• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which states are Biggest the Net Takers of Federal Tax dollars?

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Contrary to popular opinion, those High taxing/"welfare state" NYers, etc, are subsidizing Red States.

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina:
The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax.

This bar chart, made from Wallet Hub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.

966724856.jpg


[.....]
Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us.
Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program.
This chart tells the story

cf89185a3.jpg
 
Last edited:
it's the specks of blue in those red states that suck up all the money. democrats need to be thrown off the welfare rolls and made to get jobs.
 
it's the specks of blue in those red states that suck up all the money. democrats need to be thrown off the welfare rolls and made to get jobs.

Any evidence your claim is true? Any at all?
 
Ah, the bi-monthly "Look at those evil Red States taking all our Blue Dollars. The hypocrites."

Look at the data.

Military bases, other federal facilities and properties are usually included in these idiotic comparison charts. The data is so skewed and convoluted that it proves nothing - other than the Federal Government spends WAY TOO MUCH.
 
Any proof that the charts in the OP are accurate or weren't just created on the laptop of the OP? Any at all? They have no links or data sources noted.

Take those up with the thread creator.
 
Take those up with the thread creator.

Just wondered why you chose to point out one baseless comment in the thread, when the entire thread was started by the OP with baseless propaganda and you let that pass? Guess I know now.
 
Just wondered why you chose to point out one baseless comment in the thread, when the entire thread was started by the OP with baseless propaganda and you let that pass? Guess I know now.

Because I felt like it. If you want to challenge the OP, be my guest, but don't badger me because I'm not making the argument you want me to.
 
Because I felt like it. If you want to challenge the OP, be my guest, but don't badger me because I'm not making the argument you want me to.

I didn't mean to badger you. Just asked a question and you answered it. I was done, then you had to hit back, when I wasn't hitting in the first place. To quote Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" - not that you're a lady.
 
Any proof that the charts in the OP are accurate or weren't just created on the laptop of the OP? Any at all? They have no links or data sources noted.
Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

MY ERROR
HUMBLE APOLOGY
I forgot Link.

It is credible AtlanticMag.
I always attribute, even when I don't need to/when it's just someone else idea/Blip... I will oft put a phrase in parenthesis and if I can remember original author, will include it.
(Ie, in referring to Arab countries as "Tribes with Flags", I always put in quotes, as it isn't mine, even tho no one would notice if I didn't)

But FYI, the JPG link is easily found by passing mouse over image and Right clicking 'Properties' on IE, or 'copy image URL' with Chrome.
ie, the First:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/05/Slide2/cf89185a3.jpg
This is fairly BASIC internet skill.
The FACTS could also be checked (or refuted) with a little more effort/searching.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind my federal tax dollars from NY going to subsidize poor people in Mississippi. What I DO mind is red state politicians complaining that taxes are too high. That's just hypocrisy.
 
Contrary to popular opinion, those High taxing/"welfare state" NYers, etc, are subsidizing Red States.

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina:
The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax.

This bar chart, made from Wallet Hub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.

966724856.jpg


[.....]
Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us.
Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program.
This chart tells the story

cf89185a3.jpg

California Has Highest Child Poverty Rate In Nation | KPBS
 

Consider the fact that, according to the chart, with @ 12% of the California population receiving SNAP, that equates to @ 4.7 million people. That is close to the entire population of South Carolina, who, with 3 major military bases, including the Marine Corp Recruit Depot in Perris Island, most certainly would be getting far more Fed Dollars sent against every dollar paid.

These charts are so lame.
 
Consider the fact that, according to the chart, with @ 12% of the California population receiving SNAP, that equates to @ 4.7 million people. That is close to the entire population of South Carolina, who, with 3 major military bases, including the Marine Corp Recruit Depot in Perris Island, most certainly would be getting far more Fed Dollars sent against every dollar paid.

These charts are so lame.

Yep, threads like these should be in the Partisan section of the forum to begin with.
 
Yep... another FALLACIOUS FENTON try.
Gee, I wonder if child (and other high) poverty MIGHT have to do with Illegal Immigrants/babies?

YOUR Link continues:
".....But under the alternative method, California rises to the top at 23.4% while New Mexico drops to 16% and other states decline to as low as 8.7% in Iowa.
The only other state to approach California in the alternate rankings is Nevada at 20%..

Caused hey, #2 in Child Poverty, Nevada has NO INCOME TAX, and #3 New Mexico's Income tax is virtually Nothing.
 
