[yompers888]

>why OP highlights high tax Democratic States, no doubt that is what they are, but it is not applicable applied to Federal Income Taxes where everyone, regardless of State, is subject to the same progressive tax rates.

The poster above highlights not the tax rates, but ratio of receipts vs. expenditures of federal taxes in given states. Poorer states get well over one dollar in federal program spending for each dollar they contribute, while richer states have a net outflow, subsidizing the poorer states' programs.

[will_brown]

I see how I could have misinterpreted High Tax Democratic States.

However, take the post argument, Blue States (CA, NY, IL) subsidize red States (FL). Revising my position from tax rate (which is equal across the board) to State expenditures (taxes the States pay to the Federal Government) CA is #1, NY is #3, IL is #4. Still FL is #5 (and another red state, TX is #2).

I think my point remains it is not hypocritical that Red States are getting more (receipts) back under the current system while simultaneously pushing for reforms.

Let me try rephrasing the hypocritical point from the pro progressive tax position. Warren Buffett is always pushing for tax reforms to raise taxes on the wealthy, and to highlight his issue he always points to the fact his secretary annually pays a higher tax rate than he ultimately does. However, nothing stops Warren Buffett from not taking advantage of the tax loop holes and personally paying more himself, but he doesn't. In my mind it doesn't make him a hypocrite for taking advantage of a system he wants to change.

[thowfaraway]

That's only 1 of 3 pieces of data. If they only used the one you mention, then you wouldn't get the red/blue divide, you'd instead get a small/large state divide.

What this study does to get the red/blue divide dividing federal revenues by state revenues. So low tax, low spending states look bad because the Federal inflow is a bigger percentage of total spending.