Replies

The idea that some states whose citizens are taxed more by the federal government than others, then must get more federal spending than others is a non argument. States are not taxed, citizens are. If those citizens choose to spend their careers in a high tax State like California or New Jersey, then leave that State when they retire, federal dollars for Social Security and for Medicare will follow them.

It makes no sense to say that because citizens of one State are taxed more than another, that the federal government then owes that State more than another. Would you make the claim that because a citizen pays more taxes than another, that the citizen should be the recipient of more federal dollars?

It is not reasonable to make this claim. It is simply worded to make it sound reasonable. The State is not being taxed. The citizens are.

Federal tax rates are uniform across the country.

Explain again:

1) Why does Mississippi and New Mexico receive from the federal government more than they pay to the federal government in taxes?

2) Why does New Jersey and California receive from the federal government less than they pay to the federal government in taxes?

3) What do these facts imply about which of these states are the more productive and which are less productive?

The idea that some states whose citizens are taxed more by the federal government than others, then must get more federal spending than others is a non argument.

This is a hand-wave, because you want it to be a non-argument. The point is that FReeepers are saying that California is expecting a bail-out. I have never seen such a statement from a California pol. However, I have seen California politicians demand that the Feds pay for spending they mandate of which California bears a disproportionate burden such as medical care, education, and incarceration for illegals, which is a legitimate argument. Were the Feds operating pursuant to their enumerated powers, States would have to make it on their own. California would then be able to wipe out its deficit.

It makes no sense to say that because citizens of one State are taxed more than another, that the federal government then owes that State more than another. Would you make the claim that because a citizen pays more taxes than another, that the citizen should be the recipient of more federal dollars?

Arguing on the basis of your lack of comprehension isn't what I'd call an argument. Citizens of California pay out of State. That money is not available for investment in-State. That has a direct impact upon wealth generation in venue that has historically been of great benefit to other States. Consider the semiconductor and microprocessor industry. Many other states have benefited from California exporting its production. Hence, the imbalance of payments has a direct impact not only on California, but those states that stand to benefit from this intra-national off-shoring.

The State is not being taxed. The citizens are.

The hell it's not. Every unfunded mandate is a tax on a State, which passes on the cost just like taxing a corporation. Yet I don't think you'd argue that corporations are not taxed, as their behavior confirms that many investment decisions are made according to local rates.