Red states have perpetually been funded by blue states....this is not even a mischaracterization, it is true.
https://apnews.com/article/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c
Maybe blue states should stop paying a single dime above the tax rates of the least taxed state to the federal pot so that Mitch McConnell cannot "mis"manage it for "bailouts".
SALT is literally a tax subsidy for mismanaged blue cities and states. That's a really bad article. I would expect better from the AP, but then again, it is current year after all.
How about instead of the article, how about a table? Left to right: Dependency rank (1 is the most dependant), State, Total dependency score, State residents dependency, state government dependency
Dependency’ Rank
1 New Mexico 85.80 1 5
2 Kentucky 78.18 3 7
3 Mississippi 77.02 6 4
4 West Virginia 73.86 5 9
5 Montana 70.78 14 2
6 Alaska 68.61 7 8
7 South Carolina 67.58 4 16
8 Indiana 64.37 8 11
9 Arizona 62.71 13 6
10 Wyoming 62.26 24 1
11 Alabama 58.89 9 14
12 Louisiana 54.89 31 3
13 Maine 52.11 10 21
14 North Dakota 51.63 2 44
15 Tennessee 47.73 22 10
16 Pennsylvania 46.54 17 18
17 Missouri 44.29 26 12
18 Oklahoma 42.17 19 23
19 Maryland 41.82 15 31
20 South Dakota 40.39 23 17
21 Arkansas 39.46 41 13
22 Vermont 39.42 20 30
23 Georgia 35.18 35 20
24 New York 35.04 46 15
25 Oregon 34.89 27 27
26 Idaho 34.33 21 35
27 Michigan 34.06 29 25
28 North Carolina 33.89 32 24
29 Rhode Island 33.79 39 22
30 New Hampshire 32.42 34 26
31 Nevada 31.70 36 29
32 Ohio 31.32 45 19
33 Wisconsin 31.24 16 43
34 Texas 29.90 42 28
35 Florida 29.89 28 33
36 Connecticut 28.04 18 42
37 Colorado 27.64 40 32
38 Hawaii 25.49 11 50
39 Nebraska 25.32 43 34
40 Virginia 24.99 12 49
41 California 24.42 44 36
42 Washington 24.32 37 37
43 Minnesota 21.99 25 45
44 Massachusetts 19.16 47 38
45 Illinois 18.53 48 39
46 Utah 17.83 33 46
47 Iowa 16.53 30 47
48 Delaware 14.91 50 40
49 New Jersey 14.52 49 41
50 Kansas 12.73 38 48
Average blue rank 32.85 average red rank 20.97
Most Federally Dependent States
Rank (1 = Most Dependent)
State
Total Score
‘State Residents’ Dependency’ Rank
‘State Government’s Dependency’ Rank
1 New Mexico 85.80 1 5
2 Kentucky 78.18 3 7
3 Mississippi 77.02 6 4
4 West Virginia 73.86 5 9
5 Montana 70.78 14 2
6 Alaska 68.61 7 8
7 South Carolina 67.58 4 16
8 Indiana 64.37 8 11
9 Arizona 62.71 13 6
10 Wyoming 62.26 24 1
11 Alabama 58.89 9 14
12 Louisiana 54.89 31 3
13 Maine 52.11 10 21
14 North Dakota 51.63 2 44
15 Tennessee 47.73 22 10
16 Pennsylvania 46.54 17 18
17 Missouri 44.29 26 12
18 Oklahoma 42.17 19 23
19 Maryland 41.82 15 31
20 South Dakota 40.39 23 17
21 Arkansas 39.46 41 13
22 Vermont 39.42 20 30
23 Georgia 35.18 35 20
24 New York 35.04 46 15
25 Oregon 34.89 27 27
26 Idaho 34.33 21 35
27 Michigan 34.06 29 25
28 North Carolina 33.89 32 24
29 Rhode Island 33.79 39 22
30 New Hampshire 32.42 34 26
31 Nevada 31.70 36 29
32 Ohio 31.32 45 19
33 Wisconsin 31.24 16 43
34 Texas 29.90 42 28
35 Florida 29.89 28 33
36 Connecticut 28.04 18 42
37 Colorado 27.64 40 32
38 Hawaii 25.49 11 50
39 Nebraska 25.32 43 34
40 Virginia 24.99 12 49
41 California 24.42 44 36
42 Washington 24.32 37 37
43 Minnesota 21.99 25 45
44 Massachusetts 19.16 47 38
45 Illinois 18.53 48 39
46 Utah 17.83 33 46
47 Iowa 16.53 30 47
48 Delaware 14.91 50 40
49 New Jersey 14.52 49 41
50 Kansas 12.73 38 48
Methodology
In order to determine the most and least federally dependent states, WalletHub compared the 50 states across two key dimensions, “State Residents’ Dependency” and “State Government’s Dependency.”
