4 ms·

That would be great, considering California subsidizes most of the rest of the country.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Ah, the ole "we have more wealthy people than you" argument.
missedthecue 4y ago
What do you mean by "subsidize"? Are you referring to the general progressiveness of the US Federal tax code, or are you insinuating that Oklahoma's state budget is X% funded by California in addition to Oklahoman tax receipts?
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Pretty sure it's the progressive tax code and the fact that California is (1) huge and (2) disproportionately wealthy. I'm sure that wealthy Americans flock to California for the moral superiority of the average Californian and not, say, the weather. /s
- vmladenov 4y ago
  Not the person you replied to, but there’s this concept of donor states that ranks the balance of payments. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-state...
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    So in other words, states with lots of high earners disproportionately fund welfare and social security. I don't see what's wrong with that. Does the parent comment not like progressive taxation, or do they not like welfare?
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      That is not even close to "in other words".
      - missedthecue 4y ago
        Can you explain what "subsidize" means then? Because that's pretty clearly what it reads like to me.
TMWNN 4y ago
>That would be great, considering California subsidizes most of the rest of the country. You and subiculumcode are wrong. First, the state of California does not pay a cent to another state or to the federal government. It is residents of California that pay federal taxes, which in turn provide funding and services to states and individuals. Second, the Rockefeller Institute (<https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...>) shows that, as of 2018 (the last time I checked this data; I see that 2019 is now available), the 10 states at the bottom of the per capita list—that is, the states that benefit from the most federal spending per person compared to how much each person pays in federal taxes—are 2016/2020 Hillary/Biden-voting states: VA, NM, MD, HI, 1/2 of ME 2016/2020 Trump-voting states: KY, AK, AL, WV, MS, 1/2 of ME It's not so much "blue states" as frequently claimed, but taxpayers of four very wealthy Northeast states (the Tri-State area plus Massachusetts) that account for the vast bulk of citizens paying more than they receive from the federal government. After them come CO, NE, UT, and MN, of which half voted for Hillary/Biden and half for Trump. All other states, including CA, are net beneficiaries of the taxpayers in the top eight (and, again, really, it's the top four).

Ah, the ole "we have more wealthy people than you" argument.

What do you mean by "subsidize"? Are you referring to the general progressiveness of the US Federal tax code, or are you insinuating that Oklahoma's state budget is X% funded by California in addition to Oklahoman tax receipts?

throwaway894345 4y ago
Pretty sure it's the progressive tax code and the fact that California is (1) huge and (2) disproportionately wealthy. I'm sure that wealthy Americans flock to California for the moral superiority of the average Californian and not, say, the weather. /s
vmladenov 4y ago
Not the person you replied to, but there’s this concept of donor states that ranks the balance of payments. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-state...
- missedthecue 4y ago
  So in other words, states with lots of high earners disproportionately fund welfare and social security. I don't see what's wrong with that. Does the parent comment not like progressive taxation, or do they not like welfare?
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    That is not even close to "in other words".
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      Can you explain what "subsidize" means then? Because that's pretty clearly what it reads like to me.

TMWNN 4y ago

>That would be great, considering California subsidizes most of the rest of the country. You and subiculumcode are wrong. First, the state of California does not pay a cent to another state or to the federal government. It is residents of California that pay federal taxes, which in turn provide funding and services to states and individuals. Second, the Rockefeller Institute (<https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...>) shows that, as of 2018 (the last time I checked this data; I see that 2019 is now available), the 10 states at the bottom of the per capita list—that is, the states that benefit from the most federal spending per person compared to how much each person pays in federal taxes—are 2016/2020 Hillary/Biden-voting states: VA, NM, MD, HI, 1/2 of ME 2016/2020 Trump-voting states: KY, AK, AL, WV, MS, 1/2 of ME It's not so much "blue states" as frequently claimed, but taxpayers of four very wealthy Northeast states (the Tri-State area plus Massachusetts) that account for the vast bulk of citizens paying more than they receive from the federal government. After them come CO, NE, UT, and MN, of which half voted for Hillary/Biden and half for Trump. All other states, including CA, are net beneficiaries of the taxpayers in the top eight (and, again, really, it's the top four).