Why Are Southern States The Most Dependent on Government? Go Figure

This is the main claim from the HuffPo article:

The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.

It doesn't have anything to do directly with who is "on welfare," racial makeup (or the polite term "demographics") or square area, or any of the other smoke screens presented here.

Here is the original source article for the HP article: Wallet Hub - States Most Dependent on Federal Spending

Here's the main claim from THAT article:

[I]t is true that some states receive a far higher return on their federal income tax investment than others.

Just how pronounced is this disparity, and to what extent does it alter our perception of state and local tax rates around the country? WalletHub sought to answer those questions by comparing the 50 states and the District of Columbia in terms of three key metrics: 1) Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government; 2) Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue; and 3) Number of Federal Employees Per Capita.

That's how the list and graphs were generated.

Here are the sources of data:

Sources: Data in this report is courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, Transparency.gov, US Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless noted otherwise, the statistics underlying this report are from 2012.

And how was it determined whether a state is "red or blue"?

Red vs. Blue States: States as designated as being red or blue based on how they voted in the 2012 presidential election.

The bottom five States on this list "Takers" are:

Maine
Louisiana
Alabama
New Mexico
Mississippi

The top five States on the list "Makers" are:

Delaware
Illinois
Minnesota
New Jersey
Connecticut

Now those are the facts about the study.

Skymon612
www.huffingtonpost.com...

If we learned nothing else during the 2012 election, it is that some of us are makers, hard-working folk solely responsible for America's prosperity, and others are takers, who want the federal government to pay for luxuries like food and health care. What may come as some surprise is where these two warring tribes tend to live. The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.

There must be a reason that this is the case. It indeed appears to be the case.

Is this a conspiracy that the government has made the south most dependent on government?

Perhaps the low education ranking have something to do with the way they vote? There roads and bridges are also the worst in the nation. Highest poverty and arrest and incarceration rates. These red states lead the nation in all the categories you don't want...ineffective government wholesale in red states but they wish to rule us all....

Race will be blamed but if you look at the numbers whites are the majority of people getting these government benefits in red states. Im waiting for a red state government to get rid of these government programs, its will be interesting if one of these red states practices what they preach...or are they just against government programs that happens outside of there own states?

reply to post by Gryphon66


Regarding #1; tax rate has everything to do with #1 on their criteria.

If you pay 10% tax in a city and 5% tax in rural areas, the "tax revenue" is a big difference.

It makes since that states with higher taxes will generate more tax revenue/per person, and be labeled less dependent.


Regarding #2, that is exactly what I was saying, population density has everything to do with federal budget as a percentage of state expenses.

Regarding #3, That is an actual difference maker, and should be a factor in this study.


Is the article claiming the solution to government dependency discrepancy among demographics is higher taxes in rural areas, more workers or both?

And does this study provide a solution to the discrepancy, or just make someone who agrees with left ideals feel good about themselves?

If tax rate was 100% there would be no dependents according to this study, as all costs are covered by taxes collected.

What I want to know is why states with a heavy percentage of government workers in their populations aren't figured in as takers also? I mean, those people are just as dependent on government tax dollars as any welfare person ... Of course, that might make states like ... um, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Virginia, and others that are clustered close to DC a LOT less red on that neat little HuffPo map. It would also blow HuffPo's preferred narrative out of the water, and they do acknowledge themselves that if you use different metrics you get different results.

Didn't that raise any red flags to you before you posted this? It should. It means they were able to manipulate the numbers to get the results they wanted that made them happy, but that they had to admit how heavily massaged those numbers were.

reply to post by ketsuko


Oh, and we can't forget California. In Cali, you are either a welfare dependent or living on public service or in the tech or entertainment industry. There almost aren't any other sectors left in that economy ...

reply to post by seabag


Most people in WV don't vote or it would be republican. If you read the history of WV and why it succeeded from Va. you will understand that the mountain folk distrust the government and have no use for them. That being said, there are some lazy folks out there who are mooching off the system. There are also people who paid into it and need the extra help because of how disgusting inflation and everything else is.