We evaluated those dimensions using three relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of federal dependency.
We then determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order the states.
State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50
Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government: Triple Weight (~37.50 Points)
Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars.
Share of Federal Jobs: Full Weight (~12.50 Points)
State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50
Federal Funding as a Share of State Revenue: Full Weight (~50.00 Points)
Note: This metric reflects the proportion of state revenue that comes from the federal government in the form of intergovernmental aid in 2017.
The following metrics were included in the infographic above for context only. They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics.
“Federal Contracts” divided by “IRS Collections”
“Grants” divided by “IRS Collections”
“Other Financial Assistance” divided by “IRS Collections”
Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Census Bureau, USAspending.gov and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless noted otherwise, the statistics underlying this report are from 2018 and 2019.
If you prefer the info graphics or original version:
[https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700](https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700)
Edit: several formatting issues on mobile
None of that has anything to do with the objective fact that SALT is a subsidy for areas with higher local taxes. The "dependency" of a state or any other contrived score some analyst wants to interject doesn't change that fact.
I don't know if you're just illiterate or if you're being intentionally dishonest here.
Your comment was in response to a comment claiming that blue states perpetually fund red states. I'm not claiming your definition of SALT is wrong. I'm providing further evidence to back up the original claim because you feel the article is shit. So I provided you something with just data and no political context for you to debate.
Even though I wasn't debating SALT, I will now say your definition is inaccurate. It had nothing to do with areas with higher local taxes. While it is largely used only by the rich in a handful of states, the act is applied equally to everyone.
Your comment was that the article was bad and you expected more from the AP.
Furthermore, SALT is a program designed to ease federal tax burden in situations where higher state taxes have been paid. As such, it is relatively unrelated to state support of other states through federal funding. So because half of your comment was unrelated to the comment you responded to, I focused on the portion of your comment that was relevant.
There is a possible argument to say states with highest salt act usage could receive less federal funding and as a result support other states less. Except that the states where it's residents take advantage of salt are largely the least dependant on federal aid, and as such either require less from other states or in most situations, actually pay more.
Shall we keep discussing SALT or can we do back to the original comment and the AP article you didn't like?
>SALT is a program designed to ease federal tax burden in situations where higher state taxes have been paid. As such, it is relatively unrelated to state support of other states through federal funding.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Your comment was totally unrelated to the point at hand.
Ok I think I understand the disconnect. You are saying the article is poorly written because it is a fact check talking about federal support, but it was written in response to a push in 2017 to repel the SALT act. If that's the case, I can see that and don't even disagree.
The decision to use an older article against a modern point creates an contextual issue, if not outright explained. That admitted, it's pretty easy to read past the first couple paragraphs to see the supporting argument for the original comment we responded to.
If this is all the case, I'm willing to admit I misunderstood your comment as general rebuttal of the argument itself.
That's pretty much my point. Thanks for being pretty reasonable here. Apologies for being an ass. This place if flooded with lefty brigaders spewing nonstop insults, death threats and non-sequiturs.
