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)
edit on 20-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


, 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.