Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
Monday, September 27, 2004
The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.
The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
All those "welfare states" are red states.
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
All those "welfare states" are red states.
Link
"There are times I'd like to get my hands on God." - Frank Castle
Welcome to how to make sensational claims with statistics 101.
Red states are poor states where cost of living and hence salaries are lower. This leads to lower income tax receipts by the federal government, surprise, surprise; but the amount they pay out in medicare, social security, highway funding, etc. is NOT indexed to cost of living.
Other factors that drive up the "taker status": military bases, government laboratories, national lands, etc.
So bluntly there is a correlation between red and a negative tax flow, it is however almost entirely due to cost of living differences and federal services shared in common by the several states.
Aside from this the idea that "states" can be measured as givers or takers and whomever won the state by a scant 5% is BS. Take Michigan, Gore won here on the basis of the Detroit vote and some other key locations. Detroit is the money sinkhole of Michigan, yet the prosperous suburbs split and the moderately afluent rural areas were solid red. Bushing winning the suburbs and losing heavily in the inner cities can easily give him a loss in a giver state while carrying all the individual givers or give him a victory in the taker states while losing heavily among individual takers.
This leads to another popular BS statistic page floating around the interenet where the Bushies do the same exact thing, except at the county level and include a crapload of other statistics (some of which are completely invented from thin air while others do have the ring of truth). If you try hard enough you can correlate tax flow with allegiance to either political party, which simply proves the futility of such exercises.
Red states are poor states where cost of living and hence salaries are lower. This leads to lower income tax receipts by the federal government, surprise, surprise; but the amount they pay out in medicare, social security, highway funding, etc. is NOT indexed to cost of living.
Other factors that drive up the "taker status": military bases, government laboratories, national lands, etc.
So bluntly there is a correlation between red and a negative tax flow, it is however almost entirely due to cost of living differences and federal services shared in common by the several states.
Aside from this the idea that "states" can be measured as givers or takers and whomever won the state by a scant 5% is BS. Take Michigan, Gore won here on the basis of the Detroit vote and some other key locations. Detroit is the money sinkhole of Michigan, yet the prosperous suburbs split and the moderately afluent rural areas were solid red. Bushing winning the suburbs and losing heavily in the inner cities can easily give him a loss in a giver state while carrying all the individual givers or give him a victory in the taker states while losing heavily among individual takers.
This leads to another popular BS statistic page floating around the interenet where the Bushies do the same exact thing, except at the county level and include a crapload of other statistics (some of which are completely invented from thin air while others do have the ring of truth). If you try hard enough you can correlate tax flow with allegiance to either political party, which simply proves the futility of such exercises.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.