Some Republicans in North Carolina's legislature have introduced a bill that will change the way sales tax is distributed in the state. Currently, it is distributed where it was collected, but the sponsors of the bill want to change it so that sales tax is distributed on a per capita basis.

Many counties will see 100+ % increases in the sales tax revenue they get at the expense of the counties that have large cities or moderately large suburban towns. Areas that are highly dependent on vacationers for their revenue (beach and mountain towns) also stand to lose a significant amount of money.

Governor McCory has slammed the legislation, calling it class warfare and a bill he'd expect to see from a John Edwards and not fellow republicans.

Interesting times in NC.

Republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. What a terrible, absurd idea.

It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

(03-31-2015 12:28 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

It really has no implications in terms of class warfare. A quick search seems to show that the state income tax rate is flat, at 5.75%. So, as I said, it isn't a class issue. If anything this is a play on consumption tax.

It is urban v rural interests.

Most Republicans just can't think outside the class warfare box and see things in any other way.

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

Making such changes is no guarantee of growth. Besides in most states the metro areas already contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the GF that is used in the rural parts of the state via the DOT, DOE and rate controls for electricity.

(03-31-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

Making such changes is no guarantee of growth. Besides in most states the metro areas already contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the GF that is used in the rural parts of the state via the DOT, DOE and rate controls for electricity.

No, but pumping money into grossly underdeveloped parts of the state isn't exactly a bad idea.

(03-31-2015 12:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:28 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

It really has no implications in terms of class warfare. A quick search seems to show that the state income tax rate is flat, at 5.75%. So, as I said, it isn't a class issue. If anything this is a play on consumption tax.

It is urban v rural interests.

Most Republicans just can't think outside the class warfare box and see things in any other way.

It's not a solid piece of legislation because the cities/counties that lose a lot of money are going to suddenly have to make that revenue up in some other way.

What is going to happen is these counties that lose out are going to raise taxes to make up that revenue. How is that fair to the residents of those counties?

Should I get ****** over and see my tax bills rise hundreds of dollars because some **** stain county out in eastern North Carolina that is already a net taker from state funds can't take care of itself? Or in a closer to home example, there is a suburban county adjacent to Charlotte that has never had any interest in being anything more than a commuter community. Why should they be rewarded for encouraging huge population growth while discouraging commercial development inside their borders? It is a county with a ton of wealth (some of the richest communities in the state are in this county), but it has very low sales tax revenue because they have never been big on allowing commercial and retail investment. It's not even a rural county (part of it is). It has 212,000 people, the vast majority residing in the western half of the county.

These are generational (and possibly permanent) demographic shifts that are taking place right now. Throwing them a few extra million dollars a year isn't going to change their circumstances.

(03-31-2015 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

Making such changes is no guarantee of growth. Besides in most states the metro areas already contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the GF that is used in the rural parts of the state via the DOT, DOE and rate controls for electricity.

No, but pumping money into grossly underdeveloped parts of the state isn't exactly a bad idea.

Deep down I don't like the idea. But have you SEEN Belhaven, NC? They don't even have a police department anymore.

It doesn't appear to be a difference in the tax rate, but merely where the funds will be distributed. I'm not a fan of it. No reason for taxes generated in Charlotte to be specifically directed to Greene or Martin county on the other side of the state. Like someone else mentioned, the general fund already distributes tax revenues across the state regardless of where they were generated.

(03-31-2015 12:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It doesn't appear to be a difference in the tax rate, but merely where the funds will be distributed. I'm not a fan of it. No reason for taxes generated in Charlotte to be specifically directed to Greene or Martin county on the other side of the state. Like someone else mentioned, the general fund already distributes tax revenues across the state regardless of where they were generated.

Somehow I still think a tremendous amount of $ is going to be wasted, either way we do it.

(03-31-2015 12:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:28 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

It really has no implications in terms of class warfare. A quick search seems to show that the state income tax rate is flat, at 5.75%. So, as I said, it isn't a class issue. If anything this is a play on consumption tax.

It is urban v rural interests.

Most Republicans just can't think outside the class warfare box and see things in any other way.

If they want to have a consumption tax, then institute a consumption tax.

Such an absurd half-measure will have negative effects and possibly lead to folks taking their business elsewhere and population flight.

(03-31-2015 12:48 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:28 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

It really has no implications in terms of class warfare. A quick search seems to show that the state income tax rate is flat, at 5.75%. So, as I said, it isn't a class issue. If anything this is a play on consumption tax.

It is urban v rural interests.

Most Republicans just can't think outside the class warfare box and see things in any other way.

If they want to have a consumption tax, then institute a consumption tax.

Such an absurd half-measure will have negative effects and possibly lead to folks taking their business elsewhere and population flight.

Yea, maybe they will move to other areas of the state. Wouldn't that just be awful?

(03-31-2015 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

Making such changes is no guarantee of growth. Besides in most states the metro areas already contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the GF that is used in the rural parts of the state via the DOT, DOE and rate controls for electricity.

No, but pumping money into grossly underdeveloped parts of the state isn't exactly a bad idea.

Giving money to turn around Grove Hill, AL isn't going to make it more attractive to businesses. If a small town has a military base or a some other large scale gov't function like a university, then maybe the state could direct businesses to locate there as opposed to more established cities (like Hyundai setting up in Anniston as opposed to Montgomery). But for a lot of small towns, getting more than the basic allocations is going to be hard to justify.

