Who published these numbers. The assumptions underlying the conclusion are by necessity complex and arguable. For instance, farm subsidies benefit any one who eats food.
I'll try to find you a web site. As for farm subsidies benefitting anyone who eats food, exactly how does paying a farmer not to grow food to keep market prices higher than they'd otherwise be benefit me? How do farm subsidies for tobacco or mohair benefit me, a non-smoker who doesn't have any interest in mohair products? At best, it is redistribution. At worse, it makes food more expensive.
My guesses for why the blue states make more money than the red states:
1) At some point their blue legislatures stuck in significantly higher local and state taxes. This increases the cost of production, therefore retail prices rise to compensate, therefore wages increase to get enough workers who can afford the prices, blah blah blah. Net result - higher cost of living, and higher wages. Fact is, the blue states pay twice as much for everything, and earn almost twice as much as workers in the red states. They're two different economies, one much more inflated than the other due to local taxes. But "progressive" tax rates bite the guy in NY a hell of a lot harder than the guy in the south.
2) Along the same lines: Assume people prefer to live outside of cities than in cities. I think this is true, all other things being equal. But the cities are also where the big corporations are. What do employers need to do to make employees deal with the smog, long commutes, etc.? Pay them more. Blue states have a higher urban to rural ratio, therefore, once again, their citizens are paid higher, deal with a higher cost of living, and pay unfairly higher "progressive" federal taxes for the same basic services.
3) Do the dollars sent in and out of a state include corporate taxes as well as income tax? If so, factor them in - I would guess they pay a great deal in taxes but don't require much additional infrastrucure compared to each individual taxpayer.
4) I would guess that most of the military spending is going to be in the red states, with the HUUUUUGE... tracts of land.
5) Outrageously oversized farming subsidies.
Just my guesses.
posted on 10/31/2003 12:08:00 PM PST
One of the goals of public policy is to stabilize food prices. As a result the government became a purchaser of grain and other commodities. the grain was stored in silos and this cost taxpayer dollars. With some frequency the grain rotted in the silos. Someone came up with a way to save expenditures on silos and protect the environment - governemnt incentives to allow farm land to lay fallow in sequential bumper years.
No one put a gun to New Jersey residents and forced them to develop their land. If farm subsidies are so great, convert your land back into farms. While you are at it, why not donate some more land for huge Federal Parks.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson