• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Red states vs. blue states (who provides the income and where does it go)

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodcow

Member
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Visit site for charts.

Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill

New Mexico gets $1.99 for every dollar in taxes, New Jersey only 57 cents

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Some states feast at the expense of others, according to the Tax Foundation’s latest annual analysis of federal taxing and spending patterns.

All taxpayers know that the federal government uses tax and spending policy to redistribute income from citizens with high incomes to those who make little, but citizens are less aware about geographically based income redistribution. Tax Foundation Senior Economist Scott Moody compares the federal tax burden in each state with Census Bureau data (2003) on federal spending in each state. The result is a ranking of which states got the best deal in 2003 from Uncle Sam’s tax and spending policies.

Federally Favored States
“During fiscal 2003, taxpayers in New Mexico benefited the most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam,” said Moody. New Mexico received $1.99 in federal outlays for every $1.00 the state’s taxpayers sent to Uncle Sam. Other big winners were Alaska ($1.89), Mississippi ($1.83), and West Virginia ($1.82). (See tables below).

The District of Columbia’s Special Status
Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending: In 2003 it received $6.59 in federal outlays for every dollar its taxpayers sent to the U.S. Treasury.

“The District’s share of federal largesse amounted to $60,109 for every man, woman and child,” said Moody. “That’s more than ten times the national average.”

States That Help Others
If some states are beneficiaries, then naturally some must be benefactors—those states where so much is collected in federal taxes that any federal spending they receive is overwhelmed.

New York has often been the biggest payer in the Tax Foundation’s annual comparison of taxes to spending, which inspired Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the Kennedy School of Government to launch their annual reference book comparing state taxes with spending (www.ksg.harvard.edu/fisc99) more than 25 years ago. In recent years, however, other states have eclipsed New York for the “blessing” of being the state that gives far more than it receives.

Combining the third highest tax burden per capita with the ninth lowest federal spending, New Jersey had the lowest federal spending-to-tax ratio (57¢). Other states that had low federal spending-to-tax ratios in FY 2003 are New Hampshire (64¢), Connecticut (65¢), Minnesota (70¢), Nevada (70¢), and Illinois (73¢).

Changing Ranks
The state that raised its ratio the most over the past ten years is Alaska where federal spending rose from $1.30 to $1.89 for each dollar in taxes. This 59-cent increase beats out Alabama, where federal spending increased 35¢ per dollar of tax, West Virginia (33¢ more spending per dollar), and Kentucky (32¢ more spending per dollar).

States where the ratio dropped most are Colorado and Massachusetts. Colorado has seen its federal spending-to-tax ratio fall 20¢ from $1.00 in FY 1994 to 80¢ in FY 2003. Massachusetts’s has dropped 18¢.

What Affects Rankings?
Federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful Members of Congress, and state governments can grab more federal grant money by skillfully manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
However, demography may be more influential than politics. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other large federal entitlements are bound to rank fairly high. Similarly, the high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.

On the tax side of the equation, states with higher incomes per capita—New Jersey stands out—pay much higher federal taxes per capita because of the income tax’s progressive structure. The citizens in these high-income, high-tax states do not always live better or save more than people in low-income, low-tax states because the cost of living is usually that much higher or more.
 
Keep trashing the red states--and don't be suprised when they reject Liberals even more in four years...

Conservatives cast you as out of touch snobs... time and time again you prove us right!

Thanks guys!
 

teiresias

Member
Maybe the welfare states should be allowed to invest the tax money they get into private accounts in order to establish some form of self-responsibility. :lol
 

Dilbert

Member
PotatoeMasher said:
Keep trashing the red states--and don't be suprised when they reject Liberals even more in four years...

Conservatives cast you as out of touch snobs... time and time again you prove us right!

Thanks guys!
This is an analysis of tax/benefit inequity, and I don't see any politics in the quoted article. How about you keep your proud-to-be-dumb-and-poor agenda out of this thread, hmmm?
 

Azih

Member
Wow BlueAmerica would be the richest nation in the history of the planet, RedAmerica would be a third world nation.

Red America: Keeping America from becoming too powerful since Independance!
 

teiresias

Member
I haven't read that full article but does it address the "food issue." I mean, I imagine most of the food consumed in the blue states doesn't originate there, but is the blue state's food mainly coming from red states or is it mainly imported from outside the country? I do know there are concerns about America importing more food than it imports within the next year, which is apparently a scenario that hasn't happened before.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
PotatoeMasher said:
Keep trashing the red states--and don't be suprised when they reject Liberals even more in four years...

Conservatives cast you as out of touch snobs... time and time again you prove us right!

Thanks guys!

How in the hell is this trashing the "Red" states?

(I use quotes because in reality, the majority of the country is a nice, deep shade of purple.)
 
Calling states by their 'color' implies politics...

results2004_lg.jpg


Keep on going guys!
 
Iceman said:
Please, continue judging us.

Aren't you from California and Wisconson, both blue states?

Potatoemasher: And your point is? Tax spending is directly connected to politics. What's so harmful about talking about who is taxed and where the money is spent?
 
Hammy said:
Potatoemasher: And your point is? Tax spending is directly connected to politics. What's so harmful about talking about who is taxed and where the money is spent?

All I'm saying is that ever since the election, the haters have been all over the red states. From this post, to the one that said Red states were dumb...

Inciting state warfare is only gonna lose you votes...
 
PotatoeMasher said:
All I'm saying is that ever since the election, the haters have been all over the red states. From this post, to the one that said Red states were dumb...

Inciting state warfare is only gonna lose you votes...

I don't see how the article is "trashing". Explain yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom