Taxes paid/Federal dollars received

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Post Reply
User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Taxes paid/Federal dollars received

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:06 pm

This is an interesting article that was forwarded to me that shows the amount of federal money each state receives as compared to the taxes it pays.

It's interesting to note that the "Red" states tend to also be the states that feed at the federal trough the most, which is somewhat inconsistent with the supposed fiscally conservative and small government mindset of these states.

Conversely, the "Blue" states tend to pay the most federal taxes in comparison to what they receive.

This has to really upset the Democrat-majority states -- not only do they lose the election, but they have to heavily subsidize all of the states that beat them in the election.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html



User avatar
BobCatFan
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:28 pm
Contact:

Post by BobCatFan » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:48 pm

Have you been to New Jersey!

Nobody wants to invest money there and besides, they make up for any loss tax revenue with that darn toll tax on I95. It costs about $20 to get from one end to the other and it is the size of a couple counties in eastern montana.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:04 pm

So Federal money spent on the various states is an "investment?" That sounds like some stong leftist vocabulary.

Maybe the rural states should chip in to pay for their own roads as well? Why should only blue states have to subsidize the red states and then have to pay for their own roads via tolls as well?

I don't know where I am going with this -- I just thought the whole thing was kind of interesting.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:26 am

bay,

It's not as "sinister" or hypocritical as you wanted us to believe from your first post on this thread.

Simply put, Montana has the WORST average wage in the nation along with one of the smallest populations. Every dollar spent here obviously 'weighs' more here than in, say, California. Remember the percentages discussion on another thread? I don't know the exact figure (I will attempt to find it) but I'm fairly certain that the TOTAL dollars spent in our 2 states would be staggering by comparison.

Your comment about the red states "feeding at the government trough" is a bit inflammatory on your part, and I personally find it to be insulting as well.

Do you think Montanans DEMAND the money the feds give us? If so, then why did a federal government "disbursement" earlier this year put the Montana budget into a $400 million surplus, when we thought we would face a deficit? The point here is that we are not 'feeding' off the feds; I'm sure a large portion of it is simply granted to the state by the feds because DC has this 'unlimited funds' view of the country.

Another point: Rank the list you cited alongside a list of states by population. See any correlation there? The states receiving the "most" according to your list are the smallest (population-wise) and poorest, for the most part. The ratio being discussed here is obviously going to be skewed toward the poor states not as much by how much we "get", but rather by the fact that we don't earn enough to make a significant "contribution" on the tax side.

Again, bay, please don't insult us hard-working conservatives in the red states of "feeding" off you blue states. I'll guarantee you the demands on government from California far outweigh those of Montana. To that end, which state do you think would feel the pinch worse if the feds stopped paying any money to both of them?
Last edited by El_Gato on Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:19 am

El Gato -- Actually, that schedule is stated in percentages, so it seems to capture the essence of the arguement quite clearly -- the red states get more cash in than they pay out (it's true there are lower wages, but what does that really matter, unless we are explicitly advocating wealth redistribution?). And, yes, I think it has a lot to do with the ability of the Congressmen and Senators from those states to bring in federal money, as well as the dispproportionate representation on the federal level in place due to the electoral college and the organization of the Senate.

So, yes, I do think the red states ask for that money. Good for them -- they are working the system to their benefit and they are coming out way ahead. This is clearly a redistribution of wealth from Blue to Red, and if that strikes you as offensive, I don't know what to say -- it's simply the way it is.

So, if Red states really are offended by the lack of small government and fiscal conservativism on the federal level, I guess the first step would be for them to reject the federal monies their representatives are bringing home.

This whole thing just really illustrates that pork is bad -- unless it is going to your own district.

It seems like you are trying to shift the argument to show that, in gross dollars, the blue states bring in more federal cash. Well, yeah. Of course they do. But on a per person and as a function of the taxes paid, the Red states clearly take the prize, contrary to what many people might otherwise assume. It's not the poor people in the urban centers, or the immigrants in California, or any of the other whipping boys of the right that are taking a disproportionate amount of the federal dollars -- it is the Red states, from which a lot of the right wing talk comes from.

It's just an interesting bit of irony.

What are the reasons for this? I have some theories. The farm program. Military bases in Red States. Indian Reservations (which are a higher % of the population in smaller states and are exclusively federal in their infrastructure). Highway funding (which is much higher per capita in smaller states).

The point remains -- it is interesting that the states that espouse the most prevailing conservative fiscal mindset are the ones that tend to take the most advantage of the federal funds, and those states that seem most liberal in their view of government spending end up having their taxes disproportionately sent to the Red states. I just don't see any real way to counter that assertion based on these numbers.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.



grizbeer
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Missoula

Post by grizbeer » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:36 am

Bay Area Cat wrote: What are the reasons for this? I have some theories. The farm program. Military bases in Red States. Indian Reservations (which are a higher % of the population in smaller states and are exclusively federal in their infrastructure). Highway funding (which is much higher per capita in smaller states).

The point remains -- it is interesting that the states that espouse the most prevailing conservative fiscal mindset are the ones that tend to take the most advantage of the federal funds, and those states that seem most liberal in their view of government spending end up having their taxes disproportionately sent to the Red states. I just don't see any real way to counter that assertion based on these numbers.
BAC I think a couple other things you missed -
1) the federal Government owns a much larger % of the land in the relatively unpopulated RM west, so the employees they have in this area (BLM, Fish & wildlife, Forest Service, National Parks Service, etc). even if the amount of land (and supporting government employees) were equal in say Montana and New York, Montana would receive a proportionately higher percentage of government spending because there are fewer people to spread the spending over, so it is a double hit. I think saying Montana's are feeding at the Federal trough is misleading if it is driven by the government taking care of it's own land.

2) SS and Medicare is "earned" as people work, so if you have a higher percentage of retirees to working people it will affect the tax to benefit ratio.

3) Farm subsidies are huge, but so is programs the CRP, with large portions of CRP paid to Montana in fact going to wealthy out of state landowners, while simultaneously reducing employment in rural areas.

Much of this spending on items 1 and to a smaller degree 3 is viewed as intrusion into peoples life in these areas, and fuels republican leanings, and when viewed this way things make more sense.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:01 am

grizbeer: Very good points, especially regarding the federal lands. I had forgotten about that factor, which I'm sure that makes up a significant part of the western state's federal dollars.

I'm not as sure about the impact of #3. Aren't the payments for CRP capped on a per owner basis (it was $50,000 at one point, so not enough for anyone to get rich or to set aside huge swaths of land)? I can't imagine that a material % of the CRP payments go to (wealthy or otherwise) out of state landowners. I'm sure some does, but I know a lot of people who have land in CRP, and they are all locals. I'd be interested in seeing numbers on that breakout, though. I'm also curious whether any CRP payments made to people living outside of Montana would show up in the Montana "in" column in that analysis. I would assume that it would show up in the state of the mailing address of the recipient.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.



grizbeer
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Missoula

Post by grizbeer » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:48 pm

BAC I may be wrong about CRP, I was speaking off the top of my head. However I think generally larger ranches and farms are owned by corporations or partnerships, so the payments would go to and count towards where the land is located, regardless of where the owners are or where the money ends up.

Here is an interesting link for CRP information - there may be more accurate ones - but it appears the bulk of farm subsidies goes to large corporations, wealthy individuals, and state and tribal agencies. Lots of good information in here if you dig around.

http://www.ewg.org/farm/cityslickers/



Post Reply