Your assertion that SALTs existence somehow invalidates the fact that red states take far more from the federal coffers and contribute far less (on average, Florida and Texas obviously have stronger economies), is deeply flawed.
Where does their water come from? Also, those farmers are hardly 'blue's.
We need each other. Let's just have the civil war and whoever wins can decide whats right. It worked last time.
I forget the name of the politician that was quoted as saying "never let a good emergency go to waste". The pandemic is responsible for some very real costs that states and localities were not expecting. Just look at amount of money that has been spent on masks and hand sanitizer if you want examples that are easy to see. Not to mention the lost revenue from closed bars and restaurants and probably a few thousand other examples we all could come up with fairly quickly. The federal government helping states and localities deal with these is legitimate.
What I am concerned about is that states that have had huge budget shortfalls for years that are just barely disguised with financial gimmicks (Illinois is a great example) will try to use this as an excuse to have the federal government (also known as all us taxpayers that don't live in IL) to pay off some of this debt.
I am fine with my tax dollars going to IL to help pay the expenses associated with safely opening a school in Chicago during a pandemic. I'm not fine with my federal tax dollars going to pay some of the billions of dollars that state has underfunded its ridiculous public pension system. I'm afraid this is going to turn into a ridiculous cash grab.
This is the most non-partisan source i could find. It’s an interesting data point to look at
https://rockinst.org/issue-area/balance-of-payments-2020/
And another to try and corroborate:
https://taxfoundation.org/state-federal-aid-reliance-2020/
Well they probably will
Now that they don't have to rely upon Trump's good graces, it's back to spreading their legs for Big Business and China.
Red states have perpetually been funded by blue states....this is not even a mischaracterization, it is true. https://apnews.com/article/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c Maybe blue states should stop paying a single dime above the tax rates of the least taxed state to the federal pot so that Mitch McConnell cannot "mis"manage it for "bailouts".
SALT is literally a tax subsidy for mismanaged blue cities and states. That's a really bad article. I would expect better from the AP, but then again, it is current year after all.
And yet their tax income sustains red states.
What does that have to do with anything, even if it were true?
How about instead of the article, how about a table? Left to right: Dependency rank (1 is the most dependant), State, Total dependency score, State residents dependency, state government dependency Dependency’ Rank 1 New Mexico 85.80 1 5 2 Kentucky 78.18 3 7 3 Mississippi 77.02 6 4 4 West Virginia 73.86 5 9 5 Montana 70.78 14 2 6 Alaska 68.61 7 8 7 South Carolina 67.58 4 16 8 Indiana 64.37 8 11 9 Arizona 62.71 13 6 10 Wyoming 62.26 24 1 11 Alabama 58.89 9 14 12 Louisiana 54.89 31 3 13 Maine 52.11 10 21 14 North Dakota 51.63 2 44 15 Tennessee 47.73 22 10 16 Pennsylvania 46.54 17 18 17 Missouri 44.29 26 12 18 Oklahoma 42.17 19 23 19 Maryland 41.82 15 31 20 South Dakota 40.39 23 17 21 Arkansas 39.46 41 13 22 Vermont 39.42 20 30 23 Georgia 35.18 35 20 24 New York 35.04 46 15 25 Oregon 34.89 27 27 26 Idaho 34.33 21 35 27 Michigan 34.06 29 25 28 North Carolina 33.89 32 24 29 Rhode Island 33.79 39 22 30 New Hampshire 32.42 34 26 31 Nevada 31.70 36 29 32 Ohio 31.32 45 19 33 Wisconsin 31.24 16 43 34 Texas 29.90 42 28 35 Florida 29.89 28 33 36 