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.
Mississippi. Alabama. They do not have HUGE military presence, even for their size.
Alabama certainly does. Keep in mind that Alabama is huge on aeronautics and space technology. The brains behind NASA were largely located in Huntsville, AL, and nearly a third of Alabama's federal expenditures were on the military. 20% of Mississippi's federal funds are defense related. Texas, another huge military state was at 30%. You would think California would be near the top of the list, but in fact they only receive 16% (dead on the national average).
These are 2008 numbers, will have to ask for 2009 figures.
Last edited by Frankie117; 12-04-2010 at 03:10 PM..
Wonder what happened in 2009 that would have changed the trend.
The same thing that was still affecting 2004 numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
"Huge" military spending was controlled for in every study that I know of.
Nope, I was in touch with the people who created those studies at the Tax Foundation, every penny of military spending was included in their studies. When in doubt, look it up yourself. The CFFR data and IRS tax stat ratios match perfectly to the TF studies with military spending included.
When they increasingly take a larger share of the spending than they pay in tax dollars?
So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the "worst deal"—that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paid—are generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these "donor" states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the "best deal" are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.
Your post reminded me of some information I picked up earlier this week about this very question. Somehow it seems that California, with all those people is the eighth highest in money made government in the world. Now they pay all those federal taxes with the highest population and are getting ready to tell the US government that they must be bailed out. Also, the second highest in income of the states, New York, is getting ready to be bailed out. Is there a chance that maybe those Red States are going to be asked to contribute to those bail outs? I certainly think they will be. In fact, I am against bail outs of states since too much of the reason they are needed is that they haven't been at all responsible for their spending that has put them in the deep hole they are in.
Au contraire, the fact that the citizens of red states receive more money in federal revenue than they pay in is fine with me since it is quite true that on average their citizens are in greater need of those tax dollars. I would just like to see a little more gratitude from the recipients, or at least some recognition that they are just biting the hand that feeds them.
And how much gratitude do you think California and New York will show when they get bailed out because their debts are so big and they are just too big to allow to fail?
They should be bailed out. California is a huge military state and you think would get more money than AL and MS. California is too big to fail. Same with NY and IL.
And how much gratitude do you think California and New York will show when they get bailed out because their debts are so big and they are just too big to allow to fail?
Texas is in worse shape. California is thinking about tax increases and spending cuts. Texas is thinking about opting out of Medicaid. Texans are screwed.
California will probably have a surtax on people making over $1 million. Or maybe $500,000. With the economy the way it is, it is unlikely they will burden people making under that amount.
I'm a Democrat and I think we should just scrap our current tax structure at the federal level. Eliminate all taxes on income, investments, businesses, and corporations. The federal government should just have a national sales tax and a VAT. It's simple and would help our economy take off like a rocket.
The Fair Tax calls for a tax on sales that would raise more money than our income tax does. Also it calls for no other federal taxes, period. Now that VAT thing is one that the Congress could easily raise from time to time and once raised would never go back down.
I agree with all you say but the VAT is to susceptible to playing around with.
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.
