undefined | Better HN

0 pointswonderwonder6y ago0 comments

Its easier to be in better financial shape if you are taking in more federal funding than you are contributing via federal taxes. 8 of the top 10 states that take more funds than they contribute are red. Exceptions are Hawaii and New Mexico.

Good read on the matter:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

Acrobatic_Road6y ago· 2 in thread

This spending constitutes things like social security checks and the upkeep of military bases and other facilities. It is not relevant to state budgets. And even if all the money went to a state general fund, the worst performers would not be significantly different.

wonderwonderOP6y ago

In 2014 the federal government provided 40.9% of Mississippi's state budget. How is that not relevant to the state budget? As a percentage of state budget being provided by the federal government, 13 of the top 15 recipients are red states.

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_aid_to_state_budgets

Acrobatic_Road6y ago

Very simple answer: blue states have bigger budgets so the % of aid they receive from the government seems smaller.

The Federalist has done an analysis of federal aid per resident:

>Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red or purple.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-b...

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse