Ok then, tell me how much does NY get from other states via the fedgov?
You said we are a taker state. Tell me how much more we take in then we send out.
Now don’t misunderstand me...NY is still a leftist infested and leftist run hell hole politically and as a result does great harm to the United States..
We elect and send to Washington some of the most evil left wing dirtbags you can imagine (IE: Shumer, Hillary Clinton, Louise Slaughter, etc) and we consistently vote for rats for President.
That makes NY a pox on the country, but it doesn’t make us a “taker state” in regards to funding.
You’ve got to hate us for the right reasons!
You’re right Nik, NY and California are heavy donor states.
The problem with the analysis that CA and NY and some other states are "donor" states is that it simply draws a huge line around the border and says "here is the money collected in Federal Taxes," [that part is easy enough to delineate, but it's also not quite the whole story, read on.] It then says, here is how much money comes back in through these lines from the Federal government, and A - B is > 0, therefore we are a donor state.
It does not consider that a substantially larger amount of our national defense is geared toward protecting New York City. It does not correctly pro-rate the fact that high population states have to amortize the defense costs over larger numbers to begin with, it does not account for the fact that Eastern States like ours, and even Kali, which was settled early, derive enormous benefit by stealing huge amounts of hidden money from people in WY, MT, AK, ND, SD, ... because of the benefits their public lands accrues to us, and is lost to the people of those states.
I'm not even going to get into the disproportionately higher hidden costs of regulation that people in low-density agricultural areas bear for the sake of those of us in high-water, high fertility farming states, that is my bailiwick since I got out of Academia and it would bore you to tears.
Here are two other examples: Southern States have disproportionately large numbers of veterans. Now, I don't know about you, but I do not believe the Federal money going back to our veterans comes anywhere close to paying them back for what they've done for us. But even if it did, it would still not be NY money that was going to, say SC. It would be US money, going to US veterans who happen to live where they were born. How do you correctly amortize the flux of money into SC to account for that? What did the veteran "pay?" It was paid in red, not green.
One more example: Any state with a median age over the US median age will suck a huge amount more money from the Federal coffers than a "young" state like UT. Does that mean that the state is a "taker" state? In PA, it doesn't, because most of the people getting old age benefits here were also born here. But on the other hand, can we seriously argue that is true even in the case of FL where most people are transplants? After all, the money Floridians are currently drawing from entitlements was contributed in other states decades ago.
Finally, just to touch on my original example. Do you really want Federal contracts to flow back to high cost-of-living states like NY? One of the biggest cost problems we have right now is that an enormous amount of Federal money is spent close to Washington, DC. As a result of that, NoVA has become an extremely expensive place to live, and the costs of contractors in NoVA and MD has skyrocketed in the last 40 years. We actually should flow that money to low cost of living states in the Mid-West. You could hire an engineer in KA for 1/2 of what it costs in Northern Virginia, and he would be able to maintain the same standard of living on 1/2 the money -- and a whole lot better quality of life.
But of course, liberal economists working for the NY Times would accuse Kansas of being a "taker" state if we did that. Well, screw them. I'm the employer and I want more engineers for my $.
So, my point is this. Liberals like to look at a very oversimplified economic model of revenue and return, and then claim that overpopulated liberal states are net contributors. It's not that simple. I was a physicist in a former life, and this isn't an energy flow where you can just draw a circle around a system and talk about the thermodynamics of heat going in, coming out, and the internal energy or state variable changes as a result. It's political sophistry to believe you can. That's why liberals do it. They want to believe that their regulatory, high-tax, welfare state policies, which force companies to pay their employees more money to live in their hell-holes entitle them to "bragging rights." They don't. They simply make the products and services they sell more expensive for those of us who have to buy them, and if we live outside of those states, that makes them "free enterprise TAKERS." Please, let's not go there. It's a place conservatives don't belong.