Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 11, 2006, 04:41:28 AM



Title: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 11, 2006, 04:41:28 AM
(
)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Alcon on June 11, 2006, 02:48:41 PM
D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

EDIT: I meant dark blue; it already was dark red.  I'm a moron.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 11, 2006, 03:40:07 PM
D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Alcon on June 11, 2006, 04:16:41 PM
D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

I suppose that is fairly logical, but the correlation seems to be more population than politics (hence Georgia, Texas, and Rhode Island), although it doesn't explain Vermont.

Is there any information on what formula they use to calculate the fundings?


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 12, 2006, 03:35:08 AM
D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

I suppose that is fairly logical, but the correlation seems to be more population than politics (hence Georgia, Texas, and Rhode Island), although it doesn't explain Vermont.

Is there any information on what formula they use to calculate the fundings?

The formula is based upon how much pork you can get.

Despite the fact that Democratic areas include a lot of poor people and a lot of high cost of living areas, Republican Congressional districts averaged $612 million more in spending than Democratic Congressional districts in 2000, and I'm sure it's worse now.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069049


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Mr. Paleoconservative on June 12, 2006, 03:47:06 AM
Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   



Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 12, 2006, 03:51:14 AM
Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   



You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Mr. Paleoconservative on June 12, 2006, 03:58:23 AM
Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   



You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.

Oregon is one of the most cash strapped and economically destabilized states in the Union, and those 3 cents out of every dollar ADD UP QUICK. 

Oregon deserves its fair share, particularly when it is at a time of crisis which has been brought on and lengthened by the unfunded mandate and federal environmental regulations.

I don't feed trolls, so don't bother to respond to my comment, as I refuse to reply to anymore of your posts.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: True Democrat on June 12, 2006, 07:03:12 PM
I'm quite surprised West Virginia isn't number one.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Smash255 on June 14, 2006, 02:41:16 AM
Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   



You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.

Oregon is one of the most cash strapped and economically destabilized states in the Union, and those 3 cents out of every dollar ADD UP QUICK. 

Oregon deserves its fair share, particularly when it is at a time of crisis which has been brought on and lengthened by the unfunded mandate and federal environmental regulations.

I don't feed trolls, so don't bother to respond to my comment, as I refuse to reply to anymore of your posts.



The point Jferm nrought up was a good one.  yes Oregon gets shorted and they should get their fair share, but they do get closer to their fair share than many other states including jefern's state & mine


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Nym90 on June 15, 2006, 09:27:41 PM
It's definitely an interesting map.

I do think the Republican states are a bit hypocritical in terms of being willing to benefit from federal spending but complaining about taxes. I guess it just goes to show that a lot of people want to get something for nothing if they can.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: MaC on June 20, 2006, 12:56:26 AM
(
)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

It's an interesting map.  I have to wonder what is was like during the nineties though, was Clinton any different?


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: muon2 on July 13, 2006, 11:25:14 PM
Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: ATFFL on July 13, 2006, 11:52:06 PM
Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Nym90 on July 14, 2006, 08:47:18 AM
Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

Well, he is correct, of course, although the more urban states tend to be more Democratic, so the correlation still holds. I agree that the causation is not caused by the politics of the states directly, but it is still a relationship nonetheless.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Undisguised Sockpuppet on July 14, 2006, 08:48:24 AM
States should get back money equal to what they put in. No more subsidizing west virginia.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: opebo on July 14, 2006, 09:58:31 AM
Oregon is one of the most cash strapped and economically destabilized states in the Union,

Why is that?  I've always noticed that OR is generally suffering very high unemployment - particularly for such a white state. 

Quote
I don't feed trolls, so don't bother to respond to my comment, as I refuse to reply to anymore of your posts.

You call jfern a troll!  That's rich.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: muon2 on July 14, 2006, 09:58:32 PM
Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

My bad. Must be something about us teachers. ;)


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: ATFFL on July 14, 2006, 11:05:52 PM
Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

Well, he is correct, of course, although the more urban states tend to be more Democratic, so the correlation still holds. I agree that the causation is not caused by the politics of the states directly, but it is still a relationship nonetheless.

Yeah, but there are a lot of factors and the politics is not on top of the list.  Also on the list is how long the senators and representatives have been in Congress and which committees they are on.


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: Sam Spade on July 14, 2006, 11:16:04 PM

Texas, meanwhile has gone almost the opposite of California. It was a donor in the 80s (oil boom, methinks?), but after that has shifted towards the receivers almost breaking even a few times.

Yep, looking at the numbers that's the biggest reason (oil boom to oil bust in the mid-80s.  But there was a recovery after that.

The reason why federal receipts from Texas lowered after 2001 was because of a change in the law that allowed Texans to deduct a part of their sales taxes (which they hadn't been before).


Title: Re: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
Post by: jimrtex on July 28, 2006, 01:09:27 AM
These figures include things like Social Security, so states with sluggish job growth tend to do "well".  The young people have to leave the state to find work, while those who are retired are sent their SS check.  because they live in poorer states, they may not have much income other than social security, and don't pay any income taxes.

Two of the slowest growing states in the wealthy Northeast, PA and RI are Blue on this basis.  Also federal employee income, and spending with contractors make Virginia and Maryland dark blue.