Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? Air force and army bases also create engines for substantial civilian employment (not for ALL Americans..for LOCALS). Would anyone not correlate NOVA's growth with the growth of the Federal government?
I was reading on how they calculate these Federal expenditures to determine which states receive more tax money. They included Federal employee salaries in it. I wonder if that skews the results. I can't seem to find the information I'm seeking - which is apart from Federal expenditures like military bases, infrastructure, Federal employee salaries, is the result the same? I suspect, but have not been able to find the information, that it's primarily an urban vs. rural state issue versus a simple red vs. blue state issue. I tend to find these simplistic 'red states are moochers' statements are usually too simplistic to explain what is really going on. Like I said, though, it's a theory, for which I do not have concrete statistics. However, in looking at the calculations of determining the 'moocher' states, there does seem to be some evidence to my theory.
I was reading on how they calculate these Federal expenditures to determine which states receive more tax money. They included Federal employee salaries in it. I wonder if that skews the results. I can't seem to find the information I'm seeking - which is apart from Federal expenditures like military bases, infrastructure, Federal employee salaries, is the result the same? I suspect, but have not been able to find the information, that it's primarily an urban vs. rural state issue versus a simple red vs. blue state issue. I tend to find these simplistic 'red states are moochers' statements are usually too simplistic to explain what is really going on. Like I said, though, it's a theory, for which I do not have concrete statistics. However, in looking at the calculations of determining the 'moocher' states, there does seem to be some evidence to my theory.
We pay less Federal Income tax due to lower median incomes, and IMO, we should NOT pay less FIT. We use the same services, and are protected by the same armed forces. That is why I favor indexing FIT by state of residence, to equalize tax payments per capita by state.
USA Today article does not contradict any data compiled by Tax Foundation which simply shows that blue states contribute to the federal budget (taxes) more than they receive in return in federal subsidies, while the red states, with the exception of Texas, receive more in subsidies than they contribute in taxes.
In essence, the blue, liberal states subsidize the red states with their federal tax dollars, which makes all this republican "fiscal-responsibility rhetoric" really dubious. Red states are dependent on federal subsidies much more than blue states.
Again, its not about wealth, its about federal taxes paid by states and subsidies received from the federal government.
Here is the graphical representation of this data:
The original Tax Foundation analysis can be found here:
For several years a meme has been circulating among Liberals pointing out that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do, with most red states taking in more Federal money than they give back. This of course is misleading, since most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in highly populated cities in blue states. It's also misleading because it's not an examination of what individuals take out of the system, but what the Government spends within various states across the board.
This article from USA Today compiled data showing which states had the highest per capita expenditures for every type of government-provided benefit and blue states top the list and red states made up most of the bottom 10. New Yorkers lead pack in government benefits - USATODAY.com
Top 10 - Most dependent on government aid
1 New York
2 West Virginia
3 Rhode Island
4 Maine
5 Pennsylvania
6 Massachusetts
7 Vermont
8 Kentucky
9 Michigan
10 Connecticut
Bottom 10 - Least dependent on government aid
41 South Dakota
42 Nebraska
43 Wyoming
44 Idaho
45 Georgia
46 Texas
47 Nevada
48 Virginia
49 Colorado
50 Utah
For the most part, the difference between the states in the middle (11-40) isn't a huge margin, but it does illustrate that on a per-capita basis, people who live in blue states are just as likely to depend on the government than those in red states.
So tell us why Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are so poor? Why are New Yorkers more educated than Texans, and more likely to have access to health insurance?
Stop trying to change the subject.
Quote:
The bulk of the federal expenditures are on social security, and Medicare (not welfare programs), and we can add defense and debt service.
So, precisely how, then, do you categorize the STATE as being a consumer of benefits?
Social Security is not optional, Defense is not chosen by state, and debt service is wholly irrelevant. So, why are you lumping THESE into "federal spending" and using it as a yardstick about federal dependency?
Quote:
Aside from Medicaid expenditures, programs which benefit the poor are not a major part of federal expenditures. Indeed the assorted farm support programs are a major reason why red states benefit from the feds.
Show me the budget for farm support programs. First, in whole dollars, and then, as a percentage of federal revenue. If farm support is is the major mechanism by which the states benefit, then indeed, it is a microscopic part of federal spending, and your point is blatantly dishonest.
Quote:
You can skip and jump and do all you wish, but you cannot avoid the fact that the poorest states in this country are almost ALL RED! And have been for quite a while too!
We pay less Federal Income tax due to lower median incomes, and IMO, we should NOT pay less FIT. We use the same services, and are protected by the same armed forces. That is why I favor indexing FIT by state of residence, to equalize tax payments per capita by state.
So, you're favoring lower income people paying more in taxes than those of higher income? Wouldn't that be your argument? After all, on average, those in red states make less income because of the lower cost of living. Why not look at reducing the spending instead?
So, you're favoring lower income people paying more in taxes than those of higher income? Wouldn't that be your argument? After all, on average, those in red states make less income because of the lower cost of living. Why not look at reducing the spending instead?
I'm favoring essentially a flat absolute minimum $ amount of FIT being paid by all residents of every state. The overall costs to defend an American should be viewed as a flat per capita amount, and it should be paid in the same manner.
So, you're favoring lower income people paying more in taxes than those of higher income? Wouldn't that be your argument? After all, on average, those in red states make less income because of the lower cost of living. Why not look at reducing the spending instead?
No, he just wants as much power and money to flow to the federal government as possible. The "indexing" argument is just an expedient argument, useful at this moment.
No, he just wants as much power and money to flow to the federal government as possible. The "indexing" argument is just an expedient argument, useful at this moment.
Wrong! But all should pay FIT! No exceptions! If you are making little, it is up to you, the individual, to do better. It is not up to me to support your lack of success.
PS: I'd also favor eliminating all deductions and credits of any kind, with rates lowered to make the equation revenue-neutral.
I'm favoring essentially a flat absolute minimum $ amount of FIT being paid by all residents of every state. The overall costs to defend an American should be viewed as a flat per capita amount, and it should be paid in the same manner.
That's an argument against the progressive income structure favored by the left. The lower income residents actually have a negative tax liability (e.g. they pay no taxes and receive money from the Feds at tax time). So, you would argue to increase taxes on those people as well? I've always been in favor of a flat tax but I admit I'm surprised to find you so. I was under the impression you leaned left? I was wrong?
ETA: Upon reading your additional comments, yes, it appeared I was wrong about your leanings. Sorry - it gets hard to keep track around here.
Wrong! But all should pay FIT! No exceptions! If you are making little, it is up to you, the individual, to do better. It is not up to me to support your lack of success.
I actually support that thought. It's not up to us to financially support someone else's failures and bad decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
