Posted on 11/18/2004 7:22:34 AM PST by Beelzebubba
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.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Revised Data Show Some Candidates' States Profit from Federal Taxing and Spending, Others Foot Bill
By TF Staff
As the November elections approach, many have begun asking which congressional candidates' home states have benefited from federal taxing and spending, and which haven't.
To help provide an answer the Tax Foundation has released revised data showing which states benefit from federal taxing and spending, and which foot the bill.
The release updates the Tax Foundation's annual analysis of federal taxing and spending patterns ("Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State" by J. Scott Moody, available for download here) with the most current tax data available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The results are summarized in Table 1 below. They show that when it comes to federal taxing and spending, some states feast at the expense of others.
(link below to 50 state data) Source: Census Bureau; Tax Foundation's "State-by-State Tax Burden Allocation Model."
Winners and losers
Currently taxpayers in North Dakota benefit most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam, receiving $2.03 for every dollar in taxes. New Jersey benefits least, receiving just 62¢ per federal tax dollar.
Other states that receive little spending per dollar of federal tax are Connecticut (64¢), New Hampshire (68¢), Nevada (73¢), Minnesota (77¢) and Illinois (77¢).
Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending, receiving $6.17 for every federal tax dollar—more than nine times the national average.
What affects the rankings?
One factor affecting rankings is that federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful members of congress. Also, state governments can grab more federal grant money by manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
Another factor is demography. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements tend to rank high. Similarly, high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.
Finally, states with higher incomes per capita—such as Connecticut—pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the income tax's progressive structure, which increases federal taxes per dollar of federal spending received in return.
So?
Well, the Blue States are always demanding higher and higher taxes. So they are only getting what they are asking for.
Anyone care to do the math on this on a per person basis for each of the states.
Ipso facto - professors are red staters.
All this shows is that rich people vote Democrat, while middle and lower income people vote Republican. Just the opposite of what the Dims want us to believe.
Yep, Blue states have higher taxes, I don't wish to join that club.
Yeah, and it also shows who's smart and whose dumb in this equation and once again it's just not quite what the dims want you to believe.
Muleteam1
Are the taxes from corporations includeed in their calculations? Their contributions would htem probably be credited to the state in which the HQ is located, like NY or CA. But many of their plants are probably located in Red states where the wages are lower. So while the taxes are taken from people in Red states, they will be credited to the Blue state in which the HQ is located. Does this make some sense? But then Delaware should be listed pretty high (in the top 20 of contributors).
Red counties feed blue counties period.
So you would rather be poor and pay lower taxes?
I would love to see this refuted. Why would blue state continually vote for higher taxes from which they supposedly don't benefit, and red states continually vote for lower taxes, less govt from which they supposedly don't benefit. Don't make sense.
Welfare
Medicare/Medicaid
Highways
Special Projects
National Parks
Military
the people voting for democrats arent the ones paying the money in taxes they are the ones receiving the money in government spending. you just have more rich people around the big cities that pay all the taxes.
The only thinh that tells me is the "Blue state's" Democrat gov'mt teat-suckers amass in those states and are too lazy to vote - BLUE.
But they've gotta blame someone ELSE for their big loss.
EXACTLY!!
And also broken down by counties.
DC is a no brainer. The rest of the "receiving" states have either a large number of Indian Reservations or military bases. In other words, their levels of Federal funding are anomalies driven by factors having absolutely nothing to do with non governmental economic activity or the actual needs of citizens (or lack thereof) for Federal funds. Any other analysis of this beyond what I wrote here is utterly disingenuous and deceitful.
But liberals don't like that solution. They just like bitching.
It appears to me the Dems are pissed about the results of their own Robin-Hood domestic economic policies. Not to mention, farm subsidies and tornado/flood/disaster relief plays into the equation a lot. Not a lot of that going on in ME and MA, I bet.
As far as red vs. blue states goes, I would be interested to see crime rate statistics, charitable contribution statistics, etc. relative to red vs. blue.
Alaska has some huge Indian Reservations, plus, many Federally dependent Indians not on Reservations.
What state is "The Big Dig" in?
What is the cost to taxpayers for "The Big Dig"?
What is the effective rate of expenditure, ie., getting the dollar's worth?
Why isn't it called "The Big Pig"?
Just more folks who think chicken comes from the grocery store.
Gee, Little Tommy Daschle ran his recent campaign by promoting how much money he brought back to South Dakota and the stream of lamenting letters to the editor about his defeat decry the loss of his clout in Congress i.e. ability to get money.
