[thisisweirdok]

There are only about a dozen states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back — all of the states you're referencing are on that list. California specifically has been a donor state for more than 30 years.

I'm not sure how this is hoarding in any sense of the term. California is something like 40th when it comes to the ratio of federal assistance received to federal tax paid.

California is also in the top 15 states when it comes to tax paid per capita.

I guess if you wanted to complain you could pick on California's federal tax revenue ratio to Gross State Product — which is middle-of-the-road compared to other states. And even then, you're talking about 25 states that are worse off... and I think only 1 or 2 of those states are so-called "donor states."

If you're looking for personal biases... I don't even live in California. Outside of the weather I really kind of hate it there... but I'm having a really hard time finding any information to support your argument. I'd like to rag on California here... but if taxation is your primary concern then there are 30+ states that are larger priorities.

I'm not sure what your source is, or which numbers you're looking at specifically — but it feels like you're picking cherries to grind your axe.

I'm also curious about which state you think is setting the ideal example in this regard. If California is doing so poorly in your eyes... who is getting it right?

[NotAnEconomist]

My point is that at a state level, Californians and New Yorkers practice the same kind of wealth-capture and tax-minimization on investments that they frequently critique from businesses.

That if they really believed in financial equity, they'd reshape their own privilege before insisting that they have a right to collect money from others (eg, raising taxes) or harping on the privilege of others (eg, corporate practices).

[thisisweirdok]

I understand where this comes from, but this line of reasoning tends to be very disingenuous.

I don't blame businesses for taxing advantage of our tax system (I would too), but I don't think they should be able to.

You can be an advocate for ending something while also taking advantage of it. There are a multitude of complicating factors and a business, just like a state, is going to prioritize itself before others (put your oxygen mask on first before assisting others).

This is highly political as well. These states already give more to the federal government than they take, and the states on the opposite end of the spectrum are also the states that fight against federal taxes entirely (which is some special form of irony).

This isn't a case where leading by example is going to inspire change (a billionaire voluntarily paying more taxes isn't going to either).

Leadership in Mississippi isn't going to look to California and say "wow they're really walking the walk" and start paying more federal tax.

You can extend this to just about anything if your goal is to be nothing but a total shitheel.

Do you believe in Democracy? Well guess where most of your computer components were manufactured! In countries without democracy. Guess you must hate freedom.

Do you think the US would be smart to denuclearize first to set an example for other countries? Would you die for that belief?