Posted on 11/18/2004 7:22:34 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
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 dollarmore 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 capitasuch as Connecticutpay 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.
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.