3 ms·

I'm taking a look here (visualization is crummy, but there's a list below) https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states https://worldpopulation

I'm taking a look here (visualization is crummy, but there's a list below) https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-state... There are only ten donor states in 2019: - Connecticut (- $4,000) - New Jersey (- $2,368) - Massachusetts (- $2,343) - New York (- $1,792) - North Dakota (- $720) - Illinois (- $364) - New Hampshire (- $234) - Washington (- $184) - Nebraska (- $164) - Colorado (- $95) And these are the top taker states: - Virginia ($10,301) - Kentucky ($9,145) - New Mexico ($8,692) - West Virginia ($7,283) - Alaska ($7,048) - Mississippi ($6,880) - Alabama ($6,694) - Maryland ($6,035) - Maine ($5,572) - Hawaii ($5,270) The majority of those top taker states are under Democratic Party control, and 40 out of 50 states are takers of federal dollars, so I don't see much evidence for your point.

jacobolus 6y ago
Virginia/Maryland are a special case, since they are immediately adjacent to DC, so are home to a large number of federal workers. New Mexico is impoverished and filled with elderly retirees, and also has (relative to population) a large number of well-paid federal workers at Los Alamos and Sandia national labs. In every state though, rural and ex-urban areas are subsidized by federal and state tax revenue coming from cities. New York put together a report for 2017 that seems more reliable than the list you are using: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2018/federal-budget-fiscal-year-2017.pdf https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2018/federal-budg...
sidlls 6y ago
The source of your data is a SUNY Rockefeller Institute of Government report: https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Balance-of-Payments.pdf https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Bala.... Scrolling down to page 14 shows a nice visual that completely supports my contention. The two surprises to me are ND and California, but the rest essentially show that taker states tend to have higher populations of individuals who are opposed to the federal government spending money ("anti-government spending").
- jessedhillon 6y ago
  Thanks for sharing this. What I see on page 14 is a map of the same data I shared. It shows that there's a small number of net producer states, and a larger number of net takers. If you look at page 17, you'll see that most states actually fall into the low tax and low spending quadrant. So while they may need to raise taxes by some amount, they're hardly being hypocritical the way it seems you want to paint them.

jacobolus 6y ago

Virginia/Maryland are a special case, since they are immediately adjacent to DC, so are home to a large number of federal workers. New Mexico is impoverished and filled with elderly retirees, and also has (relative to population) a large number of well-paid federal workers at Los Alamos and Sandia national labs. In every state though, rural and ex-urban areas are subsidized by federal and state tax revenue coming from cities. New York put together a report for 2017 that seems more reliable than the list you are using: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2018/federal-budget-fiscal-year-2017.pdf https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2018/federal-budg...

sidlls 6y ago

The source of your data is a SUNY Rockefeller Institute of Government report: https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Balance-of-Payments.pdf https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Bala.... Scrolling down to page 14 shows a nice visual that completely supports my contention. The two surprises to me are ND and California, but the rest essentially show that taker states tend to have higher populations of individuals who are opposed to the federal government spending money ("anti-government spending").

jessedhillon 6y ago
Thanks for sharing this. What I see on page 14 is a map of the same data I shared. It shows that there's a small number of net producer states, and a larger number of net takers. If you look at page 17, you'll see that most states actually fall into the low tax and low spending quadrant. So while they may need to raise taxes by some amount, they're hardly being hypocritical the way it seems you want to paint them.