What States are Leeching off the taxpayer? - The numbers.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Interesting post.

I'm curious but it seems like the states with the highest populations are the ones that receive the lowest per capita payback where as states with low populations ie. North Dakota get more back. If a state with a low population gets federal dollars to say build a highway, then it will appear like they are getting more per capita then a state with a higher population that gets similar federal money for a job.

What would the charts look like if the dollars were shown rather than the dollars/population?

California would top the charts...since they have the largest population, but they also contribute the most tax dollars...thus the need to break out the numbers on a "per capita" basis, so you can figure out what those dollars mean per person...both in tax and federal spending (dollars returned) for each state.

Earlier I linked a Brookings Institution (Conservative) doc that breaks it down even further into Social Programs and Welfare per state..per capita (which removes the population and infrastructure arguments)

1. D.C. ($6.17)

Wait what?

Just what are they doing in this city with the money?

It's a city for god sake, don't they have their own taxes?

Talk about wasteful spending.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Again...the idea that the Federal Government counts Defense Spending as a State expenditure is in no way accurate. Defense spening is it's own budget item and they don't hand those checks to states.

this should seem obvious?

What should be obvious is that the title of the study you provided is Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State

FEDERAL SPENDING RECEIVED PER DOLLAR OF TAXES PAID

Is this not clear?

Originally posted by tw0330

1. D.C. ($6.17)

Wait what?

Just what are they doing in this city with the money?

It's a city for god sake, don't they have their own taxes?

Talk about wasteful spending.

Well one thing is true...Red or Blue, politicians like their city to be shiny and seeing the homless on the street on the way to work just makes governing depressing! Yes DC gets the most per capita...go figure.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Again...the idea that the Federal Government counts Defense Spending as a State expenditure is in no way accurate. Defense spening is it's own budget item and they don't hand those checks to states.

this should seem obvious?

What should be obvious is that the title of the study you provided is Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State

FEDERAL SPENDING RECEIVED PER DOLLAR OF TAXES PAID

Is this not clear?

edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: gf

We might not be able to agree on definitions here...

"Recieved" means that the states "recieved" the funding.

The Defense Department does not write checks to states. That is Defense Spending...that is why Area 51 is not a tourist destination - at least not the inside, it doesn't belong to the State, it belongs to the Fed. Gov. US soldiers stationed in a given state do not get paid by the state, the contractors that build the base do not get a state check, they get a federal check etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Indigo5
We might not be able to agree on definitions here...

"Recieved" means that the states "recieved" the funding.

The Defense Department does not write checks to states. That is Defense Spending...that is why Area 51 is not tourist destination, it doesn't belong to the State, it belongs to the Fed. Gov. US soldiers stationed in a given state do not get paid by the state, the contractors that build the base do not get a state check, they get a federal check etc. etc. etc.

Defense spending is Federal spending. The study you presented is about Federal spending. I am impressed that you have separated two intertwined circular logics and then put them inside each other again, though.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by Indigo5
We might not be able to agree on definitions here...

"Recieved" means that the states "recieved" the funding.

The Defense Department does not write checks to states. That is Defense Spending...that is why Area 51 is not tourist destination, it doesn't belong to the State, it belongs to the Fed. Gov. US soldiers stationed in a given state do not get paid by the state, the contractors that build the base do not get a state check, they get a federal check etc. etc. etc.

Defense spending is Federal spending. The study you presented is about Federal spending. I am impressed that you have separated two intertwined circular logics and then put them inside each other again, though.

edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: fx

Federal Spending on STATES, NOT DEFENSE.

reply to post by Indigo5



LOL,

Well, since your study doesn't make the distinction we could do this all day!

Of course it is the Red States mostly getting more than they pay in back. It is quite the irony these are the same folks that whine and cry about welfare, religion and family values and lead the nation in welfare funds received , consumption of porn, and divorce rates. They like to talk about personal responsibility, as long as it is them telling someone else to be responsible. They don't like the Federal Government spending money, but forget that fact when the next big hurricane or twister rips through the region. Or that if it weren't for Federal spending they would still be riding on dirt roads and walking to the outhouse with their flashlights because guys like Newt, Mitt, Rick and Ron couldn't find a profit in getting electricity and running water to their homes.

reply to post by Indigo5

After looking at the map with the amount of welfare, food stamp recipients. I noticed that besides states with high amounts of recipients and having military bases. Another possible correlation is there isn't as much industry (manufacturing) in these states along with agriculture.

If you notice the midwestern states have lower food stamp usage I'm sure because they raise more food.

I also stand by the fact that blue states like NY and CA have the highest state taxes therefore don't need as much federal dollars. Welfare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps are state programs and the money comes from the state down to the counties.

This has got to be about the fourth or fifth time this very topic, and research, has been posted in the last few years.
Gee, the most populous areas pay the most taxes, go figure.

Ummmm.....I believe that state (and local) taxes are deductible from federal taxes. So, if I live in very high state tax California I will pay less in federal taxes because I am deducting these California taxes.

On the other hand, if I live in a state with lower local taxes, I will pay more in federal taxes.

You have to look at the total burden imposed on the taxpayer by governments. People are leaving California every day of the week - for a reason.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Regardless, I love reading stories like this because of all the conflicting stereotypes that abound. Red states are all the rich people, the 1%. No wait, they are all the poor and uneducated leeching off the govt. No no I got it, only a few really rich control all the poor. It's entertaining to me.

Nope...All of the above. The Red States have greater poverty than the Blue States, live more off the Tax Payer than the Blue States while at the same time supporting candidates whose policies would abandone them.

That is the irony I like to examine.

No irony there. The affluent people in the red states see the poverty and see people getting help (handouts) from the state. I guess many take issue with it. The blue states dont think its such a big deal.