rail extension, 485/85 interchange, redesigning uptown crosswalks, adding bike lanes, etc. Then there is the rest of the state.

#44 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,786 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 11:14 AM

Its also a result of having more miles of paved road per capita than just about any other state.

misleading.

Its miles of 'state maintained' road.
Most states have city or county roads. NC doesn't.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com