GOP tax plan punishes people who work, rewards passive income

Thanks for dragging it back on topic!

I wonder if those property values are higher because those states historically used tax revenue to improve the infrastructure and living conditions in those states?

1 Like

I’m absolutely sure that’s part of it. Where I live you can have houses across the street from one another vary in price by $40k because of what school they are zoned to (this is stupid, but true). I’m sure the same thing is true, for states - people will pay more to live there if there are better schools, better roads, better hospitals, etc. I think the federal Republicans are actually actively trying to punish this. They are ideologically opposed to public services working for people and want to damage their viability.

Though I think @mmascan was basically right to identify population density as a factor. Less land and more people sure seems like it would mean the land was more expensive, other things being equal. It’s clearly not the only factor, but I eyeballed the urbanness of states and it certainly looks something like the states with the highest property costs.


You’re not exactly wrong on the merits of that tax expenditure, but let’s remember that these are measures the Republicans took so that they could get to minus $1.5 trillion. Later, when the economy sours (and, perversely, when the timing for it is worst), they’ll come back for spending cuts, and they’ll be targeting things like food stamps, unemployment benefits, medicaid, etc. Even if you think the politics are such that they won’t have that opportunity (let’s hope so), this political context needs to be considered if you’re going to honestly assess what is “good policy.”


Fine it’s not urban impact. I’ve got no idea what’s driving the actual housing price. But, I do know, if you price the exact same house say in Plano outside of Dallas vs a similar distance in NJ outside of NY City or Philadelphia, or in MA outside of Boston, the cost will be wildly different, with the TX one being considerably different. Put another way, for the same price you could get a hovel in NJ, a cottage in MA, and a McMansion in TX (on average before someone finds an example of their brother’s wife’s cousin that got a super deal on a piece of real estate. :sunglasses: )

I’m not looking for a cause and effect, it’s only correlation. That in general, the coastal states seem to be more expensive for housing and they also run more blue. Neither causing the other, simply that they happen to correlate.

So, I suppose it’s possible that it’s only a correlation that the plan seems to impact Blue states more than Red states and not causation. We’ll never know…

Locally, I’ve seen that same $40K by school district in the same town. It’s uncommon, but does happen.

More often, it’s between towns. Last time we moved, there was a $100K difference for essentially the same house 5 miles apart. And, if we were able to go another 5 miles farther way, it would have dropped another $100K. At some point, the extra commute time is to much, we ended up in the middle area. But, couldn’t make/justify the spluge for the shorter commute in the closer town.


Because money is speech now.

So when they start arresting people for publicly disagreeing with the government, the charge will be bribery?

1 Like

Could be! It’s a brave new world!

Just like his presidential term, hopefully.


I’m afraid I don’t have high hopes for the midseason replacement either.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.