Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

I had some free time last night and I put together a spreadsheet that does some analysis on Federal Taxes paid by each state. This analysis looks at the percentage of population by State as it relates to percentage of Federal Income Taxes paid to determine whether a State pays its fair share of the Federal Income Tax. [B]Think of it this way, if we all went out for drinks every Friday which one of us isn't paying their fair share of the tab? Whether you don't think you should pay at all or your beer should cost less because we should be drinking cheap beer is a different story.[/B]

A Drag Index (DI) is assigned to each State that is calculated based on the percentage of total population that live in the State, percentage of total taxes paid by individuals in the state, and percentage of total effective taxes paid. A lower DI indicates that a State does not pay its fair share of Federal Taxes while a larger DI indicates that the State pays its fair share or more of the tax burden. Note that even though Puerto Rico and District of Columbia are not States they were included in this analysis because individuals that inhibit these territories also pay Federal Taxes.



A few things to note:
[LIST=1][*]Puerto Rico gets more aid than taxes it pays (negative effective tax rate of -0.07%).[*]New York is the most generous tax contributor.[*]Washington D.C.residents pay the most taxes per capita at ~35K per person.[*]Alaska has the second worst effective tax rate at 0.07%.[*]Florida has nearly the same size of population as New York yet pays 100 billion dollars in less taxes. One possible explanation for this anomaly is the presence of significant number of older people in Florida who don't pay as much taxes.[*]Wyoming is the most effective tax payer with 0.87 DI followed by Washington State with 4.94 DI.[*]California is the biggest tax contributor with roughly 10% effective Federal Taxes. That's more than the bottom 27 States combined even though the combined population of the bottom States is ~57 million.[/LIST]
Questions and feedback are welcomed and encouraged.

[URL="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p3kQZSrdFQ5GqRLRttetCXA"]Here's the spreadsheet[/URL].

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

Goodness, that's some impressive work saden.

When I have free time...I read posts in the Parking Lot

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=SmootSmack;525564]Goodness, that's some impressive work saden.

When I have free time...I read posts in the Parking Lot[/quote]

For real. I enjoy political discussion in-person with friends, by my motto for the parking lot is the same as your current user title - f...political threads. However, this is impressive stuff.

I do love reading Parking Lot threads though...

Question- how do you determine the dollar amount of what (ideally) each state's "fair share" should be?

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=GMScud;525570]For real. I enjoy political discussion in-person with friends, by my motto for the parking lot is the same as your current user title - f...political threads. However, this is impressive stuff.

I do love reading Parking Lot threads though...

[B]Question- how do you determine the dollar amount of what (ideally) each state's "fair share" should be?[/B][/quote]

Thanks guys, it was a great learning experience.

The total Federal tax contribution (~2.6 trillion) divided by total population of the United States (~306 million) gives you ideal contribution per capita. If a State houses 10% of the population it should pay 10% of the tax burden. The effective tax rate throws a monkey wrench into our ideal world scenario so that has to be factored in.

New York for example has the highest DI index because it has 6.32% of the population and pays 9.15% of the total tax burden (+2.83%). When you factor in the aid money they receive they have an effective tax rate of 7.53%. That is to say even though they make up 6.32% of the population they still pay 7.53% of the effective tax (1.21% more than they should).

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

Really, that is impressive Saden.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

As I look through the work here, the biggest thing this tells me is the per capita income by state.

New York is the most effective taxpayer, even net of federal aid, because they have such a high number of citizens earning very high salaries. Wall Street, big corporate execs, investment bankers, consultants, employees of the accounting firms, media outlets, and on and on. These same citizens are the ones who generate a great deal of income and capital gains through their securities assets - this also generates tax for the federal government. It is these high earners that are contributing the lion's share of the tax money, as a great percentage of their income is taxed at the highest tax bracket, 35% or more.

New Jersey and Connecticut also rank high on the list for this reason. Many citizens from these areas commute into New York.

You'll note similar contributions amongst Massachussets (Boston, a large financial center), Illinois (Chicago). Then note poor states who are suffering most from economic troubles, Michigan's unemployment in the Detroit area pulls it down to one of the biggest drags.

