4 ms·

Infographic: United States of Subsidies

21 points by adatta02 14y ago

Eliezer 14y ago
http://xkcd.com/1138/ http://xkcd.com/1138/ - the per-capita data is useful, but the overall map is a classic population heatmap.
- yskchu 14y ago
  You mean the NYT's map? It's not; Texas has a disproportionately large subsidy per capita.
  - Dobbs 14y ago
    So does Michigan, while places like Nevada have disproportionately smaller subsidy per capita.
- tehwalrus 14y ago
  I switched immediately to the per-capita numbers, but I still knew that since California was biggest, it was worrying to see Texas with a higher gross spend!
sami36 14y ago
These numbers are mind blowing. So much for the fuss the GOP made about Tesla or Solyndra during the campaign.
negamax 14y ago
I am not an American but I knew it be Texas that must be receiving a lion's share
- ianb 14y ago
  It's not clear to me if Texas is taking anyone else's money – from what I can tell some Texans (and Texan companies) have to pay higher taxes because other Texas companies are receiving these tax benefits.
- tehwalrus 14y ago
  it does kinda look like Texas spends 51% of its state budget ctrl+Z'ing federal taxes - unless I've got that wrong?
  - anonymoushn 14y ago
    It passes up revenues equal to 51% of its budget ctrl+Z'ing its own taxes selectively.
    - tehwalrus 14y ago
      srsly? omgwtfbbq! (I've been waiting for many years for an appropriate reason to use that ridiculous non-acronym. Thank you Texas.)
gojomo 14y ago
I wonder if federal or statewide legislation could help, prohibiting negative-sum subsidy competitions between smaller jurisdictions.
- ianb 14y ago
  Minnesota (low on this list) implemented something like this, where when an area gets a particularly large tax windfall like from a corporate campus, a portion of that goes into a general fund. So if a location wants to give away some portion of tax revenue in order to lure a company from somewhere else in the state, it's not a big win for anyone. I think it's worked...? I don't know what other states do.
joejohnson 14y ago
I was not aware that Twitter had a $22 subsidy from the State of California. Hope that was a good investment.
- rdl 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure it was just the SF city payroll tax exemption. Twitter had a credible threat to move to Brisbane, so SF basically had to give them the exemption. Then, this year, SF voted to replace the payroll tax with a gross receipts tax (which is still bad, and worse for certain businesses).
flexie 14y ago
80.4 billion dollars is something like 255 dollars per capita or 700 dollars per tax payer, or 0.6 percent of GDP or 0.5 percent of US total public debt or 0.06 percent of US total unfunded liabilities (too many zeros on my calculator - I don't trust these numbers myself).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

21 points by adatta02 14y ago

http://xkcd.com/1138/ http://xkcd.com/1138/ - the per-capita data is useful, but the overall map is a classic population heatmap.

yskchu 14y ago
You mean the NYT's map? It's not; Texas has a disproportionately large subsidy per capita.
- Dobbs 14y ago
  So does Michigan, while places like Nevada have disproportionately smaller subsidy per capita.
tehwalrus 14y ago
I switched immediately to the per-capita numbers, but I still knew that since California was biggest, it was worrying to see Texas with a higher gross spend!

sami36 14y ago

These numbers are mind blowing. So much for the fuss the GOP made about Tesla or Solyndra during the campaign.

negamax 14y ago

I am not an American but I knew it be Texas that must be receiving a lion's share

ianb 14y ago
It's not clear to me if Texas is taking anyone else's money – from what I can tell some Texans (and Texan companies) have to pay higher taxes because other Texas companies are receiving these tax benefits.
tehwalrus 14y ago
it does kinda look like Texas spends 51% of its state budget ctrl+Z'ing federal taxes - unless I've got that wrong?
- anonymoushn 14y ago
  It passes up revenues equal to 51% of its budget ctrl+Z'ing its own taxes selectively.
  - tehwalrus 14y ago
    srsly? omgwtfbbq! (I've been waiting for many years for an appropriate reason to use that ridiculous non-acronym. Thank you Texas.)

gojomo 14y ago

I wonder if federal or statewide legislation could help, prohibiting negative-sum subsidy competitions between smaller jurisdictions.

ianb 14y ago
Minnesota (low on this list) implemented something like this, where when an area gets a particularly large tax windfall like from a corporate campus, a portion of that goes into a general fund. So if a location wants to give away some portion of tax revenue in order to lure a company from somewhere else in the state, it's not a big win for anyone. I think it's worked...? I don't know what other states do.

joejohnson 14y ago

I was not aware that Twitter had a $22 subsidy from the State of California. Hope that was a good investment.

rdl 14y ago
I'm pretty sure it was just the SF city payroll tax exemption. Twitter had a credible threat to move to Brisbane, so SF basically had to give them the exemption. Then, this year, SF voted to replace the payroll tax with a gross receipts tax (which is still bad, and worse for certain businesses).

flexie 14y ago

80.4 billion dollars is something like 255 dollars per capita or 700 dollars per tax payer, or 0.6 percent of GDP or 0.5 percent of US total public debt or 0.06 percent of US total unfunded liabilities (too many zeros on my calculator - I don't trust these numbers myself).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]