6 ms·

The crazy thing isn't the real value of $100 spent on private goods and services. It's the value of $100 spent in taxes. Federal tax receipts in California, Il

The crazy thing isn't the real value of $100 spent on private goods and services. It's the value of $100 spent in taxes. Federal tax receipts in California, Illinois and New York subsidize Florida, Texas and much of the south.[0] The hypocrisy of fiscal conservatism is that it is enabled by giant high-tax Democratic states. [0] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

Omniusaspirer 10y ago
There's nothing inherently hypocritical about fiscal conservatism as your comment tries to imply. Republican != fiscally conservative (barring some lip service). I suspect you'd find most people who are genuinely fiscally conservative are the most well off people around.
nugget 10y ago
There are a lot of ways to look at contribution of natural resources. Per capita the military is disproportionately made up of recruits from poorer rural states. Alaska, Texas and Louisiana contribute oil and gas. The Midwest allowed tens of millions of immigrants to move to the US, assimilate, and raise large families which then fueled the economies of larger states like California. Most importantly the diversity of viewpoints represented by 50 states introduces some modicum of competition into the political sphere allowing the United States to remain a real life laboratory of democracy wherein citizens are able to observe different approaches and vote with their feet to promote good governance.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  Diversity has an optimal threshold. The more thoughts and viewpoints the better, until agreements can no longer be reached. I think the general feeling right now is that we've crossed into a suboptimal zone where government has trouble acting.
  - vehementi 10y ago
    That's, uh, not due to diversity...
- Retric 10y ago
  Natural resources are fungible, importing oil is a non issue when when it costs more to subsidize Alaska then we gain in Oil. It's important to at least recognize that Republican ideas result in worse economy's. After all insanity is doing the same thing over and over thinking this time will be different.
  - ysavir 10y ago
    Ironic how people keep using that phrase thinking that maybe this time people would listen.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Sadly, I don't expect people to change. However, silence is often taken for consent and I am not ok indirectly supporting such ideas.
rayiner 10y ago
I wonder what that looks like when your factor out military expenditures (which most conservatives would say is one of the few legitimate federal expenditures).
brightball 10y ago
Just curious, which parties pushed the federal policies that created those subsidies? Having not actually researched it, I'd be interested to see the breakdown of cost-per-policy-per-party. Based on your comment, do you find it ironic that those states seems to continuously vote "stop helping me"?
- talmand 10y ago
  Doesn't matter, they will complain no matter what. The current system of sharing wealth with poor states from rich states is exactly the system they advocate, then complain when they realize what it actually means. Anyone that makes that silly comparison is just complaining about the people who are benefiting; they want to help their poor people, not the other poor people.
bpodgursky 10y ago
Other comments have good points, but the main thing IMO is that tax receipts are low in the midwest / south is that what they produce (food) is incredibly cheap now days. The US produces a ridiculous surplus of food with a tiny portion of the population because we're incredibly good at doing it cheaply. High volume and low cost == low prices == low tax revenue. It doesn't mean low real-world value or produced value. You could "fix" it by trying to balance revenues by playing with tax rates, but all you'll accomplish is making food expensive in CA/NY, shifting dollars around, and making everything more complicated than it is now. There are plenty of other reasons tax revenue registers in NY/CA; anyone -- from anywhere in the country -- with a retirement account is funneling it through some NY mutual fund, and entertainment is still mostly produced in CA. If NY didn't exist, it would be managed somewhere else; it's not that NY is producing magical value nobody else understands. It's just most convenient. If Hollywood stopped producing movies... we'd all be a bit more bored temporarily, but it's again going to get bought from somewhere else.
- vacri 10y ago
  Hollywood = $30B. California's economy = $2.2T. California agriculture = $40B, bigger than any other state's, and bigger than Hollywood.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Shall we compare what California grows as compared to what any Southern state grows?
- dalore 10y ago
  You realise food is cheap because of taxes/subsidies. If we had to pay the true cost of food it would be expensive. And the politician that did wouldn't be liked much as well.
  - jws 10y ago
    Total USDA agricultural subsidies amount to $0.10/capita/day. It adds up to a large number, but it doesn't move food from expensive to cheap.
labster 10y ago
This continual transfer of wealth between different regions and cultures is what allows the U.S. to be successful while the EU is a quagmire. Federalism ftw. Federalism even works great in Germany. And yes, I'm pretty much OK with my portion of California taxes going to Alabama, because society is not a zero-sum game.
PKop 10y ago
Those are the same states that would be for a flat rate tax or even more so a flat fee tax, but I'm sure you wouldn't be, so where's the hypocrisy? Progressive tax rates exacerbate the issue you're pointing out and they are strongly opposed by conservatives, and supported by California, New York liberals. Being a liberal and complaining about high tax rates, while blaming those against high taxes is kinda rich no? Another point, those places also would be more amendable to pushing more responsibilities on the states away from federal govt reducing even more the imbalance of higher federal taxes paid by higher cost states.
- will_brown 10y ago
  Exactly! It is hypocritical for proponents of progressive taxes to complain simply because the fiscal conservative states are benefiting from progressive taxes. Certainly it is not hypocritical for the fiscal conservative States to want to change a system that is current benefiting them to make it flat for everyone. The other thing I am not sure about is why OP highlights high tax Democratic States, no doubt that is what they are, but it is not applicable applied to Federal Income Taxes where everyone, regardless of State, is subject to the same progressive tax rates.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I'm not sure if you are trolling or being serious.
    - yompers888 10y ago
      I recommend erring on the side of helping people understand their misconceptions.
      - talmand 10y ago
        How can they help me with understanding misconceptions if I can't understand what they are saying?
vonmoltke 10y ago
Their methodology leaves something to be desired. The resident dependency score unfairly penalizes states that have large federal presences to to geography (like Texas and New Mexico). Furthermore, the idea of measuring state government dependence as a ratio is pretty much guaranteed to make states with low overall budgets look bad. The per-capita state budget contribution would be much more interesting.
yompers888 10y ago
I think the effect of this is most insidious in infrastructure spending. And I'm not talking about major highways, which naturally go through rural and poorer areas while actually serving the urban areas they connect. The urban areas tend to have people who insist upon higher taxes, while the people in the rural areas commonly want the reverse. Meanwhile, because of those taxes being redistributed in the way they are, money that could go toward mass transit in cities is instead being funneled to road projects in rural areas. With all that money, the rural areas are able to secure funding (but not in any way, shape, or form afford) oversized infrastructure so they can turn their places into post-apocalyptic wastelands of Walmarts and car sewers. Rural towns may develop in horrendously bad ways, but at least if they were less well-fed by federal and state programs they might come to meet the reality that their development patterns are completely unsustainable.
- panzagl 10y ago
  You're confusing suburb and rural- rural areas have well water and septic tanks, 2-lane roads that eventually lead to the Walmart near the interstate. And the money is state and local, not federal, unless you have a senator that really swings above his weight class (like a Kennedy or Byrd).
  - yompers888 10y ago
    I should have been more diligent by including suburbs in my comment. Furthermore, you're very right that the water and sewage is even more important than roads, and that overbuilding happens in the suburbs. But you may also have an overly optimistic picture of rural areas, because I can think of quite a few four lane highways where I grew up that go out into relative nowhere, and do so at huge cost. There's a town of 20k people there that has a beltway!
thowfaraway 10y ago
From 1876 to 1992, 116 years in a row, Mississippi had a Democratic governor. Do you think it is poor because The last 2 guys running the state were Republicans, or that 116 years of policy, and the legacy slavery on top of that?

