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.
Obviously, part of what makes these states unattractive to many is the fact that they have very high state taxes to deal with and there are many states out there with much lower taxes that one can move to. However, I'm curious as to how big a part the incredibly low returns on federal tax dollars these states get (NJ at the bottom with $0.61 returned in spending for every $1 it gives in federal taxes). It seems like if the federal government isn't spending on improvements necessary to these states, then maybe these states have had to slowly shoulder a greater burden to provide an acceptable degree of basic service for projects within the state. It's a broad stroke I'm painting here, and obviously one with a lot of missing nuances, but maybe someone on this board has other interesting articles about this subject.
Last edited by Bo; 03-19-2010 at 08:38 AM..
Reason: Moved from General US. This is a political topic.
I think it's absolute garbage that my tax dollars here in NY go to states that get more than they give, and also have had growing economies and populations. They don't deserve that money.
Obviously, part of what makes these states unattractive to many is the fact that they have very high state taxes to deal with and there are many states out there with much lower taxes that one can move to. However, I'm curious as to how big a part the incredibly low returns on federal tax dollars these states get (NJ at the bottom with $0.61 returned in spending for every $1 it gives in federal taxes). It seems like if the federal government isn't spending on improvements necessary to these states, then maybe these states have had to slowly shoulder a greater burden to provide an acceptable degree of basic service for projects within the state. It's a broad stroke I'm painting here, and obviously one with a lot of missing nuances, but maybe someone on this board has other interesting articles about this subject.
What's interesting is that those rankings seem to similar to what the rankings would be in terms of poverty rates going from highest to lowest, initially.
I read that CA could wipe out its deficit with that difference. I wouldn't blame the high taxes solely on this but it seems like it would have to play at least somewhat of a role.
The irony of some people in those anti/low tax states calling the high tax states "welfare states" when they get their own form of welfare themselves from us.
I read that CA could wipe out its deficit with that difference. I wouldn't blame the high taxes solely on this but it seems like it would have to play at least somewhat of a role.
The irony of some people in those anti/low tax states calling the high tax states "welfare states" when they get their own form of welfare themselves from us.
Yea, I find that really disturbing. Why doesn't the media ever report on this? How do they let politicians who have the gall to say these things keep getting airplay?
I read that CA could wipe out its deficit with that difference. I wouldn't blame the high taxes solely on this but it seems like it would have to play at least somewhat of a role.
The irony of some people in those anti/low tax states calling the high tax states "welfare states" when they get their own form of welfare themselves from us.
D.C. looks like the ultimate welfare state, here, doesn't it? $6.64 for every dollar remitted. The answer is a little deeper than what most people perceive these ratios to be.
Those ratios of federal to state expenditures are largely a result of entities that are under the auspices of the federal government, which is to say, those states that have the largest presence of federal government employees and land holdings are the ones that are the greatest beneficiaries. That is why Washington D.C. has the largest ratio of federal to state ratio: D.C. gets back $6.64 from the federal government for every dollar it remits. Virginia, which is home of the Pentagon, as well as Ft Belvoir, Norfolk NAS, Quantico, etc, is also a big benefactor. Maryland is in receipt of 1.44 for every dollar, which is due to a number of federal entities such as NOAA, the Census, and other federal government entities (and federal salaries in Montgomery and Princes George Counties) being in proximity to the nation's capitol. A state like New Jersey, in contrast, has very little federal government land holdings, save for the "megabase" in the Pine Barrens and Picatinny. New Jersey, I think, has the largest percentage of privately owned land parcels as a percentage of the entire state land cover. In contrast, the federal government controls about 60% of the entire land cover of New Mexico, be it through military facilities, BLM, or National Park Service control. Those places are in receipt of federal dollars, obviously, for administration. Everything that you read on that map considers expenditures to pay for those publicly held lands and buildings, as well as the salaries of the workers that inhabit them. What I am trying to say is that some independent multi-millionaire business owner in Connecticut is not directly, or indirectly giving his or her dollars to someone holed up in a tar paper shack in Issaquena County Mississippi. That's not the way it works.
D.C. looks like the ultimate welfare state, here, doesn't it? $6.64 for every dollar remitted. The answer is a little deeper than what most people perceive these ratios to be.
Those ratios of federal to state expenditures are largely a result of entities that are under the auspices of the federal government, which is to say, those states that have the largest presence of federal government employees and land holdings are the ones that are the greatest beneficiaries. That is why Washington D.C. has the largest ratio of federal to state ratio: D.C. gets back $6.64 from the federal government for every dollar it remits. Virginia, which is home of the Pentagon, as well as Ft Belvoir, Norfolk NAS, Quantico, etc, is also a big benefactor. Maryland is in receipt of 1.44 for every dollar, which is due to a number of federal entities such as NOAA, the Census, and other federal government entities (and federal salaries in Montgomery and Princes George Counties) being in proximity to the nation's capitol. A state like New Jersey, in contrast, has very little federal government land holdings, save for the "megabase" in the Pine Barrens and Picatinny. New Jersey, I think, has the largest percentage of privately owned land parcels as a percentage of the entire state land cover. In contrast, the federal government controls about 60% of the entire land cover of New Mexico, be it through military facilities, BLM, or National Park Service control. Those places are in receipt of federal dollars, obviously, for administration. Everything that you read on that map considers expenditures to pay for those publicly held lands and buildings, as well as the salaries of the workers that inhabit them. What I am trying to say is that some independent multi-millionaire business owner in Connecticut is not directly, or indirectly giving his or her dollars to someone holed up in a tar paper shack in Issaquena County Mississippi. That's not the way it works.
You make some valid points but CA has the most # of federal employees of any state and NV has the highest percentage of land owned by the federal govt (85%). And CA ranks in the Top 10 for federal land too with nearly 45% of it under the BLM. And look at their #'s.
I read that CA could wipe out its deficit with that difference. I wouldn't blame the high taxes solely on this but it seems like it would have to play at least somewhat of a role.
The irony of some people in those anti/low tax states calling the high tax states "welfare states" when they get their own form of welfare themselves from us.
Either way, this is truly disgusting. And the ironic thing is is that all of those states getting CA's money have nothing good to say about CA and it's people.
Apparently 'real America' is the place that collects other state's hard earned money and then ***** on them in the process of doing so.
Yea, I find that really disturbing. Why doesn't the media ever report on this? How do they let politicians who have the gall to say these things keep getting airplay?
Schwarzenegger has mentioned this before and actually went to Washington trying to get our fair share, he basically got laughed out of DC even by some of our own representatives. I really would love to see these anti/low tax states called out more for this BS double standard/hypocrisy imo.
Considering all the illegals that flood CA, we should be getting more federal money since they let this happen.
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.
