39 ms·
That sounds like the results of progressive taxation and federal welfare. California income is higher than the national average. Mississippi's is lower. So some
by jacoblyles 14y ago
That sounds like the results of progressive taxation and federal welfare. California income is higher than the national average. Mississippi's is lower. So some federal tax dollars from California end up in Mississippi's medicaid fund.
But you can't blame all of California's suck on that. It is not exactly a low-tax state!
- LockeWatts 14y agoOnly when you consider that California on the whole is a lot richer than most of the rest of the country.
- philwelch 14y agoMississippi wouldn't be a low tax state if they were unable to tax Californians.
- jacoblyles 14y agoIt's not true that those tax dollars are going to Mississippi's general fund. Rather, they are going to things like Medicaid and food stamps. Presumably the federal transfers equalize access to food and medicine across states, so they both start from the same place when they start levying state taxes to provide state services.
- philwelch 14y agoSmall states can get lots of pork, too. Just look at what Byrd did for West Virginia.
- tokipin 14y agothat just sounds like an accounting trick. if Mississipi had higher revenue it could accomodate for more social services without the help of California. i'm not very familiar with this stuff, but i believe states like California have better social safety nets than states like Mississipi. so different states don't even actually start from the same place