The Makers and the Takers

There will be, in every society, those who create and those take. Due to the semi-socialistic nature of how our Federal tax dollars our disbursed what has arisen is a disproportionate amount of income tax from states that have a more productive economy and financially successful citizens is taken and given to states that have poorer citizens and weaker economies.

While the standard trope is that the Makers are always states that vote Democrat while the Takers are all Republican is actually not 100% accurate the higher percentage of takers are Red states but there are however mooching Blue states while there are also making Red states.

Is your state a maker or a taker? Let's find out.

The top ten states that are net contributors using the most recent data from 2016, paying more in taxes to the Federal Government than they receive, in descending order are (with the past thee Presidential votes in brackets):

• Delaware (D/D/D)
  
• Minnesota (D/D/D)
  
• Illinois (D/D/D)
  
• Nebraska (R/R/R)
  
• Ohio (R/D/D)
  
• Kansas (R/R/R)
  
• New York (D/D/D)
  
• Colorado (R/D/D)
  
• Utah (R/R/R)
  
• New Jersey (D/D/D)

The top ten states that are the largest recipients of Federal tax dollars ranked from largest recipient down are:

• South Carolina (R/R/R)
  
• North Dakota (R/R/R)
  
• Florida (R/D/D)
  
• Louisiana (R/R/R)
  
• Alabama (R/R/R)
  
• Hawaii (D/D/D)
  
• Mississippi (R/R/R)
  
• New Mexico (D/D/D)
  
• Kentucky (R/R/R)
  
• West Virginia (R/R/R)

There were a few surprising and shocking numbers. The one that jumps out immediately is South Carolina, the wellfare queen of the Union, that gets nearly $8 back from the government for every $1 they contribute. Hopefully every one of its residents is driving a BMW and drinking Dom Perignon with all those mountains of cash flowing in.

Another oddity is that favorite target of abuse for its supposed taxation, California, is not in the top ten for either category, coming in at a net contributor by a very small margin and the closest to par in the rankings. And par is where we should all be in a truly non-socialist economy, right?

North Dakota, benefitter of the fracking boom is another mooch getting over $5 back for each dollar contributed. Why are we paying you North Dakota? Use your oil money you cheap bastards.

Florida, with all it's retirees, and poltical flip flopping, is another drain on the Union, getting four fitty so all the blue hairs can get 5:00 dinners on our dime. Make sure you tip well you cheapskates.

Poor little Delaware, corporate tax haven for the country, gets back a measly 50 cents for every buck they mail in, I'd be pissed if I lived there.

Ultra-Red States Nebraska and Kansas are also getting hosed, don't you know you're supposed to be glomming from the Fed's teat you right wingers?

Colorado and Ohio, both with the same voting record, except for weed of course, are both net contributors. Make up your mind, are you Republican or Democrat?

Perhaps it's time to look at how our Federal Taxes get sent out to the repsective states and set a cap on how much of a net contributor or net consumer each state can be permitted. Why should one state get fat on another state's hard work? This is AMerican, goddamn it, and we should keep what we earn. Right? Right.

So no matter if you live in Moochabama or Illannoyedthatyouretakinmymoney we should all reflect on how our bloated and inefficient Federal Government effects tax policy that favors some citizens at the expense of others.

Oh, and you states with your hands out, at least send us a fruit basket or something.

It seems there more than one billion ways to divide your society, and people seem to find and spread them all.

South Carolina, get off my lawn; you can't afford to live here.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
It seems there more than one billion ways to divide your society, and people seem to find and spread them all.

In this case it's trillions.

The federal government needs to have about 80% of its payroll and infrastructure abolished and moved to the states. Entire agencies. Im think less than 20k federal (non military) employees

I bet the Democrat metropolitan areas are the main problem and not the states as a whole.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

I bet the Democrat metropolitan areas are the main problem and not the states as a whole.

It's that simple, huh? If that's the case why is New York a net contributor?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The federal government needs to have about 80% of its payroll and infrastructure abolished and moved to the states. Entire agencies. Im think less than 20k federal (non military) employees

I believe the analogy is drowning it in a bath tub.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What a nice thread to make Republicans feel better about having their hands out so much. LOL!

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
What a nice thread to make Republicans feel better about having their hands out so much. LOL!

Did you look at the data? There's mooches on both sides. That's the problem.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not a problem for me. Maybe for you. I really don't care. We waste all sorts of money. So what difference does it make?

My mantra, as you probably know, is spend, spend, spend, and make YOUR kids pay for it. Why should I not live a life better now, and they can pay for it later.

And thanks to the Republicans, that is exactly what is happening. Good for me!

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
And thanks to the Republicans, that is exactly what is happening. Good for me!

It's not a partisan spending problem, it's a bi-partisan spending problme. Both parties spend money like drunken sailors.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't care about the spending.

a reply to: MiddleInsite


I get that. The point of the thread was to show it was systemic and not party-related.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What a nice thread to make Republicans feel better about having their hands out so much. LOL!

Speak for yourself. I'm Kansan born and bred.

a reply to: ketsuko

I did speak for myself. It's an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: ketsuko

I did speak for myself. It's an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

And you should be concerned by the spending. We all should. All of our governments are busy spending money they don't have and spending it trying to cover promises most of them made in getting elected.

Most of it is stuff that isn't necessary or was never the intent of the original framers of the government, and for every dollar they spend, it places a bigger burden on you, me, and generations to come. Of course, if you don't have a kid, generations to come might not matter to you, but as a parent, it does very much matter to me.

a reply to: ketsuko

Please don't tell me what should concern me. It doesn't because I know YOUR kids are going to pay it back, not me. You fix it if it's a problem for you. It's not for me. Spend, spend, spend. I need new roads, tunnels, bridges. I need more tax cuts. And that's EXACTLY what the Republicans are giving me, and then they are going to give YOUR KIDS the bill.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: ketsuko

Please don't tell me what should concern me. It doesn't because I know YOUR kids are going to pay it back, not me. You fix it if it's a problem for you. It's not for me. Spend, spend, spend. I need new roads, tunnels, bridges. I need more tax cuts. And that's EXACTLY what the Republicans are giving me, and then they are going to give YOUR KIDS the bill.

And that's exactly the mentality that gets us into this.

Everyone wants, wants, wants ... Fine if you want to keep your money you earn. That's the way it should be. You want roads and bridges? That between you and your local or state government, and not something I need to worry about over in my state. It's why we have 50 different states with their own governments.

You want a new municipal pool? That's not something your local Fed Rep should be slipping into a Fed Omnibus. The Fed burden should be light enough that your little community of Podunk, CT, ought to be able to decide if they want to create a municipal project -- some short-term bonds -- to pay for it.

But because nearly everyone has your attitude, the Feds take, take, take and reshuffle from the top down. Then the states scrape up crumbs, and there's nothing left for local.

And everyone has to bow and scrape and hope the Feds leave enough or their guys in Congress are adroit enough to slip their local pool into an Omnibus. And lots is wasted on things like yak herding in China which benefits you or I not at all.

a reply to: MiddleInsite
I can’t argue about that. But it would be better to just keep that opinion to yourself. But thank you for sharing. It was insightful to say the least.