(03-31-2015 12:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.
You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.
This is a solid piece of legislation.

Making such changes is no guarantee of growth. Besides in most states the metro areas already contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the GF that is used in the rural parts of the state via the DOT, DOE and rate controls for electricity.

No, but pumping money into grossly underdeveloped parts of the state isn't exactly a bad idea.

Giving money to turn around Grove Hill, AL isn't going to make it more attractive to businesses. If a small town has a military base or a some other large scale gov't function like a university, then maybe the state could direct businesses to locate there as opposed to more established cities (like Hyundai setting up in Anniston as opposed to Montgomery). But for a lot of small towns, getting more than the basic allocations is going to be hard to justify.

Hey, I kind of like Grove Hill.

(03-31-2015 12:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:48 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:28 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

It really has no implications in terms of class warfare. A quick search seems to show that the state income tax rate is flat, at 5.75%. So, as I said, it isn't a class issue. If anything this is a play on consumption tax.

It is urban v rural interests.

Most Republicans just can't think outside the class warfare box and see things in any other way.

If they want to have a consumption tax, then institute a consumption tax.

Such an absurd half-measure will have negative effects and possibly lead to folks taking their business elsewhere and population flight.

Yea, maybe they will move to other areas of the state. Wouldn't that just be awful?

Or maybe they could not pass such stupid legislation and let people live where they want to live instead of Nanny Government manipulating the tax laws in such a way to get folks to move where they want them to live.

This is just another case of "We are the government, and we know better than you."

(03-31-2015 12:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

Making such changes is no guarantee of growth. Besides in most states the metro areas already contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the GF that is used in the rural parts of the state via the DOT, DOE and rate controls for electricity.

No, but pumping money into grossly underdeveloped parts of the state isn't exactly a bad idea.

Giving money to turn around Grove Hill, AL isn't going to make it more attractive to businesses. If a small town has a military base or a some other large scale gov't function like a university, then maybe the state could direct businesses to locate there as opposed to more established cities (like Hyundai setting up in Anniston as opposed to Montgomery). But for a lot of small towns, getting more than the basic allocations is going to be hard to justify.

But that isn't exactly going to be the outcome.

As services improve in areas around affluent areas those people tend to spread out. If you can live in a town right outside of the city in which you work and enjoy the benefits associated with living in those places then many will.

The result will just be a spreading out of the population and in turn development across the entire state.

Will some very random and isolated areas get money? Yes. But, more importantly, areas around urban centers are going to develop to a far greater degree as residents move in, set up business, commute, etc. That is where the growth is at. Is it worth it to dump a few bucks in some backwater then? Sure.

If I wanted to live in Bumf*ck, Egypt, I'd live in Bumf*ck, Egypt.

(03-31-2015 12:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:48 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:28 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It actually makes sense for a lot of states.

You have large wealthy urban areas while you still have largely destitute rural areas. The state needs to ensure growth from boarder to boarder, not just urban centers.

This is a solid piece of legislation.

So you think it's fair for people already paying a higher percentage of income tax to also be punished by paying more sales tax?

Let's not act like this is only going to affect the rich. This will, like most legislation, end up hurting the middle class more than anyone else.

It really has no implications in terms of class warfare. A quick search seems to show that the state income tax rate is flat, at 5.75%. So, as I said, it isn't a class issue. If anything this is a play on consumption tax.

It is urban v rural interests.

Most Republicans just can't think outside the class warfare box and see things in any other way.

If they want to have a consumption tax, then institute a consumption tax.

Such an absurd half-measure will have negative effects and possibly lead to folks taking their business elsewhere and population flight.

Yea, maybe they will move to other areas of the state. Wouldn't that just be awful?

People are moving to the cities. College graduates aren't going back home to rural communities in any large numbers. What is pumping money into these communities going to do other than help pay the bills for the people that are already on welfare? So far it hasn't worked and it hasn't stemmed the bleeding of rural communities. At what point do we have to just say it is a waste of time and focus on the economic engines of the state? Let the rural communities be farming communities. The commercial farmers do well for themselves, but there are far too many people just having around collecting a check every month because no company is ever going to invest money in their area.

NC spent tens of millions of dollars on an industrial park in eastern NC to try to lure in major manufacturers like Honda Jet, Boeing, or car manufacturers.

It most recently was in the running for a Boeing plant along with Charlotte and Greensboro. The state was offering 2-3x as much incentives to lure Boeing there as it was to Charlotte or Greensboro. Ultimately Boeing decided to put another operation in Charleston. Prior to that, it lost out on Honda Jet to Greensboro because Greensboro had a better workforce.

The facility in eastern NC has been a monumental failure and waste of tax dollars. Companies simply aren't going to locate somewhere that there isn't sufficient talent to do the work. When you're investing hundreds of millions, you're not going to a take a "if you build it they'll come" scenario. You need a workforce in place to pull from.


These rural counties already get a disproportionate amount of funding per capita and it hasn't changed their fortunes. A few million dollars more a year distributed to each of these counties isn't going to change things there, but it will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of property owners in the economic engines of the state.

This is not a class warfare issue but rather an allocation of revenue issue.

A "class warfare" example is decreasing sales tax at the cost of increasing income taxes (and vice versa).