Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Donor states vs. Subsidized states

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 12:18 PM
Original message
Donor states vs. Subsidized states
Seems that most of the info is from before the 2004 elections and, of course, the recession has changed much, still interesting to watch this one, from 2002:

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Subsidized-Red-Do...

SUBSIDIZED STATES: (Dollars received for every tax dollar paid)

North Dakota (2.03), New Mexico (1.89), Mississippi (1.84), Alaska (1.82), West Virginia (1.74), Montana (1.64), Alabama (1.61), South Dakota (1.59), Arkansas (1.53), Hawaii (1.52), Virginia (1.47), Oklahoma (1.47), Kentucky 1.46), Louisiana (1.44), Idaho (1.34), South Carolina (1.32), Missouri (1.32), Maine (1.31), Tennessee (1.24), Iowa (1.22), Arizona (1.20), Maryland (1.20), Nebraska (1.19), Utah (1.14), Kansas (1.14), Vermont (1.12), Pennsylvania (1.08), North Carolina (1.07), Rhode Island (1.06), Wyoming (1.05), Ohio (1.02), Georgia (1.01). (26 Red States, 6 Blue States)


BREAK-EVEN STATES: Oregon (1.00), Florida (1.00) (1 Red State, 1 Blue State)


DONOR STATES:

Indiana (0.99), Texas (0.92), Washington (0.91), Michigan (0.90), Wisconsin (0.87), Delaware (0.85), California (0.81), New York (0.81), Colorado (0.79), Massachusetts (0.79), Illinois (0.77), Minnesota (0.77), Nevada (0.73), New Hampshire (0.68), Connecticut (0.64), New Jersey (0.62).(4 Red States, 12 Blue States).


Notable Exceptions:

Texas is a big donor state. Maine and Vermont, home to Old Yankee frugality and self-sufficiency, are subsidized states.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here's a table from the late '90s on balance of payments.
Edited on Sun Jun-07-09 12:58 PM by Captain Hilts
One of the problems looming is that a lot of folks want to tax medical insurance benefits to pay for healthcare. As more folks in the NE have healthcare ,the financial burden of paying for the new medical plan would fall disproportionately on the NE/Blue states.

Per Capita Tax Burden and Return on Federal Tax Dollar: Fiscal 20051

Per-Capita Adjusted2 Per-Capita
Federal Federal Federal Federal Federal Return on3
Spending Spending Spending Tax Burden Tax Burden Federal Tax
State or Region (in millions (in dollars) (in millions) (in millions) (in dollars) Dollar

New England
Connecticut 30,774 8,827 29,496 40,314 11,563 0.73
Maine 11,356 8,654 10,885 7,728 5,890 1.41
Massachusetts 55,830 8,684 53,512 63,003 9,800 0.85
New Hampshire 8,331 6,393 7,985 10,649 8,172 0.75
Rhode Island 8,423 7,896 8,073 7,969 7,470 1.01
Vermont 4,645 7,495 4,452 4,085 6,592 1.09
Total 119,359 8,395 114,403 133,749 9,407 0.86

Mid-Atlantic
Delaware 5,495 6,537 5,267 6,622 7,878 0.80
Maryland 66,720 11,972 63,950 49,178 8,824 1.30
New Jersey 58,617 6,771 56,183 86,112 9,947 0.65
New York 144,876 7,521 138,861 168,710 8,758 0.82
Pennsylvania 99,503 8,046 95,372 87,940 7,111 1.08
Total 375,211 8,034 359,633 398,562 8,534 0.90

Midwest
Illinois 80,778 6,351 77,424 99,776 7,844 0.78
Indiana 42,347 6,768 40,589 38,081 6,086 1.07
Iowa 20,345 6,884 19,500 17,830 6,033 1.09
Michigan 64,787 6,410 62,097 66,326 6,562 0.94
Minnesota 31,067 6,075 29,777 40,578 7,935 0.73
Ohio 77,881 6,796 74,648 70,304 6,135 1.06
Wisconsin 33,749 6,091 32,348 36,961 6,671 0.88
Total 350,954 6,481 336,383 369,856 6,830 0.91

South
Alabama 42,061 9,265 40,315 24,675 5,436 1.63
Arkansas 20,387 7,354 19,541 13,926 5,024 1.40
Florida 134,544 7,586 128,958 135,146 7,620 0.95
Georgia 59,846 6,571 57,361 55,952 6,143 1.03
Kentucky 34,653 8,308 33,214 22,003 5,275 1.51
Louisiana 39,628 8,815 37,983 20,563 4,574 1.85
Mississippi 26,181 9,027 25,094 12,434 4,287 2.02
North Carolina 59,162 6,817 56,706 52,547 6,054 1.08
Oklahoma 27,637 7,816 26,490 19,572 5,535 1.35
South Carolina 32,044 7,531 30,714 22,711 5,337 1.35
Tennessee 48,288 8,062 46,283 35,872 5,989 1.29
Texas 148,683 6,509 142,510 146,932 6,432 0.97
Virginia 95,097 12,583 91,149 60,185 7,963 1.51
West Virginia 16,087 8,909 15,419 8,815 4,882 1.75
Total 784,298 7,813 751,735 631,335 6,289 1.19