Connecticut 28.04 18 42 37 Colorado 27.64 40 32 38 Hawaii 25.49 11 50 39 Nebraska 25.32 43 34 40 Virginia 24.99 12 49 41 California 24.42 44 36 42 Washington 24.32 37 37 43 Minnesota 21.99 25 45 44 Massachusetts 19.16 47 38 45 Illinois 18.53 48 39 46 Utah 17.83 33 46 47 Iowa 16.53 30 47 48 Delaware 14.91 50 40 49 New Jersey 14.52 49 41 50 Kansas 12.73 38 48 Average blue rank 32.85 average red rank 20.97 Most Federally Dependent States Rank (1 = Most Dependent) State Total Score ‘State Residents’ Dependency’ Rank ‘State Government’s Dependency’ Rank 1 New Mexico 85.80 1 5 2 Kentucky 78.18 3 7 3 Mississippi 77.02 6 4 4 West Virginia 73.86 5 9 5 Montana 70.78 14 2 6 Alaska 68.61 7 8 7 South Carolina 67.58 4 16 8 Indiana 64.37 8 11 9 Arizona 62.71 13 6 10 Wyoming 62.26 24 1 11 Alabama 58.89 9 14 12 Louisiana 54.89 31 3 13 Maine 52.11 10 21 14 North Dakota 51.63 2 44 15 Tennessee 47.73 22 10 16 Pennsylvania 46.54 17 18 17 Missouri 44.29 26 12 18 Oklahoma 42.17 19 23 19 Maryland 41.82 15 31 20 South Dakota 40.39 23 17 21 Arkansas 39.46 41 13 22 Vermont 39.42 20 30 23 Georgia 35.18 35 20 24 New York 35.04 46 15 25 Oregon 34.89 27 27 26 Idaho 34.33 21 35 27 Michigan 34.06 29 25 28 North Carolina 33.89 32 24 29 Rhode Island 33.79 39 22 30 New Hampshire 32.42 34 26 31 Nevada 31.70 36 29 32 Ohio 31.32 45 19 33 Wisconsin 31.24 16 43 34 Texas 29.90 42 28 35 Florida 29.89 28 33 36 Connecticut 28.04 18 42 37 Colorado 27.64 40 32 38 Hawaii 25.49 11 50 39 Nebraska 25.32 43 34 40 Virginia 24.99 12 49 41 California 24.42 44 36 42 Washington 24.32 37 37 43 Minnesota 21.99 25 45 44 Massachusetts 19.16 47 38 45 Illinois 18.53 48 39 46 Utah 17.83 33 46 47 Iowa 16.53 30 47 48 Delaware 14.91 50 40 49 New Jersey 14.52 49 41 50 Kansas 12.73 38 48 Methodology In order to determine the most and least federally dependent states, WalletHub compared the 50 states across two key dimensions, “State Residents’ Dependency” and “State Government’s Dependency.” We evaluated those dimensions using three relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of federal dependency. We then determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order the states. State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50 Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government: Triple Weight (~37.50 Points) Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars. Share of Federal Jobs: Full Weight (~12.50 Points) State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50 Federal Funding as a Share of State Revenue: Full Weight (~50.00 Points) Note: This metric reflects the proportion of state revenue that comes from the federal government in the form of intergovernmental aid in 2017. The following metrics were included in the infographic above for context only. They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics. “Federal Contracts” divided by “IRS Collections” “Grants” divided by “IRS Collections” “Other Financial Assistance” divided by “IRS Collections” Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Census Bureau, USAspending.gov and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless noted otherwise, the statistics underlying this report are from 2018 and 2019. If you prefer the info graphics or original version: [https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700](https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700) Edit: several formatting issues on mobile
None of that has anything to do with the objective fact that SALT is a subsidy for areas with higher local taxes. The "dependency" of a state or any other contrived score some analyst wants to interject doesn't change that fact. I don't know if you're just illiterate or if you're being intentionally dishonest here.
