Federal Spending vs. Taxes Paid - Red States Lead the Way
Monday, November 10, 2008 at 15:01The Tax Foundation keeps track of all sorts of interesting information. For some years, they've been comparing the Federal spending per state with that state's Federal tax burden. They express this in terms of "Federal dollars spent per dollar of Federal taxes." Here's the most recent data, for FY 2005; just for yuks, I'll annotate the list with each state's electoral decision in 2008:
- New Mexico (Obama) - $2.03 spent per tax dollar paid
- Mississippi (McCain) - $2.02
- Alaska (McCain) - $1.84
- Louisiana (McCain) - $1.78
- West Virginia (McCain) - $1.76
- North Dakota (McCain) - $1.68
- Alabama (McCain) - $1.66
- South Dakota (McCain) - $1.53
- Kentucky (McCain) - $1.51
- Virginia (Obama) - $1.51
- Montana (McCain) - $1.47
- Hawaii (Obama) - $1.44
- Maine (Obama) - $1.41
- Arkansas (McCain) - $1.41
- Oklahoma (McCain) - $1.46
So, of the top 15 states--getting more from the Federal government than they pay in--"red states" account for 11. Had we used the 2004 Presidential election results, "red states" would have accounted for 13 of the 15.
The bottom 15 states--all of which received less than one dollar of Federal spending per tax dollar paid--all went Democratic.
I'm wondering when the myth of those liberal "blue states" sucking at the Federal teat is going to die.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (14)
Of course those states don't pay alot in federal taxes, dimwit. The top 15 of that list is a who's who of the poorest and least populated states in the union.
What difference does it make Mach? It shows pretty clearly that those who pay the least amount in Federal Taxes compared to the benefits they recieve complain the most about paying taxes under the premise that 'we are stealing from good hard working people'.
Wes - I would be willing to bet that the inverse of that list is also true. That the states that get the least in return in Federal Taxes have the highest average state taxes also.
"What difference does it make Mach?"
Apparently it doesn't make any difference if your goal is to make some snarky point about red states vs. blue states.
Factoring in state population and their average per capita per person might provide a more realistic picture, but that might not make the list worthy of Wes's moderate, non-partisan attention.
So what you are advocating is the from each according to their ability to each according to their need apporach?
Having seen this oh' so weak lib canard for the millionth time, please understand that federal assets i.e. military bases are noted as inputs for federal tax dollars vs. what a state like Alaska would pay back in taxes. So please, those military bases that protect our security are nothing more to libs than "unfair' proof that red states don't pay there fair share compared to what they get from the federal government! The blue state whine machine is hard at it today.
I wasn't advocating anything.
Why don't you quit acting like a jackass.
Good point, Tom.
I'd also have to wonder if federal spending after a certain hurricane Katrina in 2005 was included in the data. I see 3 gulf states made the top 10.
DAMN those red state rednecks and their clinginess.
Well, the original point Mach made is valid to a degree. There are some fairly odd combinations in play; for instance, Alaska is in the bottom five states for population, but in the top five for per capita income (and has no state income tax, to boot). Kentucky and several other states are firmly in the middle on both counts, and some are (as Mach noted) bottom-states on both lists. On the whole, the two are probably close to the combined median.
As far as military spending is concerned, I don't think that was counted in this computation; if it were, I would expect the figures for California, Hawaii, Florida and Virginia to be MUCH higher than they are.
Katrina funds are not included; that spending was off-budget.
Mach, if I could find one that put all those eggs in one basket, I'd do an article on it. When this caught my eye, it was the only study of its sort I could find.
The point about onerous state taxes doesn't really hold water. Tennessee is #19 on the list, Texas #35, Florida #36 and New Hampshire #47; none of those states have a general income tax (from what I can see, NH taxes only capital gains and dividends.)
Well, those plus liquor, dog tracks, rooms and meals.
Another possible factor in federal spending is each state's representation in Congess, where federal spending is allocated. While a state's population is reflected in it's number of Representatives, each state has equal representation in the Senate.
That may be a reason why states with lower populations/smaller ecomomies (i.e. less taxes collected from that state) have a higher proportion of federal dollars spent due to a disproportionate representation.
Hmmmm...it's true that pork is the most bipartisan thing in Washington, even if it is a tiny percentage of the budget.
Snort.