More tax/spending inequality

[Ban my account ffs!]

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1473901.html

A new report out details spending and amount paid in taxes to the federal government by state.

New Mexico received a whopping $3.10 for each dollar it paid into the federal government.

Delaware received only $0.42 for each dollar it paid in, followed by Minnesota, which received only $0.46 for each dollar paid in.


From the article:

"The AP compared the census data to previously released IRS figures for 2005 federal tax collections. The IRS data includes individual, corporate and excise taxes.

The analysis shows that wealthy states pay more than poor ones, blue states subsidize red states, and states with powerful politicians on key House and Senate committees fare well in federal spending.

High-income states like New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts paid more in taxes than they received in federal spending, while low-income states like Mississippi, West Virginia and Alabama got a much higher return for their tax dollars. "

Of course you can't push for $1 for $1 spending for each state because the government has assets focused in some areas.  Oil infrastructure and military operations in Alaska lead to high subsidization rates for Alaska residents.  The same could be said for Virginia and Maryland.

But the general trend is that rich states subsidize the poor ones.  Of course, looking at the voting records and politicians from the various states shows the irony of it all.  Shall we give the conservative states what they really want?  After all, that is 58 cents on every dollar of Minnesota's hard earned money going to pay for the south's highways and schools!  I'm sure we could find something productive to spend that money on!

[StateBoiler]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've always wondered why don't "rich state" politicians campaign on this. What better target to gain home votes than that you're not getting back in service the money you sent to Washington? There's no demographic or political group that would be upset over making that point. At the very least, it would cut down the level of pork spending in the states that are subsidized by the rest. 

[David S]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

[opebo]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

The original distribution was apportioned by the force of the State, so I see no reason why the State should not redistribute.

[2952-0-0]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

If you don't like such redistributions, then you could always campaign to dissolve the US of A into its 50 components, much like how the Soviet Union was dissolved into its 15 components. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

If you don't like such redistributions, then you could always campaign to dissolve the US of A into its 50 components, much like how the Soviet Union was dissolved into its 15 components. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

I believe there is a place for federal funding of any and all programs that are instituted on a national level, like the federal highway system, the military, all workings of the federal government, and national defense in general.  I also support federal distribution of certain welfare and medical programs as we currently have.  This ensures that people are not penalized for living in a poor state.

I just have a problem with Minnesota only getting 46 cents back on each dollar it sends in.  This wouldn't be a big deal except that our schools are stagnating and our infrastructure is crumbling (as evidenced by the August bridge collapse).  While most of this work needs to be resolved at the state level, we could use a bit more of that federal money back to build better roads and bridges and other infrastructure like utility lines. 

The other part that is completely selfish on my part, and it bothers me, is that states like Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana are electing politicians that are going on moral crusades and touting tax cuts for the rich and "giving more money back to the people" and yet they are getting a pretty great deal on the federal level, and this is never brought up.

And this is why it bothers me:   I don't want to hear about "responsible spending" and "cutting taxes" and how us "liberals up north" are the tax and spenders, when our tax money is going to build their roads.  I'm sure there's a part of every person up north that wouldn't mind cutting off the flow of money to the south and giving that money back to the citizens of the states that provide it.  But above that, I think that's very selfish thinking and I realize that it would be bad for the country and I think a lot of that money has helped the south improve a lot over time so that in the future, they can pay for themselves.

[David S]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

If you don't like such redistributions, then you could always campaign to dissolve the US of A into its 50 components, much like how the Soviet Union was dissolved into its 15 components. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

The purpose of our federal government is to provide for defense, deliver the mail, coin money, and keep the states from going to war with each other. Its purpose is not to take money from one state and give it to another.