Omniusaspirer 10y ago

There's nothing inherently hypocritical about fiscal conservatism as your comment tries to imply. Republican != fiscally conservative (barring some lip service). I suspect you'd find most people who are genuinely fiscally conservative are the most well off people around.

nugget 10y ago

There are a lot of ways to look at contribution of natural resources. Per capita the military is disproportionately made up of recruits from poorer rural states. Alaska, Texas and Louisiana contribute oil and gas. The Midwest allowed tens of millions of immigrants to move to the US, assimilate, and raise large families which then fueled the economies of larger states like California. Most importantly the diversity of viewpoints represented by 50 states introduces some modicum of competition into the political sphere allowing the United States to remain a real life laboratory of democracy wherein citizens are able to observe different approaches and vote with their feet to promote good governance.

thinkloop 10y ago
Diversity has an optimal threshold. The more thoughts and viewpoints the better, until agreements can no longer be reached. I think the general feeling right now is that we've crossed into a suboptimal zone where government has trouble acting.
- vehementi 10y ago
  That's, uh, not due to diversity...
Retric 10y ago
Natural resources are fungible, importing oil is a non issue when when it costs more to subsidize Alaska then we gain in Oil. It's important to at least recognize that Republican ideas result in worse economy's. After all insanity is doing the same thing over and over thinking this time will be different.
- ysavir 10y ago
  Ironic how people keep using that phrase thinking that maybe this time people would listen.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Sadly, I don't expect people to change. However, silence is often taken for consent and I am not ok indirectly supporting such ideas.

rayiner 10y ago

I wonder what that looks like when your factor out military expenditures (which most conservatives would say is one of the few legitimate federal expenditures).

brightball 10y ago

Just curious, which parties pushed the federal policies that created those subsidies? Having not actually researched it, I'd be interested to see the breakdown of cost-per-policy-per-party. Based on your comment, do you find it ironic that those states seems to continuously vote "stop helping me"?

talmand 10y ago
Doesn't matter, they will complain no matter what. The current system of sharing wealth with poor states from rich states is exactly the system they advocate, then complain when they realize what it actually means. Anyone that makes that silly comparison is just complaining about the people who are benefiting; they want to help their poor people, not the other poor people.

