3 ms·

Pretty sure California and New York are tired of paying billions of dollars to the Federal government that gets re-distributed to all of the failing Federal wel

by s5300 5y ago

Pretty sure California and New York are tired of paying billions of dollars to the Federal government that gets re-distributed to all of the failing Federal welfare states. If they're so tired, I'm sure they'd be happy to give back the billions of dollars they receive any time now. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-state...

golemotron 5y ago
It's because of inequality. California and New York have a higher GINI coefficient than most countries. If high net worth people from those states moved to other states, the transfer payments you are talking about wouldn't happen.
dogleash 5y ago
If you want to states to not get federal gov't funds, you're in agreement with the people who think the scope DC should be reduced and states to do more. So now that you're in agreement, get to enacting those changes. On your other point, I'll just leave this here: >“How come the white working class uses government programs while railing against handouts?” Because you are the government. They’ll take what they can, but they’ll be damned if they beg for it. “Why are all these hicks voting for authoritarianism?” Exercise some basic cognitive empathy, please. They’re not voting for authoritarianism. They’re voting for fuck you. https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/159702160399/the-subprime-directive https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/159702160399/the-subp...
bartart 5y ago
I think the picture is more complex than donor states and receiver states. As the article below argues, the Rockefeller study that the data comes from has flawed methodology. New York for example benefits tremendously from its large financial industry that pays a lot in taxes. But arguably the industry is so concentrated in New York today because of federal laws that force the federal reserve to conduct its financial activities only in New York, among other hard coded advantages that the state has lobbied for. In addition, retirees who receive billions in benefits each year from the federal government commonly leave the state in favor of places like Florida, further distorting the picture. Unlike more fiscally prudent states, New York also has billions in tax exempt bonds outstanding that deprive the federal government of revenue but are not counted by the Rockefeller study. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/new-york-is-no-donor-state-11595358729 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/new-york-is-no-donor-state-...
- s5300 5y ago
  Ahh, yes. The WSJ commentary/opinion section. Truly a pinnacle of economic discussion.
  - bartart 5y ago
    I know what you mean but I think think this specific article makes a good case. For example the financial industry concentration in New York and retiree mass emigration really do distort things.

by s5300 5y ago

golemotron 5y ago

It's because of inequality. California and New York have a higher GINI coefficient than most countries. If high net worth people from those states moved to other states, the transfer payments you are talking about wouldn't happen.

dogleash 5y ago

If you want to states to not get federal gov't funds, you're in agreement with the people who think the scope DC should be reduced and states to do more. So now that you're in agreement, get to enacting those changes. On your other point, I'll just leave this here: >“How come the white working class uses government programs while railing against handouts?” Because you are the government. They’ll take what they can, but they’ll be damned if they beg for it. “Why are all these hicks voting for authoritarianism?” Exercise some basic cognitive empathy, please. They’re not voting for authoritarianism. They’re voting for fuck you. https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/159702160399/the-subprime-directive https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/159702160399/the-subp...

bartart 5y ago

I think the picture is more complex than donor states and receiver states. As the article below argues, the Rockefeller study that the data comes from has flawed methodology. New York for example benefits tremendously from its large financial industry that pays a lot in taxes. But arguably the industry is so concentrated in New York today because of federal laws that force the federal reserve to conduct its financial activities only in New York, among other hard coded advantages that the state has lobbied for. In addition, retirees who receive billions in benefits each year from the federal government commonly leave the state in favor of places like Florida, further distorting the picture. Unlike more fiscally prudent states, New York also has billions in tax exempt bonds outstanding that deprive the federal government of revenue but are not counted by the Rockefeller study. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/new-york-is-no-donor-state-11595358729 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/new-york-is-no-donor-state-...

s5300 5y ago
Ahh, yes. The WSJ commentary/opinion section. Truly a pinnacle of economic discussion.
- bartart 5y ago
  I know what you mean but I think think this specific article makes a good case. For example the financial industry concentration in New York and retiree mass emigration really do distort things.