[wakawaka28]

>The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools.

These coastal states run blowout deficits despite having high taxes on workers and businesses. The companies there might migrate if they could save money on taxes.

>The south, parts of the Midwest, and the plains fail to do so (at least to the same level) and within a generation we have two separate countries and war.

The states are already supposed to be largely sovereign. It is the Federal government asserting authority to tax and regulate everyone that fouls things up. Unfortunately we already have extensive social programs that people have been robbed to pay for, so walking it back would leave too many people everywhere feeling ripped off.

There is NOTHING special about the coastal states that guarantees them supremacy in any area of production. They have lots of people and inertia. Whatever they can do, other states can do also (and probably already are). It's an elitist attitude of the residents of those states that makes them think they're better than the "flyover" states.

[array_key_first]

Those states have a much larger GDP, allowing them to actually afford those things.

The reality is California gives much, much more to the federal government than it takes. The same is not true for a lot of other states.

[silisili]

I think wording is important here. California doesn't give anything to the federal government. So, I'll try my best to correct it.

Because of high salaries and population, the people of the state of California pay more in federal income taxes than the state receives as federal subsidies.

Perhaps same end result, but the framing is important. California isn't some saint who donates money to the govt.

[array_key_first]

Of course they're not a saint, but they're not hurting for money because they're the 4th largest GDP. In the world.

[wakawaka28]

California is also huge and populous. It's not like there is anything special about California that makes it have a high GDP, other than its size and the great weather which attracts a lot of people and businesses to there. I would have to look it up, but I suspect that every state pays more to the Federal government than they get. There's no free lunch.

To my original point, most people and businesses are not flocking to California to be taxed to hell for some welfare programs or whatever. Businesses would move in a heartbeat away from that overtaxed and overregulated state if they could. But since most taxes are federal and can't be avoided by moving to the Midwest or something, they might as well pay a little more to be in a marginally better or more prestigious location.

[IAmBroom]

> I would have to look it up, but I suspect that every state pays more to the Federal government than they get.

No state pays more to the Federal government than it gets. States don't pay federal taxes, but receive federal funds.

[wakawaka28]

I'm not talking about the government itself lol. I mean the people and businesses in each state collectively, obviously. Even with the huge national debt and budget deficit, I think most states on net contribute more in taxes than they get back. That's the entire point of taxes, otherwise it would be called a gift or something instead. The federal government could not pay out more than it takes in indefinitely to the entire country without just running the printing press to pay the difference. That is what they do, in fact, but clearly they aren't printing everything they spend.