Maybe if residents of states recived

[kacekwl]

their benefit distribution from the federal government based on how their elected representatives govern and vote. They may change how they vote when they realize that only Wal-Mart, Amazon, and fossil fuel billionaires get the pot of gold from Washington.

[pwb]

1. That is sort of the pukes secret.

They vote against things but their people still get the benefit. Vote against and your state gets nothing sounds good.

[MichMan]

2. Should the same also apply to taxes ?

Only those states whose representatives vote for tax increases have to pay them ? Or any tax cuts for that matter as well.

[kacekwl]

3. Yes, that's the point.

If their rep votes for giant tax cuts for the rich they unless they are rich vote them out. And vice a versa.

[MichMan]

4. Well I was personally referring to the increase in the standard deduction

Since I haven't itemized in many years, my taxes went down considerably after the standard deduction was increased so much.

Given your position, only residents of states whose representatives voted for it should receive the higher deduction. Residents in the other states that voted against it would get the lower amount.

What happens when a state has one Senator voting one way and the other opposite? Does it also vary from one house district to another in the same state?