4 ms·

> Two families both make $250,000 a year. One is in New York and one is in Texas. The family in Texas is carrying more of the federal tax burden than the family

> Two families both make $250,000 a year. One is in New York and one is in Texas. The family in Texas is carrying more of the federal tax burden than the family in New York. Why? Both are (in theory) receiving the same benefits from the Federal Government and should pay the same in taxes. This assertion isn't true. Federal policies already heavily favor funding Red, rural states over more urban states. It "sounds" true when you think about a person/household but when you factor in the other state services being funded (i.e. roads) it falls apart. https://taxfoundation.org/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005/ https://taxfoundation.org/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spen... 5 of 24 years (1981-2005) CA has received less. And if you look up the scattering (but less concentrated) stats from 2005-2017, CA has been getting less than 80% of its money back from the Federal government. So its really 31 of the past 36 years that CA has been drained to help red states. https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/ > If you're a progressive this should make even less sense: rich states are currently keeping additional funds for themselves local, in their rich states, via high taxes, that are then shielded from the federal government via deductions. That is a strawman. Progressive taxation has nothing to do with aggregate wealth and everything to do with individual wealth.

creaghpatr 9y ago
>Federal policies already heavily favor funding Red, rural states over more urban states. It "sounds" true when you think about a person/household but when you factor in the other state services being funded (i.e. roads) it falls apart. Much of that funding goes to subsidies (farming, energy, etc) for which the whole country enjoys the benefits, if not proportionally. A state like SC that has a disproportionate amount of military bases is going to receive far more per capita government funds, though the local SC taxpayers only get marginally more benefit than the rest of the country. That's not to say you are wrong that rural states get better de facto tax treatment than urban-focused states but it's a bit more intertwined than it sounds.
- AFNobody 9y ago
  > local SC taxpayers only get marginally more benefit than the rest of the country. I wouldn't agree its marginally more benefit. Those bases being shut down would crush SC's economy within 50 miles of every base. Economically, they enjoy 100% of the benefit and pay less than 5% of the costs. The US is not, in any real sense, threatened militarily that I benefit from a large defense budget. Similar is true of food and energy subsidies. They have strategic value but they don't benefit me economically. There is a reason food and energy imports are still competitive despite the subsidies. The benefits of what you mention is it helps broaden the US's foreign policy options, not actual economic value to the average American.
  - bas 9y ago
    And we haven't even discussed defense spending from an efficiency/ROI perspective.

creaghpatr 9y ago

>Federal policies already heavily favor funding Red, rural states over more urban states. It "sounds" true when you think about a person/household but when you factor in the other state services being funded (i.e. roads) it falls apart. Much of that funding goes to subsidies (farming, energy, etc) for which the whole country enjoys the benefits, if not proportionally. A state like SC that has a disproportionate amount of military bases is going to receive far more per capita government funds, though the local SC taxpayers only get marginally more benefit than the rest of the country. That's not to say you are wrong that rural states get better de facto tax treatment than urban-focused states but it's a bit more intertwined than it sounds.

AFNobody 9y ago
> local SC taxpayers only get marginally more benefit than the rest of the country. I wouldn't agree its marginally more benefit. Those bases being shut down would crush SC's economy within 50 miles of every base. Economically, they enjoy 100% of the benefit and pay less than 5% of the costs. The US is not, in any real sense, threatened militarily that I benefit from a large defense budget. Similar is true of food and energy subsidies. They have strategic value but they don't benefit me economically. There is a reason food and energy imports are still competitive despite the subsidies. The benefits of what you mention is it helps broaden the US's foreign policy options, not actual economic value to the average American.
- bas 9y ago
  And we haven't even discussed defense spending from an efficiency/ROI perspective.