[2952-0-0]

So the federal government provides full defence for the entire nation, even parts of Alabama that produce almost nothing in taxation. Mail carried on a few high volume routes are profitable, and this cross-subsidizes postal services to remote communities hours from the nearest McDonalds. The economy of a few richer states ensures the US dollar is credible. Therefore, can you argue that the richer states are subsidizing the military force, post services, and monetary regime in the poorer states? Keep in mind that if there were no USPS charging a flat rate and only private carriers then it might cost $10 to get a letter delivered to Purdum, Nebraska. If there were no US military then Alabama would probably make do with some second-hand Soviet warplanes as an air force. If there were no US dollar (which is also US government backed) then there would be jokes about how they take carts of money to go shopping in West Virginia. So the federal government will always be redistributing money in one form or another. Of course, nothing's stopping anyone from running for election on a "Dissolve the USA" platform.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

If you don't like such redistributions, then you could always campaign to dissolve the US of A into its 50 components, much like how the Soviet Union was dissolved into its 15 components. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

The purpose of our federal government is to provide for defense, deliver the mail, coin money, and keep the states from going to war with each other. Its purpose is not to take money from one state and give it to another.

We could go on all day about what the "purpose" of the federal government is, but I like this definition:  The purpose of the federal government is whatever the people, who are represented by persons elected by said people or appointed by those elected by the people, deem it to be, as long as it does not violate the U.S. constitution, which is amendable for the purposes of evolving over time to meet the needs and demands of the people of the United States. 

Believing that the constitution should be revered in its original form and that the federal government should conform to that particular form of our constitution is not protecting it.  The checks and balances are what protects our constitution so that nothing can be done too quickly or lightly, and so it cannot be hijacked by one branch of government.

If the American people decide that they want a federal Social Security program, a Social Security program is what they should get.  You won't get ANYWHERE by arguing that since the Founding Fathers didn't write it into the constitution, that it should not be done.

That is my only problem with Libertarians.  Freedom to do with your money as you please is a political opinion, and in our system, you instigate that change by electing representatives that will lower your taxes and reduce government spending, not by trying to flip the "that's the purpose of government, as a matter of fact" card on us.

[David S]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

If you don't like such redistributions, then you could always campaign to dissolve the US of A into its 50 components, much like how the Soviet Union was dissolved into its 15 components. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

The purpose of our federal government is to provide for defense, deliver the mail, coin money, and keep the states from going to war with each other. Its purpose is not to take money from one state and give it to another.

We could go on all day about what the "purpose" of the federal government is, but I like this definition:  The purpose of the federal government is whatever the people, who are represented by persons elected by said people or appointed by those elected by the people, deem it to be, as long as it does not violate the U.S. constitution, which is amendable for the purposes of evolving over time to meet the needs and demands of the people of the United States. 

Believing that the constitution should be revered in its original form and that the federal government should conform to that particular form of our constitution is not protecting it.  The checks and balances are what protects our constitution so that nothing can be done too quickly or lightly, and so it cannot be hijacked by one branch of government.

If the American people decide that they want a federal Social Security program, a Social Security program is what they should get.  You won't get ANYWHERE by arguing that since the Founding Fathers didn't write it into the constitution, that it should not be done.

That is my only problem with Libertarians.  Freedom to do with your money as you please is a political opinion, and in our system, you instigate that change by electing representatives that will lower your taxes and reduce government spending, not by trying to flip the "that's the purpose of government, as a matter of fact" card on us.

In fact it works as you say, but its supposed to work as I said. If you want to change the constitution it should require a constitutional amendment not just the opinion of a simple majority. You want government to work as a pure democracy, where the majority rules and nothing else matters, but that's not what the founders created. They created a constitutional republic. In that form of government we still believe in majority rule but the majority must  abide by the constitution. Thats a very important distinction because the constitution protects our rights. When the majority can over-rule it then all of those rights are put in jeopardy, at least for the group that is in the minority.

BTW weren't you the one who was complaining about the unfair redistribution of your state's tax dollars? 

[jokerman]

In the past I've enjoyed seeing articles like this pop up on DailyKos and the feeble liberalism of its posters crumble.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why should there be such redistributions in the first place?

