Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005
This question comes up once in a while and this is a good (although a bit old) resource from another thread - worth archiving for future use ...
Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005
This question comes up once in a while and this is a good (although a bit old) resource from another thread - worth archiving for future use ...
Interesting info Cuc. I just spent some time on the site going through their other info. Including looking at each States sales tax, cigarette tax, gasoline tax, etc. per the info above (obviously only one way of trying to figure out if these states, that take in more than they give are keeping their own taxes low, and relying on the Fed instead).
This 'give and take' between the States and the Federal Government just seems ridiculous on the surface. I would love to figure out what those States receiving the most, are actually receiving in terms of support/need/etc.
Well, some of those states have small populations, but have a lot of land owned by the Feds or military bases (SD, Alaska). Virginia is home to several federal agencies and facilities as well as the Atlantic Fleet and Newport News Shipbuilding (carriers aren't cheap to build). Mississippi ranks high because Sen. Lott was good at steering shipbuilding contracts that way. If it weren't for Sen. Byrd, West Virginia probably wouldn't be in the top 10. All IMO of course.
What the heck is up with New Mexico? #1 in every year of the study.
That is my initial reaction as well. Does this include things like, as midtown suggests, spending to support things like military bases or other federally-owned lands? Or is it in things like aid, entitlements, etc, paid to citizens of the states? If it was the former, I would expect states like California rank much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by bkeske
Also very interesting to see the disparity of spending in 'Blue' vs 'Red' states. Look at the top ten in federal dollars received vs the bottom ten.
Is there a handy map/chart that shows the actual tax contribution of each state as well?
As an overall comparison of 'money in'/'money out', I ran an .xls spreadsheet.
EDIT: Removed my spreadsheet as Don pointed out a huge flaw.
^ You did it wrong. You mistakenly assumed that all states paid the same.
You are right Don, I would have to figure the total cash in/cach out as well.
ooops.
This would take some time to look at the totals.
OK.....Did it right this time.
Took all the data over the 25 year period between 1981 to 2005, and below is the total net 'loss' or 'gain' to/from the Federal Government per State for that period. These dollar amounts are per million.
(green equals net gain for the State per Federal dollar paid, red equals net 'loss' for the State per Federal dollar paid).
http://home.earthlink.net/~bkeske2/d...-State-net.jpg
Still don't know why some of these States are receiving so much vs others, and I know that California is one of the highest State and local taxed States in the Country (as example, as is New York); thus Californians pay more total taxes than the rest of us, even though they provide so much more to the Federal coffers. And they are broke :D
Yes, I'm insane :D :gomer
I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.....Quote:
Originally Posted by bkeske
For every $489,114 Californians paid in federal taxes, we got $1 back in some form of government federal expenditure within the state???
Sparse earthly humanoid population, coupled with the presence of the Roswell Interplanetary Lifeform Processing Center.Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi77
I know White Sands Missile Range is there because I spent time there when I was in the Army.Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi77
A lot of R&D money is spent in NM every year.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...194.chap32.pdf
The number appears high because the population in NM is very low compared to the research dollars. Of course it could be the little green aliens there. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by from article
No (it is confusing, but actually pretty simple), from the period between 1981 to 2005, California's net 'loss' was $489,114(x million) vs. what they contributed to the Federal Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi77
In other words, California contributed more than they received from the Federal Government over that time span, vs Alabama that received $163,973 (xmillion) more than they contributed.
I'm using 'loss' and 'gain' only as a way to identify if a State contributed more than received back ('loss'), or got back more than they contributed ('gain').
And I'm only looking at this from the States perspective, thus the -$330,441 (x million) number at the bottom indicates the States net 'contributions' over that time period from all the States to the Federal Government; So, from the Federal Government's perspective, you have to read that as a positive number, not a negative number.
Brian, I'd like to see your spreadsheet divide that balance by population (I guess that would need to be average population during the time span to be truly accurate)
I'd also like to see how federal spending is defined. It certainly includes things like highway funds and program subsidies and it likely includes Medicaid contributions, but I doubt it includes SS and Medicare payments to individuals.
And if it includes military bases it likely includes the cost of local civilian employees but what about military employees who can move all over the world?
Yea, so would I Shanks (to all your queries), but as Cuc simply posted this without explanation, I simply started digging, and wanted to get a bigger picture (similar to the map above, but does not include the dollar amounts) in terms of each States total contributions vs what they 'got back from' the Feds. Yes, there are many reasons certain States probably get more back than they contribute. Farm subsidies are probably another big one for a few States listed.
But....as I do have a real job (believe it or not), I'm not sure I could provide you with the other details you desire in a timely fashion :D
Brian.... I a bit suprised you haven't firmly voted "NO" on my recent poll
:confused:
Cool, now we can figure out which states are the "Pro-America" states. If you take in more than you spend, time for the US Govenrment to cut you loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by bkeske
Of course you know all of this is another means to REdistribute wealth. You know, from rich states like CA, NY, NJ, MA to poor states like NM, AK, AL and MS ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bkeske
Oh believe me, I am aware......which is the reason back in more radical political days when my beliefs were being formed; I really believed that the United States should break-up, and that each State should become its own Country.
I'm still very 'pro-State' (as you can tell from my use of the term 'loss' and 'gain' above), and believe that States should be autonomous except for specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but not quite to the degree to each becoming their own country anymore. ;)
Brian, when the Constitution replaced thr Articles of Confederation and the little spat between the state in the 1860s drove it home by force, the vision of America pretty much ended your vision of "states right"