undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbilbo0s6y ago0 comments

Your source has Massachusetts in the bottom 5, which lets you know right there it's laughable.

Never lived there myself, but I know for a fact they're consistently in the top 5 of contributors to the federal kitty of all states both nominally, and per-capita. They get almost nothing back compared to what they put in. They are, arguably, the largest contributor to the nation if we're considering individual burdens. And a top 5 contributor by outright total aggregate tax contribution.

Illinois and New Jersey, by total outright tax contribution, are also consistently in the top 5 of states that contribute to the federal government. (And I'm from Wisconsin. I hate Illinois. But facts are facts man.)

Hate to tell you, but your source is bogus as far as analyzing the biggest contributors to the national kitty.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

Acrobatic_Road6y ago· 3 in thread

You seem to think that Illinois, New Jersey and the lot must be in a great fiscal situation because they are "net contributors". As I explained in another comment, the money these states "receive" is mostly payments to individuals and has little meaning to their state budgets.

Paying out a lot more to the federal government than they receive back does not mean these states are doing well and others poorly. It really just a natural consequence of having a lot of high earners in a progressive tax system. The states in question have been racking up huge amounts of debt and/or have underfunded pensions funds, which is why they are consistently ranked lowly in terms of fiscal health. I am a little surprised you had you not heard of the financial problems coming out of Illinois, New Jersey and the like? There's even a dedicated Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_pension_crisis

bilbo0sOP6y ago

>Paying out a lot more to the federal government than they receive back does not mean these states are doing well and others poorly.

Sigh.

Even if we look at a list of states by GDP, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts would still be perennial top 10 states. Even a list of states by GDP per capita, they all still are perennial top 10s. Per capita, I would bet that Massachusetts is number 1? (Maybe NY might edge them out? But I'd definitely bet they're number 1 or 2.)

Listen man, I don't even like Illinois. I hate Chicago. But facts are facts. They make a $#!t ton of money. And not the easy way doing financial engineering like New York. They do it the hard way with a huge diversified economy. Few states are like that. It's just a fact man.

Are you going to say that GDP is not a good indication of what a state produces?

Acrobatic_Road6y ago

Their high GDP per capita is not going to fix their insolvent pensions or runaway spending. Illinois has a BBB credit rating (just above junk!). Are you really just going to ignore that because of high GDP? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_credit_...

selimthegrim6y ago

There’s plenty of financial engineering in Chicago last I checked.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse