Several of my co-workers are asserting that the Red states are home to self-reliant, hard working, God fearing folks, while the Blue states are populated by heathen leeches. Hyperbole aside, one of them claims to have seen a table showing that the Red states are net payers of Federal tax dollars while the Blue states are net receivers. Of course he can’t produce the table now.
Where would I locate this type of data?
I’m not sure where you’d find this data, but my impression is just the opposite actually. I know CT and WI (both blue) are net payers of tax dollars and I’d certainly think MA, NY, RI, and CA are too.
Of course a lot of this depends on how you count defense expenditures. Much of this (certainly the current war in Iraq) would be difficult to allocate to states. Do we do this per capita? And even the money obviously spnet in one state ight properly be allocated. For example, should all the expenditures on West Point and the other academies be thought of as being expnditures allocated to teh states in which they are located?
Welfare expenditures are probably more easily allocated, but some of the Federal governments largest expenditures are farm subsidies and these mostly go to red states.
Take a look at the states that Kerry won. I’d say that the “blue” states comprise a very large percentage of the U.S.'s GDP – certainly far more than 50%. It’s quite likely that the blue states, in fact, are the tax revenue engine without which the U.S. could not operate.
Always a sore point of mine is that for highway funds there are “donor states” and “recipient states”. Why are highways in better condition in the south than in the rust belt? Well, they have much less use of deicing salts plus they benefit from taking money from the rust belt. We in the blue states have to maintain our own highways plus a share of the red states’ as well. Military bases are much more common in red country so a lot of federal spending goes that way as well.
Actually, this page http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html claims that blue states in general pay more money than they get in federal spending. I don’t know the site and how partisan it is, so take it with a grain of salt.
When you consider the State of California has the fifth largest economy in the world, I think you will find your co-workers are sadly mistaken.
How big the GDP is or isn’t may not be indicative of whether California has net inflows or outflows. The question is whether California pays more in taxes than receives in terms of government payments.
My mistake. After all, California has no self-reliant, hard working, God fearing folks. Just heathen leeches.
Using the numbers on this map or 2002 we can see that 16 of the 19 states that Kerry won rank in the lower half of this “win-lose” situation. The only states that Kerry won that rank in the top 25 in terms of receiving more than they get are Hawaii (10th), Maine (18), and Maryland (22) (DC also comes in well in this respect but DC is a very special case one would think. It obviously has huge federal expenditures)
Conversely of the 31 states that Bush won, 22 rank in the top recipient/tax dollar states.
That should please you, as a liberal. You are giving up your tax money to those who need it more.
I am certainly paying more in tax dollars than I receive in benefits. Could I legitimately complain about that?
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone complian here about this. The OP comment was a statement (which seems pro-Republican) from a co-worker and which appears to be demonstrably false.
More analysis showing the Blue states give and the Red states taketh away.
The answer is yes, in 2003 California received 78 cents in federal spending for every dollar its citizens and corporations paid in taxes. See my post #9 in this thread from yesterday for more details.
It would certainly please you, as a conservative, if, say, California raised its income tax rate by three or four percentage points (while, perhaps, repealing its state sales tax for equity’s sake), wouldn’t it? I mean, since state income tax is 100% deductible from federal taxes, raising this tax wouldn’t actually change how much Californians pay in taxes; it would just increase the amount refunded by the IRS to Californians, while at the same time putting some badly needed money into California’s coffers.
It would allow California to spend its own resources on itself, which you have to like, since conservatives are states’ righters, right?
And it would take money away from the federal government, “bleeding it dry” and thus shrinking its size, which is another conservative value, right? (Must . . . withhold . . . comment on current administration here. . .)
Surely you’re down with this, as a conservative, huh?
Could you explain a little more? Are you sure you won’t use more Social Security or Medicare than you’re entitled to? Can you definitively state that this factoid is true when you factor in your share of government infrastructure, like highways or airports? How about the money you save because of farm subsidies? Or what about your share of our military’s bills, keeping you safe because of their actions in Iraq?
Need a little more data here . . .
But the red state leeches don’t need it more. The concept of donor state/recipient state started with the Interstate construction. States like Arkansas had a harder time coughing up their share of the program. But that is done- dollars should be allocated in accordance with need and that, I believe, would make the rust staters the beneficiaries now.
Sorry about my post #15, I forgot which forum we are in.
Sorry I said 15 when I meant 14.
I’ll just shut up now.
I’d like to use this election as a chance to call the bluff of the red states. Let’s cut almost all federal programs and let the states fund projects themselves. Start by making people pay the real cost of US mail. It’s amazing that the postal service will deliver a letter for $.39 to the middle of nowhere.
Heck, we could form a blue state alliance so that some of the poorer blue states don’t get screwed. We’d still come out way ahead.
It’d be fun top put a toll gate on the west border of Penn and the east border of Illinois.
What, me bitter? 
It’d be more fun for California to add an excise tax to everything that is transported from it’s ports to the rest of the country.
As was made apparent by the national economic chaos that the CA dockworker’s strike caused a few years ago, the rest of the country would be pretty much screwed without us.
-lv
This might result in a net increase in taxes on lower to middle income Californians who don’t itemize. State taxes are only deductible if one itemizes taxes, and most non-homeowners probably don’t meet the threshold. I’m not sure what the state sales tax is and if a 3-4% increase in State income tax would even offset it.
That said, your point is taken.