Replies to post #310893 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[blackhawks]

The Week in Public Finance: The 10 States That Give More to the Feds Than They Get Back

Connecticut tops the list of states whose taxpayers receive the least bang for their buck from the feds.

Should the 2 most populated states control the presidency, simply because liberals are so accommodating with federal money for social programs, that are essentially bribes or purchases of a voting block?

Contra-factual crap. For the umpteenth time, Red State America gets more than it's share of social welfare because of their low GDP and generally poorer health. They'd be dying in the hollers in greater numbers in not for SNAP benefits and Medicaid. That's a stone cold fact.

by Liz Farmer | January 11, 2019 AT 4:00 AM

A 1040 tax form.
(Shutterstock)

SPEED READ:
•Ten so-called donor states pay more in taxes to the federal government than they receive back in funding for things like Medicaid or education.

•Connecticut tops the list of donor states. Residents there receive just 74 cents back for every $1 they pay in federal taxes.
•Thanks to 2017's federal tax overhaul, the number of donor states could grow. That's because the amount residents owe in federal taxes will increase now that the state and local tax deduction is capped.

Residents in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have some of the highest tax bills in the nation. They also pay thousands more in federal taxes than their state receives back in federal funding.

In total, 10 states are so-called donor states, meaning they pay more in taxes to the federal government than they receive back in funding for, say, Medicaid or public education. North Dakota, Illinois, New Hampshire, Washington state, Nebraska and Colorado round out the list.

The main reason for the imbalance, particularly in the top four states, is that those places are home to some of the highest household incomes in the country. Therefore, they pay more in federal taxes, which doesn't necessarily equate to more federal money for services.

Thanks to 2017's federal tax overhaul, the number of donor states could grow. It's too early to tell by just how much because the most recent data is from the year before the overhaul capped how much in state and local taxes filers could deduct from their federally declared income.

But it’s expected that federal taxes for many high-earners -- particularly from the top four states and from California -- could jump, and the gap between what taxpayers in those states pay out and what they receive back from the feds could be even bigger.

https://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html

The study is likely to be used as a political counterpoint to most Republicans' argument that the uncapped state and local tax deduction meant that low-tax states were subsidizing high-tax states

[conix]

Absolutely correct on the Electoral College, ForReal.

Counting things that do not count is not the way to win.

If the rules were that the votes that count are only the total popular vote count in New York, California, Florida and Pennsylvania, it would prompt candidates to plan their campaign accordingly.

Which, BTW, is probably what would happen if the Electoral College was canned. No candidate would spend $$$ in Iowa, South Carolina etc. Those states would never see a candidate, because there are not enough available popular votes available to bother.