Last edited:
Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us.
Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program.
This chart tells the story

Not really. There is a much stronger correlation with federal defense and R&D spending. New Mexico has Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, White Sands, Phillips Labs, Kirtland Airforce Base and a small population for the divisor. North Dakota is home of nuclear missile silos and a small population. Florida is loaded with NASA stuff and all sorts military aerospace contracts. Alabama is also loaded with federal aerospace contractors.
 
Not really. There is a much stronger correlation with federal defense and R&D spending. New Mexico has Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, White Sands, Phillips Labs, Kirtland Airforce Base and a small population for the divisor. North Dakota is home of nuclear missile silos and a small population. Florida is loaded with NASA stuff and all sorts military aerospace contracts. Alabama is also loaded with federal aerospace contractors.
Yes, really.
But to the degree what you say Is true/responsible for the discrepancy, my OP Link Does mention it:

"..Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical.
During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic,
its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority,
came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states
in the form of contracts, projects, installations
.".."​

Of course, keeping these bases open, is a favorite congressional pastime of their now mostly GOP reps.
 
Last edited:
The US census shows California's poverty level for "All People" as 15.9% and 12% for "All Families." Alabama poverty level for "All People" as 18.6% and 14.3% for "All Families."

American FactFinder - Results

About the alternative measurement method (the source of the 23.4% poverty rate figure for California)
"The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income
families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure...

The 13 states for which the SPM rates were higher than the official poverty rates are those with lighter shades. These states were Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. The SPM rate for the District of Columbia was also higher.

Higher SPM rates by state may occur from many sources. Geographic adjustments for housing costs may result in higher SPM thresholds, as well as a different mix of housing tenure or metropolitan area status, or higher nondiscretionary expenses, such as
taxes or medical expenses." http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-251.pdf
 
Last edited:
Consider the fact that, according to the chart, with @ 12% of the California population receiving SNAP, that equates to @ 4.7 million people. That is close to the entire population of South Carolina, who, with 3 major military bases, including the Marine Corp Recruit Depot in Perris Island, most certainly would be getting far more Fed Dollars sent against every dollar paid.

These charts are so lame.

Oh, it's because of defense spending that they collect more welfare yet supply less tax revenue? Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.
 
Oh, it's because of defense spending that they collect more welfare yet supply less tax revenue? Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

A lot of defense spending is already welfare for states/congressional districts, corporations and their employees.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the bi-monthly "Look at those evil Red States taking all our Blue Dollars. The hypocrites."

Look at the data.

Military bases, other federal facilities and properties are usually included in these idiotic comparison charts. The data is so skewed and convoluted that it proves nothing - other than the Federal Government spends WAY TOO MUCH.

where to high net taxpayers retire to? NY? Mass? Ohio? Connecticut? NO, they spend 30-50 years paying all sorts of taxes in big commercial states and they retire to places like SOUTH CAROLINA. I have two nieces-one an surgical RN, the other a physical trainer-rehabilitation specialist. Where did they get the best job offers from. SC where there are tons of retirees who need health care professionals. so those people retire to the South and are now collecting SS. that skews the mix
 
Yep... another FALLACIOUS FENTON try.
Gee, I wonder if child (and other high) poverty MIGHT have to do with Illegal Immigrants/babies?

YOUR Link continues:
".....But under the alternative method, California rises to the top at 23.4% while New Mexico drops to 16% and other states decline to as low as 8.7% in Iowa.
The only other state to approach California in the alternate rankings is Nevada at 20%..

Caused hey, #2 in Child Poverty, Nevada has NO INCOME TAX, and #3 New Mexico's Income tax is virtually Nothing.

lets look at groups of voters rather than states

blacks vote Democrat higher than any other group

higher than whites, higher than Asians, higher than Jews, Higher than hispanics
which group has the most-per capita-on the dole?

hmmm
 
lets look at groups of voters rather than states

blacks vote Democrat higher than any other group

higher than whites, higher than Asians, higher than Jews, Higher than hispanics
which group has the most-per capita-on the dole?

hmmm

How do we know who blacks vote for? I thought our vote was private. hmmm
 
How do we know who blacks vote for? I thought our vote was private. hmmm

LOL, how do we know? polls! one thing we don't know is how many net tax payers vote Dem vs GOP and Net tax consumers

but we do know that the DEMS pander to net tax consumers while the GOP mainly pitches its message of less taxes to NET TAX PAYERS

we assume each party is smart enough to know which groups support said party
 
Back
Top Bottom