If you don't like such redistributions, then you could always campaign to dissolve the US of A into its 50 components, much like how the Soviet Union was dissolved into its 15 components. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

The purpose of our federal government is to provide for defense, deliver the mail, coin money, and keep the states from going to war with each other. Its purpose is not to take money from one state and give it to another.

We could go on all day about what the "purpose" of the federal government is, but I like this definition:  The purpose of the federal government is whatever the people, who are represented by persons elected by said people or appointed by those elected by the people, deem it to be, as long as it does not violate the U.S. constitution, which is amendable for the purposes of evolving over time to meet the needs and demands of the people of the United States. 

Believing that the constitution should be revered in its original form and that the federal government should conform to that particular form of our constitution is not protecting it.  The checks and balances are what protects our constitution so that nothing can be done too quickly or lightly, and so it cannot be hijacked by one branch of government.

If the American people decide that they want a federal Social Security program, a Social Security program is what they should get.  You won't get ANYWHERE by arguing that since the Founding Fathers didn't write it into the constitution, that it should not be done.

That is my only problem with Libertarians.  Freedom to do with your money as you please is a political opinion, and in our system, you instigate that change by electing representatives that will lower your taxes and reduce government spending, not by trying to flip the "that's the purpose of government, as a matter of fact" card on us.

In fact it works as you say, but its supposed to work as I said. If you want to change the constitution it should require a constitutional amendment not just the opinion of a simple majority. You want government to work as a pure democracy, where the majority rules and nothing else matters, but that's not what the founders created. They created a constitutional republic. In that form of government we still believe in majority rule but the majority must  abide by the constitution. Thats a very important distinction because the constitution protects our rights. When the majority can over-rule it then all of those rights are put in jeopardy, at least for the group that is in the minority.

BTW weren't you the one who was complaining about the unfair redistribution of your state's tax dollars? 

There's a big difference between griping about redistribution when our state has obvious problems that need to be fixed and more than half the money we put up is going off to other states, and campaigning for dollar-for-dollar spending for each state.

I understand that the federal government has to focus its money to concentrated areas and to areas that need it most to maintain programs.  I understand that Alaska, Virginia, and Maryland will get more money because they have extensive military operations within their borders.  Minnesota, by comparison, has relatively little military presence. 

I also see other states neglecting to offer basic needs to their poorest who do not have access to basic health care or even food in some cases, so the federal government steps in and provides this service.  This is often not because of actual financial constraints, but because the voters in that state decide that they'd like lower state taxes and then turn the other way when the federal dollars start flooding in.

It's important to spend money where it is needed, but it is something completely different to actively neglect your responsibility as a state to provide for the general welfare of your citizens and expect the federal government, funded by richer, more generous states, to pay for your shortcomings.  Do you see where I'm getting?

Also, your bit on the constitution:  Either we're on two different wavelengths, or I didn't make myself very clear.  My argument is not that 51% should decide the matters of the nation.  It is not up to the people to decide what is constitutional or not.  That is up to the courts.  Those that preside over the courts are appointed and confirmed by representatives elected by the people.  Since we can't crawl into the thoughts of the writers of our constitution, interpretations will vary over time.  And although these interpretations will not reflect directly the wild variations of public opinion, it does over a more drawn out trend, as again, the people are ultimately who decide what kinds of ideologies end up on the court through our president and senate.

At this time, the constitution has been interpreted in a way that allows for social programs that provide for the "general welfare" of the people.  Some may interpret "general welfare" as meaning only those things laid out already in the constitution in the articles, while others (like me) see "general welfare" as a catch-all term that was put in to keep the constitution from being to specific.

The courts have decided that such an interpretation is alright without the need to amend the constitution to define it further. 

If this is to be done, then it is up to people like you to elect a president that will appoint justices of such opinions to the courts and senators that will confirm them.  The main responsibility still comes down to the people as the pillar of our nation, be it pure democracy, constitutional republic, or whatever.  The point of our constitution and checks and balances is to protect our rights, and to protect the document by slowing down the processes that alter it, lest it be subjected, as you said, to the whims of a maniacal public in times of crisis.