bpodgursky 10y ago

Other comments have good points, but the main thing IMO is that tax receipts are low in the midwest / south is that what they produce (food) is incredibly cheap now days. The US produces a ridiculous surplus of food with a tiny portion of the population because we're incredibly good at doing it cheaply. High volume and low cost == low prices == low tax revenue. It doesn't mean low real-world value or produced value. You could "fix" it by trying to balance revenues by playing with tax rates, but all you'll accomplish is making food expensive in CA/NY, shifting dollars around, and making everything more complicated than it is now. There are plenty of other reasons tax revenue registers in NY/CA; anyone -- from anywhere in the country -- with a retirement account is funneling it through some NY mutual fund, and entertainment is still mostly produced in CA. If NY didn't exist, it would be managed somewhere else; it's not that NY is producing magical value nobody else understands. It's just most convenient. If Hollywood stopped producing movies... we'd all be a bit more bored temporarily, but it's again going to get bought from somewhere else.

vacri 10y ago
Hollywood = $30B. California's economy = $2.2T. California agriculture = $40B, bigger than any other state's, and bigger than Hollywood.
- talmand 10y ago
  Shall we compare what California grows as compared to what any Southern state grows?
dalore 10y ago
You realise food is cheap because of taxes/subsidies. If we had to pay the true cost of food it would be expensive. And the politician that did wouldn't be liked much as well.
- jws 10y ago
  Total USDA agricultural subsidies amount to $0.10/capita/day. It adds up to a large number, but it doesn't move food from expensive to cheap.

labster 10y ago

This continual transfer of wealth between different regions and cultures is what allows the U.S. to be successful while the EU is a quagmire. Federalism ftw. Federalism even works great in Germany. And yes, I'm pretty much OK with my portion of California taxes going to Alabama, because society is not a zero-sum game.

PKop 10y ago

Those are the same states that would be for a flat rate tax or even more so a flat fee tax, but I'm sure you wouldn't be, so where's the hypocrisy? Progressive tax rates exacerbate the issue you're pointing out and they are strongly opposed by conservatives, and supported by California, New York liberals. Being a liberal and complaining about high tax rates, while blaming those against high taxes is kinda rich no? Another point, those places also would be more amendable to pushing more responsibilities on the states away from federal govt reducing even more the imbalance of higher federal taxes paid by higher cost states.

will_brown 10y ago
Exactly! It is hypocritical for proponents of progressive taxes to complain simply because the fiscal conservative states are benefiting from progressive taxes. Certainly it is not hypocritical for the fiscal conservative States to want to change a system that is current benefiting them to make it flat for everyone. The other thing I am not sure about is why OP highlights high tax Democratic States, no doubt that is what they are, but it is not applicable applied to Federal Income Taxes where everyone, regardless of State, is subject to the same progressive tax rates.
- talmand 10y ago
  I'm not sure if you are trolling or being serious.
  - yompers888 10y ago
    I recommend erring on the side of helping people understand their misconceptions.
    - talmand 10y ago
      How can they help me with understanding misconceptions if I can't understand what they are saying?

vonmoltke 10y ago

Their methodology leaves something to be desired. The resident dependency score unfairly penalizes states that have large federal presences to to geography (like Texas and New Mexico). Furthermore, the idea of measuring state government dependence as a ratio is pretty much guaranteed to make states with low overall budgets look bad. The per-capita state budget contribution would be much more interesting.

yompers888 10y ago

I think the effect of this is most insidious in infrastructure spending. And I'm not talking about major highways, which naturally go through rural and poorer areas while actually serving the urban areas they connect. The urban areas tend to have people who insist upon higher taxes, while the people in the rural areas commonly want the reverse. Meanwhile, because of those taxes being redistributed in the way they are, money that could go toward mass transit in cities is instead being funneled to road projects in rural areas. With all that money, the rural areas are able to secure funding (but not in any way, shape, or form afford) oversized infrastructure so they can turn their places into post-apocalyptic wastelands of Walmarts and car sewers. Rural towns may develop in horrendously bad ways, but at least if they were less well-fed by federal and state programs they might come to meet the reality that their development patterns are completely unsustainable.

panzagl 10y ago
You're confusing suburb and rural- rural areas have well water and septic tanks, 2-lane roads that eventually lead to the Walmart near the interstate. And the money is state and local, not federal, unless you have a senator that really swings above his weight class (like a Kennedy or Byrd).
- yompers888 10y ago
  I should have been more diligent by including suburbs in my comment. Furthermore, you're very right that the water and sewage is even more important than roads, and that overbuilding happens in the suburbs. But you may also have an overly optimistic picture of rural areas, because I can think of quite a few four lane highways where I grew up that go out into relative nowhere, and do so at huge cost. There's a town of 20k people there that has a beltway!

thowfaraway 10y ago

From 1876 to 1992, 116 years in a row, Mississippi had a Democratic governor. Do you think it is poor because The last 2 guys running the state were Republicans, or that 116 years of policy, and the legacy slavery on top of that?