These are BS stats. The stats that need to be done are how many dollars did "red" people spend in taxes and of course the same for the "blue" people, then, how many dollars did "blue" people receive in benefits... Anyone can see that what makes a blue state blue is the density of the population in urban masses (messes too)... and unless you are brain dead you know that the inner cities are masses of poor people who vote DEM.
And the funniest thing about this is how loud blue state congresspeople do moan about Bush's tax cuts.
And it was another way around for 40 years.
Payback is a bitch, what else could one say about it?
It seems to me that some congresspeople in MA will be extremely vulnerable in 2006 to a Republican campaign run on a single issue of access to purse.
Red counties feed blue counties period.
That pretty well summarizes the whole subject. lol
All this article does is confirm that the Dem urban states try to buy votes from the rural states with Federal largess.
bttt
Something has to be wrong here, heck the Big-Dig in Boston used a ton of federal cash over and above what it normally gets from the government and that project (largest construction project ever in America) alone puts MA in the top ten of recipients.
I would add that Mississippi and Alaska have Senators Trent Lott and Ted Stevens (such models of principled conservatism /sarcasm), together with Byrd, probably the three worst porkers in Congress.
New York used this argument years ago, that they sent tax dollars to Fed and got back peanuts in return. The catch was that so many large corporations that are HQ in NY were paying taxes from NY but had little or no taxes actually generated
in NY. When the taxes were deducted for those people, NY was a winner. I suspect the same game is in play for many of the tax dollars.
If I wasn't a dumb red voter I would swear that liberals are now arguing for the justice of tax cuts.
Exactly. I think it worthy to note that there aren't a lot of corporations headquartered in the states that received the most per submitted.
So, whatever happened to that ol' lefty favorite, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Or, are they saying that it only applies when doing good with somebody ELSE's money?
Missouri has several huge military installations, two of the countries largest IRS facilities employing 10's of thousands of govt people, two of the largest defense contractors in the country that receive 10's of billions of dollars each year. It's not like the federal government is giving this money away to welfare recipients here, lol, as it does in huge urban areas like Los Angeles and New York.
Yea, so that is what people in blue states believe high taxes given to government to spread to the people. Sounds like the blue states are getting what they asked for.
They are just upset because the people they thought they were buy the votes for did not vote for them.
Biting the hand that feed-em's
I'd rather be rich and pay lower taxes. That means the red states are better places to be if you have wealth.
Thanks for the run-down state-by-state. Excellent analysis. I might add, in the case of Alaska, it is a wise POLICY to subsidize people moving up there in order to be able to provide the infrastructure for energy and defense. The individual Alaskans are "feeding at the public trough", but only vecause most of us find it to be too cold and remote. Canada does something similar for the northern areas.
Some one really needs to do the correct breakdown, which is federal expenditure on Republicans vs Democrats.
Since one large chunk of Democrats are urban single women (with children), these red/blue state breakdowns don't make the statistical smell test.
The farm states (I'm from ND) receive a ton of farm subsidies, I suspect that is part of what puts them high on the list. You wouldn't believe how many individual ND farmers receive hundreds of thousands of farm subsidies per year.
ND Farm Subsidy Top Recipients in 1995-2002
ND Farm Subsidy Top Recipients in 2002
It would look the same in any farm state.
If the blue states continuously voting for social programs is just to have the red states feeding, what is their motivation?
This is twisted bologna.
Maybe these whiny wienies can appreciate that hunter's and fisherman's dollars are what support the habitat they value so dearly that they want to keep hunters and fishermen out of.
Somehow, I doubt it.
I wanted to say more anyway, heh, heh.
States like ND with only 650,000 people still have a lot of infrastructure like roads to support. With a small population to pay for it the feds have to kick funds in otherwise rural states simply could not afford it. And it's not like our roads are used by only those living in ND, there is a lot of cross country traffic through any rural state.
I suspect that if a truly detailed analysis were done, then it would indeed show that the blue parts of the red states account for a disproportionate amount of the non-military federal spending in the states. That is why I doubt that these liberals would carry the analysis that far, because it would indict someone other than the white Southerners they hate so much.
Yeah, let's be like Canada!
PUKE!
That is why liars figure and figures often lie. When I lived in NYC, Nelson Rockefeller used that argument about NY paying huge taxes and getting nothing in return. It went over well with the welfare people in NYC. Then some smarty did his homework, did the real math and showed how NY was a winner not a loser. Rockefeller never used that ploy again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.