pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 4 replies \ @Cje95 30 Sep
Ummmm its heavily due to those areas being farmland. Farmers and farm workers have historically threaded the poverty line due to the boom or bust nature of growing food.
Also the State of Texas pays into the Federal Government Highway Fund wayyyyyyy more than they receives. The only reason that California for instance was giving away more than it took in is due to corporate taxes and the fact that people get taxed more because the cost of living is so expensive. Since the most recent data from 2022 Cali has had a number of Fortune 500 companies leave along with population loss.
When you add in the disaster recovery money that Cali has needed in particular suddenly things start to even out as Texas hasnt had a major hurricane this year and the deadly floods occurred in an area that was not heavily populated. Cali on the other hand has been having its fires, floods, and mudslides in heavily populated areas skyrocketing the cost to both the state and federal government.
Tech and finance are great at generating money but they dont feed, clothe, or provide tangible food that things like manufacturing produce. Without them the cities that house tech and finance would collapse and is why every state gets two Senators. To make sure the voices were resources are held are heard.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 30 Sep
How much California takes from federal disaster relief funds is nothing compared to the Gulf of Mexico states like Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi.
From Grok, how much in federal disaster relief funds has California taken vs the hurricane southeastern states over the last decade:
California has taken $4.5 billion
Southeast has taken $67.2 billion
California has 39.4 million people.
The southeastern states + texas have 91.2 million people.
So even after adjusting for population, the southeast gets way more money in disaster relief than california per person.
California also paid $668 billion in federal taxes vs. $921 billion by the southeast + texas. So california also disproportionately pays more per citizen to the federal government vs the south+texas.
Long story short, I don't think there is any getting around the fact that states like NY and California contribute more to the federal tax coffers than they receive back because they are subsidizing the southern states (not just in disaster relief).
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 30 Sep
Imma just drop this right here for ya..... It addresses everything you said and breaks down a cost per person! The data.... doesnt add up for you sadly but ya know A for effort.
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/
- On a per-person basis, Delaware ($10,505), Minnesota ($7,605), and New Jersey ($7,456) contributed the highest net total.
- The largest per-person gap was in Washington, DC, where federal obligations outnumbered contributions by $19,748 per resident. Alaska ($14,990), New Mexico ($13,838), and West Virginia ($11,469) had the biggest gaps among states.
- The federal government collected the least revenue per person from West Virginia ($4,867), Mississippi ($5,148), and New Mexico ($5,882).
This nonprofit is wholly funded by Steve Ballmer someone who donates to both parties but recently has been donating much more the the left than the right.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @79c9095526 OP 30 Sep
Reading is tough, I understand, but if you would have even read the first paragraph of the link you sent it doesn't include disaster relief which is what we were talking about:
"In 2023, the federal government collected around $4.67 trillion from states and their residents through taxes on individuals and businesses and redistributed about $4.56 trillion back to states and residents through programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and education grants."
That is OK though, I appreciate you trying to contribute, just would be nice if you read the thread first and then didn't just skim the first link you googled and post it as if it proves something without even reading it.
If you'd like to say my data doesn't add up, point to the specific data point you take issue with and explain what is incorrect about it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 30 Sep
There is a more intuitive way to come to this conclusion even if you don't want to read the actual data, which I understand is challenging for some.
Simply look at how states rank in: lifespan, average income, average education level, K-12 educational outcomes, obesity, infant mortality rates.
You don't even need to look at federal receipts to understand that one of these groups is obviously 'outperforming' the other.
I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with these coastal states paying more into the federal coffers than they get back on a relative basis vs. the southeast. It is actually the only way the math maths in a progressive tax system.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 30 Sep
The main reason is that the vast majority of counties are Republican counties
reply