West
Alaska 9,230 13,788 8,847 4,830 7,215 1.83
Arizona 44,639 7,500 42,786 35,988 6,046 1.19
California 242,023 6,725 231,975 289,627 8,047 0.80
Colorado 31,173 6,670 29,879 35,880 7,677 0.83
Hawaii 12,699 10,018 12,172 8,519 6,721 1.43
Idaho 9,598 6,731 9,200 7,728 5,420 1.19
Kansas 20,492 7,474 19,641 17,434 6,359 1.13
Missouri 48,273 8,340 46,269 35,171 6,077 1.32
Montana 7,814 8,350 7,490 5,228 5,586 1.43
Nebraska 12,785 7,289 12,254 11,261 6,420 1.09
Nevada 14,089 5,849 13,504 20,135 8,359 0.67
New Mexico 20,604 10,752 19,749 9,891 5,162 2.00
North Dakota 6,608 10,391 6,334 3,829 6,021 1.65
Oregon 22,792 6,279 21,846 23,583 6,497 0.93
South Dakota 7,481 9,590 7,170 4,840 6,205 1.48
Utah 14,823 5,917 14,208 13,134 5,243 1.08
Washington 46,338 7,389 44,414 49,682 7,923 0.89
Wyoming 4,782 9,440 4,583 4,209 8,310 1.09
Total 576,243 7,216 552,318 580,971 7,276 0.95

Northeast 494,570 8,119 474,036 532,311 8,738 0.89
Midwest 350,954 6,481 336,383 369,856 6,830 0.91
Northeast and Midwest 845,524 7,348 810,419 902,167 7,840 0.90

South 784,298 7,813 751,735 631,335 6,289 1.19
West 576,243 7,216 552,318 580,971 7,276 0.95
South and West 1,360,541 7,548 1,304,054 1,212,306 6,726 1.08

U.S. Total4 2,206,065 7,470 2,114,473 2,114,473 7,160 1.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChimpersMcSmirkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. What I find interesting is the geography of this.
Here's a map I whipped up:


It's funny how much of the upper plains(MT, ND, SD, WY, ID), where a lot of folks claim to hate government intrusion, seem to be getting a pretty good deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-09-09 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. VERY INTERESTING
that 'where a lot of folks claim to hate government intrusion, seem to be getting a pretty good deal.' It may be too abstract a concept, but would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone actually KNEW about this, whether or not or how it might affect the POLITICAL map!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wish they'd list the "payments"
It would clear up some misconceptions about why they are "subsidized". New Mexico, for instance, has a high percentage of land "managed" by the federal government. We also have Cannon AFB, Holloman AFB, Kirtland AFB, White Sands Missile Range, Los Alamos National Laboratories, etc... Add in the Indian reservations and a population of less than 2 million people and you can see why more federal money flows in than flows out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. OK. And what is the "excuse" of the old South?
or the lower Midwest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I don't know
I'd have to see an actual breakdown of the numbers. How much of that is SS and federal aid to children? How much for defense industries or agricultural subsidies? Federal facilities? Emergency spending (natural disasters)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. And then three are national parks
Several years ago we visited Alaska and our guide was certainly not a supporter of "government intervention," complained that the Federal government was telling Alaska what to do. But then I was thinking of how much of the Alaskan revenue comes from tourism, like the breathtaking Denali which, of course, is maintained by the Federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-09-09 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Lots of 'defense' stuff in south.
Mebbe same in 'lower' midwest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I think listing the "payment" might be embarrassing to some state economies...
You list all the Nuclear Labs and Military bases in NM... but if I were to bother to look, I bet I could list even more in California. And some "Indian reservations" too.
I think the "subsidized" vs. "donor" status is meant to highlight what portion of each state's economy is dependent on Federal Government spending in that state.
I think it's clear that more money flows in than flows out in a lot of these states because their economies aren't as diversified... and it is always interesting to speculate on possible cause/effect relationships that develop in states where there is more Federal spending than there is tax revenues going to the Feds...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
namahage Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's some info from 2004:


http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Not many changes, besides amounts, except that there are no "break-even" states (OR becomes a "donor," and FL becomes a "subsidized" state) and GA flips to "donor" status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thanks. I think that we still the reddest states as subsidized
while the bluest - as donors. But, hey, the RWers can always continue to talk about "small government" and "government is the problem" as long as they get theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Not if you are counting as "blue" those that voted Democratic in 2008
New Mexico and Virginia aren''t red states anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. and North Carolina
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-09-09 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Interesting updated info
Edited on Tue Jun-09-09 04:48 AM by davidpdx
To bad we can't get even more current info, five years ago is pretty old. My Oregon is barely a donor state, but then again I guess that's better then being one of those damn subsidized states. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. Weird that Oregon and Flordia have that in common
Two very different states they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. This was true for 2002
as you can see from the post above #4 - things have changed since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC