Right now, Mississippi is rated as the 9th worst state for infrastructure (cite)
They clearly need money for repairs, but with unemployment at 10% and median household income only $36,646 they hardly have the ability to generate revenue. The state also has the greatest percentage of citizens living below the poverty rate, 21.9%, and the lowest GDP per capita, $24,293 (cite)
Meanwhile, Wyoming has an unemployment rate of 6.8%, median income of $52,664, and a GDP per capita of almost $40k. They are in a much better position to pay more in taxes, which could go towards road improvements in Mississippi.
For debate: Should the people of Wyoming pay for infrastructure projects in Mississippi?
Before I answer your question, I’ve got another question: Should the people in the eastern half of Mississippi pay for infrastructure in the western half of Mississippi? And should people who live on Elm Street pay to maintain Maple Street?
Also, infrastructure projects in Mississippi create jobs in Mississippi, which lowers unemployment and increases wages and GDP, which enables Mississippians to pay more taxes to help finance projects in other parts of the country. Win-win!
Wyoming and Mississippi use the same currency and are much more econonmically linked than say Wyoming and Manitoba. If Mississippi is doing bad it’s going to affect Wyoming, New York, California, Kansas, Hawaii, all the lands of the United States.
Wyoming has an interest in in chipping in with the other 49 states to help Mississippi out.
Further a stronger Mississippi means if Wyoming gets in a rough patch Mississippi is in a better position to help out.
Assuming both entities realize they have a mutual interest in not trying to screw each other it’s basic Game Theory. The states are stronger when they work together. It’s why the Articles of Confederation were complete fail and the Constitution thrived. We set up an institution devoted to forcing the states to work together.
Just so we are all clear on what you are asking; please provide more detail on the mechanism you think could compell Wyoming citizens to pay for infrastructure in Mississippi. Would it involve black helicopters and chemtrails?
It depends on what your assumptions are about federalism. If you’re a weak federalist, then yes. If you’re a strong federalist, then no.
Me, I’m on the strong side. I don’t see any reason the people of Wyoming should pay for infrastructure that primarily benefits the residents of Mississippi. It makes sense for states to cooperate on things like interstate highways, but not things like Main Street pot hole repair or East Springfield Elementary School. This is independent of any particular economic conditions of any given state.
Yes. Goods and services that end up in Wyoming may go through Mississippi. Without a decent working infrastructure in the south, those goods and services could be delayed or never make it to the West.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears the OP seems to agree with many German citizens who don’t want to bail out the Greeks, and is trying to apply that to the US.
People in Wyoming already pay virtually no state taxes since the state’s government is heavily subsidized by oil, gas, and especially coal severance taxes. Maybe this is muddling the OP a bit, but I think it would be perfectly fair if more of those severance dollars wound up benefiting other states instead of just subsidizing the low-tax lifestyles of the few hundred thousand Wyomingites.
Wait a minute here. First off, what infrastucture? What projects? Where and how? I don’t really expect the people of Wisconisn to pay for a project of purely local value - we don’t usually need or want federal dollars filling potholes on Maple Drive to use another poster’s metaphor. But interstates? Sure. Bridges, airports, rivers and harbors, and major geological projects are all classical uses of national money.
This is a total crock, and why people believe this when there are no numbers to support it is beyond me.
Infrastructure jobs are government jobs, whether they are done directly for a government agency or for a private company working under contract for a government agency. More government jobs, whether direct or indirect, will not solve unemployment. The idea that more of these jobs will result in permanent lower unemployment and more people paying taxes (enough taxes to fund these jobs) is a fantasy.
Infrastructure jobs don’t create permanent jobs. They increase demand (which is down) and the increased demand makes the private sector hire more. Those jobs are permanent.
Remember, Joe the CEO of Widget-Corp has the machinery to create a million widgets. But he’s only selling 800k widgets, so he lays off workforce. Once the demand increases, he rehires people as the economy gets back on its feet.