Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nicoffeine 1697 days ago
The nation is dependent on the money that California and NY put in to the federal tax system. You're welcome.

"A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red states like Mississippi ($5,740), West Virginia ($6,349), Kentucky ($6,626), and South Carolina ($6,665).

Not only do some states contribute more to the federal budget than others, but some also receive less from the federal government in return. On average, each of our 50 states receives about $1.14 from the federal government for every tax dollar they send to Washington.

This is why our federal government runs a deficit every year. The traditional red states mentioned above, however, receive more — much more. For example, Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar it sends to Washington by way of federal taxes, West Virginia $2.07, Kentucky $1.90, and South Carolina $1.71.

For some large traditional blue states, California receives only 96 cents, Massachusetts 83 cents, Connecticut 82 cents, New York 81 cents, and New Jersey 74 cents for every tax dollar they sent to Washington. The discrepancy is significant."

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/carroll/opinion/cc-op-...

3 comments

I'm also in favor of returning governance to the stats and we're probably in disagreement about a lot of things. Seems like an easy political win for Washington would be to return power to the states
I mean red states are more rural which alone would account for more subsidies.

But regardless, seems like you’re all for redistribution of wealth unless it goes to the political “undesirable”?

You just made a great argument against redistribution - it’s too fraught with politics.

> I mean red states are more rural which alone would account for more subsidies.

Yeah, duh, that's their point.

We are strong as a country because our wealthy, dense state economies support our poorer, rural state economies; and that's why it's laughable when red-state citizens and politians rant about seceding from the "evil communist blue states."

By "poor rural" areas you mean the people that grow the food you eat?
Yup! That's not an insult, just reality.
If states like CA and NY are getting such a raw deal why don't they want to change it?

This tired old trope needs to be taken out back and shot. The net in or out flow from any given state is not enough to substantially impact anything.

Pretty much every state gets back what it puts in plus or minus 10-20%. Considering that each state is putting in a number that is only a small fraction of its GDP the overall difference is negligible. I think most people in the states that are getting paid would consider the economic hit to be a cheap price to pay for removing federal oversight from the things those dollars pay for.

Furthermore, even the poor states are just fine by European standards.[1][2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...