Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:36:16 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004  (Read 9727 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 11, 2006, 04:41:28 AM »
« edited: June 11, 2006, 04:47:15 AM by jfern »



http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2006, 02:48:41 PM »
« Edited: July 14, 2006, 03:41:06 PM by Alcon »

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.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2006, 03:40:07 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2006, 03:41:40 PM by jfern »

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.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 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?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 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
Logged
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 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.   

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 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.
Logged
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2006, 07:03:12 PM »

I'm quite surprised West Virginia isn't number one.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,443


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 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
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2006, 12:56:26 AM »


It's an interesting map.  I have to wonder what is was like during the nineties though, was Clinton any different?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2006, 08:48:24 AM »

States should get back money equal to what they put in. No more subsidizing west virginia.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You call jfern a troll!  That's rich.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 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. Wink
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 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.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 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).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.