Quote:
Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deech
I do not enjoy coming out of the bleachers in regards to two gentlemen that I respect. I am a numbers guy. Both Red and MC have correctly used their statistical references. California, New York, and Massachusetts have given more federal money than most states. Yes, California received more money in 2017 than payments. What about NY and MA? How does the inequity of CA receiving a surplus rank against other states in 2017?
Let's face facts. American has been running on a yearly deficit for a number of years. This is not a shot at any administration. It is obvious that the stronger northeastern states along with California and Texas may give larger numbers to the government for taxes. That hopefully is obvious. My question, after reading this blog, is whether the most taxed states (and in some eyes, key Democratic states) have gained an advantage? For 2017, the answer is no.
California did have a .5 billion surplus in 2017 for tax/benefit revenue. 40 states had this benefit in 2017. California was number 40. They had a plus $12 per resident tax/revenue advantage that year. Numbers 41 trough 50 had a negative number per resident. New York was #47 at -$1,792 per resident and Massachusetts was #48 at -$2,343 per resident.
If the premise is that the large Democratic states are supplying the most tax money to the government and are receiving excessive benefits, then California at #40 is guilty. At $12 per person. Montana is receiving $3,808 per person. Number 16 on the list. We are running a deficit. No, I will not blame any individual set of states. Things will get better when we reach fiscal responsibility. Again, not a shot, both parties have the need to spend money, hence the knee jerk reaction to spend money, though both parties are trying to say no.
What is the source of these numbers? I am looking to see which states get an excess of money per capita over what they pay to the IRS. It sounds like this is what you're describing. Would love to see that list. I have some theories myself.
Basically the Senate is a screwy institution, created when it was all land and natural resources used to calculate a state's economic value. States weren't THAT different. Now industrial then digital type cities bring in far more capita per resident but are stuck at same level of representation. It is goofed. Flyover states can have a tiny population compared to booming larger states, but they'll forever be at the same representation in the Senate.
This in turn gives these small largely irrelevant states far too much leverage. So I'd assume the're paid more per capita or the just elected shitty Senators.
I have no idea what possessed me to wander off into the internet last night. I guess I wanted to prove to myself that the larger populated states pay more federal taxes. Secondly, if California received more federal help than taxes paid, what other states had this imbalance?
Generally, I will spend an hour or so doing random research. This article from USA Today written by a gentleman from 24/7 Wall Street was perfect for the data I desired. I found it in two minutes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ment/39202299/
Of the four data points for each state, the two most beneficial, for me, were the Federal funds given back to the state (with the state's ranking) and the actual money theoretically received per resident of the state. Regarding the top ten states by population, there were no outrageous anomalies. The 8th most populous state, Georgia, had the 12th biggest federal return dollars but Virginia, the 12th most populous state garnered the 5th most federal money. Otherwise, things were in line.
In my heart, I believe every state will be overcompensated at some point. It is wild that in 2017 the top 40 states were given more federal money than they had paid. Red was correct when he stated that the larger states pay more federal taxes. Yes, MC is correct that CA received more federal help than they paid in 2017. Again, 40 states were in this category (which is ridiculous to me).
For myself, finding this article was enlightening as it showed that most states (outside of Virginia and Kentucky) were not given some big pork barrel gratuity. I do wish that we get back to determining how to maintain a balanced budget, but with COVID and the egos of both political parties, a balanced budget may not be presented in my lifetime.
