4 ms·
Typical; someone with only half of a story pushing an agenda. You can look at the data yourself(*) No state pays more outright than California. Followed closely
by davoneus 3y ago
Typical; someone with only half of a story pushing an agenda. You can look at the data yourself(*)
No state pays more outright than California. Followed closely by NY, Mass, Ct, NJ.
Look at per-capita income, and California is receives less than 44 other states. Lets see how does that compare some of those "red" states?MS(#8), Al(#7), La(#11), Ar(#15), Ky(#2), SC(#13), Tn(#16), Wv (#5), Oh(#21), Tx(#36), Mt(#19), NC(#20)?
Don't know about you, but the data sure tells another story doesn't it?
I damn well don't live in CA (midwest), but don't believe anything on the 'net until you verify it yourself. Too many people pushing an agenda.
(*) https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...
- TMWNN 3y agoI love how you cited the Rockefeller Institute's URL, as if you're the first one to do so; the whole point of my pointing people to the Rockefeller data was so they could see for themselves. I also can't believe that you actually said "No state pays more outright than California"; anything else would be a surprise given how large the state's population is. In any case, as I said in my previously cited comment, what matters is the net per capita amount, the difference between how much a state's citizens[1] pay to Washington versus how much they and their state get back from Washington. Californians overall benefited more from federal spending than they paid in federal taxes over the years I cited, just like every other state except three. That's not exactly the "California subsidizes all the hillbillies in the red states" mantra that is so often repeated online. [1] Not the state itself, which does not pay a cent to Washington.