I don't believe these stats anyway. I call BS. Other than the southern-most states(close to mexico), I would think that inner cities get most of the welfare and whatnot, and I base this on former stats that I have looked at AND by personal experience. It's considered the lowest of the low to be on welfare amongst most people I know, unless of course, the person really needs it, which in most cases, they do not.

But again, it pains me that people think my state is a democratic state, not that republican is any better(confusing statement, I know).

The way I see it, the hate that lies at the center of those little bleeding hearts needs an outlet and they have chosen Southerners and the religious (particularly Evangelicals) as their outlet. In almost any article mentioning the South and particularly in the comments simply replace Southern or Religious with black, gay, jew, or any other identifier and ask yourself if it would be published or allowed to be posted in a moderated comment section.The comment section was particularly offensive and derisive to Southerners after the UAW defeat at the VW plant in Chattanooga TN.

That being said I do like the articles in Huffpost and it's one of the sites I visit almost daily. I disagree with over 80% of the opinion there, but I do like to read opinions different from my own. The opinion and particularly the comments on Huffpost show me how far from my beliefs Democrats have moved in my lifetime, and I can't imagine throwing my support behind anyone they support.

While growing up, in the South, almost every working person I knew voted Democrat. I voted for Clinton in '96 and Zell Miller in a special election to replace a deceased Republican Senator in '98. Those were the last votes I cast for a Democrat for non-local office. I can't imagine voting for any national Democrat right now, and the huffpost is a daily reminder of why not.

reply to post by Skymon612


Well...do northerners not realize how many of there homeless come up missing? Because they tend to move south where they dont die of frostbite.

The article is just morr divide amd comquer

I have something else to add on this, after reading the HuffPo piece just a little more carefully, in seach of methodology for the result. Hmm... Interesting...

Wallet Hub tabulated its results using three metrics: taxes paid as compared to federal spending per capita, what percentage of state revenue comes from federal dollars, and the number of federal employees per capita. The first two categories were given more weight than the third.

While the rankings are obviously somewhat arbitrary -- one would get different results using different metrics -- they do broadly correspond to patterns of poverty. States like Mississippi and Alabama, which are hugely dependent on federal tax dollars to help feed, clothe and shelter their citizens, are among those with the largest deficits, in terms of what they get in federal help versus what they give back in tax dollars.

(Op Link)

I do like it when they explain where they get it from. The first paragraph covers that part. The second paragraph describes how they interpreted it to what they wanted to run a story on.

Since we're looking to highlight specific metrics, whether they directly relate to politics or not? Let me share another one. This one will offend some people. I don't care. It is the truth. It is published by the United States Department Of Commerce as a simple product of America's demographics and population distribution.

So.... take a look at this.



....and lets keep in mind some of the demographics we're singling out and advocating the dumping on with "too many" federal funds.....measured on a per capita (population based) metric. That is usually a great equalizer for a metric to use. It's not always though, and I think this case would be a place were the per capita of federal spending vs. state tax dollars is a little weak. Those who don't have to give...STILL need the same highway, security, health and other services. That's going to blow the ratio sometimes...and party politics has nothing to do with it, in my humble opinion. (Any more than race does....for that matter, but it's good to see how different metrics DO in fact, come up quite differently for suggested causes..if we choose to misuse them that way, IMO)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Your post COULD make people upset. Sure BUt then you would have to reconcile the fact that we talk about the poor in America as if we are only talking about non-white people. Words like "disadvantaged" are bantered about in relation to, typically, non-white people.

With that in mind, your post is very relevant. Not to mention a portrayal of truth to some degree.

Add to that: we have a higher retirement population as well. Far less productive, and typically on SS and Medicare.

The southern states are a whole different world. We have warmer weather, driving a higher homeless population. Northern states have been caught bussing their homeless down here. When I worked at a state hospital, we had the circuit homeless, who visisted the south during the colder months, then went up north during warmer months..

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I wonder if that one little red county on the border of NE and KS is about where Nicodemus is/was ... interesting.

reply to post by Skymon612

According to many studies, the southern states have lower average IQ's. Offensive to some, but look it up if you wish. Perhaps its just coincidence. This generally couples with lower income levels and higher use of government aid. There is also higher weather related problems with hurricanes and tornadoes affecting more southerly coastal states that result in government help.