[Question_Assumptions]

Wow. If the return for tax dollars in NJ is worse than here in CA, things must be pretty bad.

The numbers I've seen run in the 67 to 69 cents on the dollar range. Connecticut is about as bad.

Forrester should find the exact current numbers and use them in his ads. Put it this way, "For every dollar that New Jersey sends to the Federal government, we lose over 30 cents. That also means that for every dollar we cut in Federal taxes, over 30 cents stay in New Jersey. So why would New Jersey want a Senator who likes high Federal taxes?"

[Politico2]

>>Wow. If the return for tax dollars in NJ is worse than here in CA, things must be pretty bad.

>The numbers I've seen run in the 67 to 69 cents on the dollar range. Connecticut is about as bad.

The Tax Foundation puts those numbers together in their report, Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Footing the Bill.

According to the report: "Combining the second highest tax burden per capita with low federal spending (33rd highest), New Jersey had the lowest federal spending-to-tax ratio (0.67). The 0.67 ratio means that New Jersey only receives 67¢ in federal spending for every dollar its taxpayers send to Washington and is therefore the nation’s biggest loser from federal fiscal operations. Other states that had low federal spending-to-tax ratios in FY 2001 are Connecticut (67¢), New Hampshire (71¢), Nevada (76¢) and Illinois (78¢)."

[Alberta's Child]

I agree with the point about "return on tax dollars," but those numbers are very deceptive. I'm quite certain that Social Security taxes and outlays are included in those figures, which means that much of the "negative return" can be attributed to the fact that a state like New Jersey has a large number of workers relative to the retirees who officially reside there.