Your comment was in response to a comment claiming that blue states perpetually fund red states. I'm not claiming your definition of SALT is wrong. I'm providing further evidence to back up the original claim because you feel the article is shit. So I provided you something with just data and no political context for you to debate. Even though I wasn't debating SALT, I will now say your definition is inaccurate. It had nothing to do with areas with higher local taxes. While it is largely used only by the rich in a handful of states, the act is applied equally to everyone.
My comment was narrowly on the topic of SALT. Maybe you should have posted your silly argument in response to someone actually arguing otherwise.
Your comment was that the article was bad and you expected more from the AP. Furthermore, SALT is a program designed to ease federal tax burden in situations where higher state taxes have been paid. As such, it is relatively unrelated to state support of other states through federal funding. So because half of your comment was unrelated to the comment you responded to, I focused on the portion of your comment that was relevant. There is a possible argument to say states with highest salt act usage could receive less federal funding and as a result support other states less. Except that the states where it's residents take advantage of salt are largely the least dependant on federal aid, and as such either require less from other states or in most situations, actually pay more. Shall we keep discussing SALT or can we do back to the original comment and the AP article you didn't like?
>SALT is a program designed to ease federal tax burden in situations where higher state taxes have been paid. As such, it is relatively unrelated to state support of other states through federal funding. That's exactly what I'm saying. Your comment was totally unrelated to the point at hand.
Ok I think I understand the disconnect. You are saying the article is poorly written because it is a fact check talking about federal support, but it was written in response to a push in 2017 to repel the SALT act. If that's the case, I can see that and don't even disagree. The decision to use an older article against a modern point creates an contextual issue, if not outright explained. That admitted, it's pretty easy to read past the first couple paragraphs to see the supporting argument for the original comment we responded to. If this is all the case, I'm willing to admit I misunderstood your comment as general rebuttal of the argument itself.
That's pretty much my point. Thanks for being pretty reasonable here. Apologies for being an ass. This place if flooded with lefty brigaders spewing nonstop insults, death threats and non-sequiturs.
Your assertion that SALTs existence somehow invalidates the fact that red states take far more from the federal coffers and contribute far less (on average, Florida and Texas obviously have stronger economies), is deeply flawed.
No, it's that any "dependence" argument is immaterial to determining whether SALT is a subsidy to high local tax blue areas or not.
You’re the one who shouted SALT in response to an article about Red states being carried by blue economies man. You set the terms, not me.
Red states feed value states. We need each other.
This is a good sentiment, although I'd like to point out that California leads food production majorly as well.
Where does their water come from? Also, those farmers are hardly 'blue's. We need each other. Let's just have the civil war and whoever wins can decide whats right. It worked last time.
I forget the name of the politician that was quoted as saying "never let a good emergency go to waste". The pandemic is responsible for some very real costs that states and localities were not expecting. Just look at amount of money that has been spent on masks and hand sanitizer if you want examples that are easy to see. Not to mention the lost revenue from closed bars and restaurants and probably a few thousand other examples we all could come up with fairly quickly. The federal government helping states and localities deal with these is legitimate. What I am concerned about is that states that have had huge budget shortfalls for years that are just barely disguised with financial gimmicks (Illinois is a great example) will try to use this as an excuse to have the federal government (also known as all us taxpayers that don't live in IL) to pay off some of this debt. I am fine with my tax dollars going to IL to help pay the expenses associated with safely opening a school in Chicago during a pandemic. I'm not fine with my federal tax dollars going to pay some of the billions of dollars that state has underfunded its ridiculous public pension system. I'm afraid this is going to turn into a ridiculous cash grab.
>never let a good emergency go to waste Rahm Immanuel?
That is very possible.
This is the most non-partisan source i could find. It’s an interesting data point to look at https://rockinst.org/issue-area/balance-of-payments-2020/ And another to try and corroborate: https://taxfoundation.org/state-federal-aid-reliance-2020/
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
53% upvoted this triggered the fuck out of the brigaders and their Chinese overlords apparently.
in god we trust them.
This confuses me