Just curious. Of the total pie of IRS cash received by the feds what percentage of that total comes from states that went for Trump vs states that went for Clinton?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Bank of America’s headquarters is in Charlotte NC. Do you attribute all of BofA’s federal taxes to NC?
Wikipedia has a page of Federal Tax Revenue by State. The most recent numbers are for 2012. Dividing them up by which ones were won by Clinton or Trump, I get $1,264,375,270,000 for Clinton and $1,247,395,591,000 for Trump. Expressed as a percentage, that’s 50.34% Clinton and 49.66% Trump. I did not include Puerto Rico.
Thanks!
However, that’s kinda surprising, considering that the states won by Clinton have a total population of 137 million yet pay 50.34% of the taxes, while the states won by Trump have a total population of 176.5 million and pay 49.66% of the taxes. All things being equal, you’d expect more people to pay more taxes.
The 137 million people who live in 21 states (including DC) which Clinton won paid an average of $9,222 per person in federal taxes.
The 176.5 million people who live in the 30 states which Trump won paid an average of $7,058.22 per person in federal taxes.
Bank of American pays nothing in federal taxes.
2009: nothing paid
2010: nothing paid, $1.9 billion refund
etc.
Forgive me and let me rephrase.
Major multi-national corporation with operations in many states is headquartered in <name-of-state>. If said corporation pays taxes, which state do you attribute these tax payments to?
And you are saying that BofA paid no payroll taxes? It didn’t match the Social Security and Medicare taxes of its employees?
Except, obviously, incomes are not uniform among the states (nor within them). Here can arise the strange argument that some whole states are supporting other states, but it’s basically flawed. The big cross subsidy is between income groups, not states. The big money sent in by a fairly small % of the population* doesn’t belong to lower income people who happen to live in their state any more than it belongs to lower income people in another state. It’s just the system we’ve decided on, nationally, as the appropriate way to treat differing level of individual income v. the common obligations we’ve decided the federal govt has. The OP question is fine as a trivia point, but that’s all it is.
*as far as the federal income tax, is somewhat de-skewed factoring in the payroll tax, but would re-skew a bit reasonably apportioning corporate income taxes based on who owns the shares, or you could argue about the actual incidence of corporate taxes between owners, employees and customers, but attributing them to the state of domicile of the company is quite meaningless.
How can you get a tax refund if you haven’t paid any taxes in the first place? As far as I understand it, a tax refund is, by definition, the taxes that have been withheld., i.e., paid already, minus the taxes you owe. The highest refund is when your liability is zero, so you get a full refund of all taxes already paid. But they won’t refund unpaid taxes.
Technically, I guess it is called a tax credit, which can be carried forward to future tax years owed, or even applied retroasctively to past years. Like Mr. Trump has used to avoid paying taxes for the past 18 years or so.
I’m not sure OP intended to include these under “IRS cash”. Perhaps we’ll get some clarification.
We have such a thing as “refundable tax credits.” These count as tax payments, and in the case of refundable credits can be “refunded” to you just like actual payments (not all credits are refundable).
That is a pretty dishonest use of an “etc.”
Bank of America lost money in 2009 and 2010.
In the year just ended (2016), Bank of America paid $6.3 Billion in income tax.
In 2015 they paid $2.0 Billion.
In 2014 they paid $4.7 Billion.
Cite: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-reportsannual#fbid=s2xNl8ewBSX
It was not my intention to claim that people who vote Republican tend to practice tax avoidance. I agree with you that it’s likely a split of demographics and income levels. The data shows that people who live in red states tend to have lower-middle-class incomes and pay less total taxes per person, while people who live in blue states tend to have upper-middle-class incomes and pay more total taxes per person. This flies in the face of the false narrative depicting Democratic voters as unemployed moochers and Republican voters as upstanding productive citizens. When Mitt Romney said that 47% of the country would never vote Republican (because they pay no income tax), he had it backwards. Evidence suggests that lower income people are more likely to vote Republican rather than Democratic.
BTW, it’s also true that people who live in rural areas tend to have lower-middle-class incomes and pay less total taxes per person and vote Republican, while people who live in urban areas tend to have upper-middle-class incomes and pay more total taxes per person and vote Democratic. What defines a red state or blue state isn’t the ideology of its citizens. It’s how much of the state is urban and how much is rural.
OTOH, I read an interesting article recently that suggests that the split is not by location, or income, but rather age. Older people tend to vote Republican and younger people tend to vote Democratic. This could explain why Republican voters tend to have lower incomes and pay less total taxes; it’s because a substantial fraction of them are retired.
There may be evidence for this, but it does not appear anywhere in this thread.
The opposite is true. According to exitpolls in the last election Clinton won those who made under $50K and Trump won those who made over $50K.
This is a composition fallacy. Republican voters make more than Democratic voters and thus pay more in taxes.
There are Democrat voters in “red” states, and Republican voters in “blue” states, so using this broad brush, state-level metric to judge who (as defined by party affiliation) is more responsible (or generous, or patriotic, etc.) with their money is a flawed metric, IMO.