Wage index also plays a huge role here. The states at the top of the list are high wage index states. An accountant coming out of college may start at 60K in NYC, and 40K in the south. Note the presence of South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia near the bottom of the list. Cost of living in these areas is some of the lowest around, resulting in lower wages, resulting in lower taxes paid.

Florida is indeed an anomaly because of the retirees. They don't pay taxes on the social security checks they're drawing.

It is important that people not interpret this chart, particularly the drag index, as an indicator of one state doing more than another to fund the federal budget. It is not attributable to anything the state or the citizens are doing, it is merely reflective of:

- The geography of high paying jobs - where are the lion's share located? Major cities.
- The cost of living (and as a byproduct, wage index) of each state.

Unless you're a believer in a flat tax, one should expect New York to contribute more taxes on a per capita basis than any other state, simply because they make so much money. And it should be no surprise that California pays more than most states in taxes. They have way more people than most states and plenty of urban centers with high paying jobs, not to mention a booming tourism industry.

Saden, a very valuable analysis would be to add [B]mean[/B] household income by state to the report, and then calculate (Gross Tax Paid - Federal Aid Received) / (Population x Mean Household Income). This would show you the percent of income paid to the federal government, net of aid. I'd postulate that you'll see a much more even distribution amongst the states.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

By the way, great thread. I can't turn down taking a good look at a financial analysis (said the financial analyst).

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

I never saw the cogency of the drag index. My best econ profs used the ratio of total federal funds allocated over total federal taxes collected, for instance 1.82 reflects $1.82 of federal money for every $1 the "state" pays in federal taxes. The numbers are pretty friggin staggering... if memory serves basically the middle of the country suck money away from the coastal states, which pay in far more than they receive in aid.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=The Goat;525601]I never saw the cogency of the drag index. My best econ profs used the ratio of total federal funds allocated over total federal taxes collected, for instance 1.82 reflects $1.82 of federal money for every $1 the "state" pays in federal taxes. The numbers are pretty friggin staggering... if memory serves basically the middle of the country suck money away from the coastal states, which pay in far more than they receive in aid.[/quote]

Again, that's reflective of cost of living and wage index by state. A pretty meaningless stat.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

What Schneed10 is correct. In the interest of discloser the reason why I spend time looking at these numbers was not because I have too much time but because some people really do think kicking states like California out of the union is a good idea. I also wanted to see whether Temple was really paying his full bill if all things were equal.

Note that each "state" except for Puerto Rico can self-sustain especially when you factor in state taxes into the picture. Drag Index is a bit incendiary word but I couldn't think of a better word. Obviously each state has something unique to offer the union but let's not kid ourself, the big boys make this nation a super power. I mean Cali has a negative DI but kicking them out of the union would not be wise at all.

Thanks for the suggestion Schneed10. There's lots of numbers (GDP, SS payment, unemployment percentage, factor in corporate tax contribution into the picture, etc) worth looking at to make this analysis more meaningful. It's a working progress.

p.s. I was really surprised by how significant the contributions from Minnesota, Ohio, and D.C. were.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=saden1;525635]What Schneed10 is correct. In the interest of discloser the reason why I spend time looking at these numbers was not because I have too much time but because some people really do think kicking states like California out of the union is a good idea. [B]I also wanted to see whether Temple was really paying his full bill if all things were equal.[/B]

Note that each "state" except for Puerto Rico can self-sustain especially when you factor in state taxes into the picture. Drag Index is a bit incendiary word but I couldn't think of a better word. Obviously each state has something unique to offer the union but let's not kid ourself, the big boys make this nation a super power. I mean Cali has a negative DI but kicking them out of the union would not be wise at all.

Thanks for the suggestion Schneed10. There's lots of numbers (GDP, SS payment, unemployment percentage, factor in corporate tax contribution into the picture, etc) worth looking at to make this analysis more meaningful. It's a working progress.

p.s. I was really surprised by how significant the contributions from Minnesota, Ohio, and D.C. were.[/quote]

LOL on the bolded part.

It is very cool what you're doing here, I've never looked at the numbers by state like this.

DC doesn't surprise me so much, the housing within the district is very expensive which of course dictates that those living there need to make a lot of dough to afford it. With the DC area being one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation, the wage index matches, and you get a high per capita income.

But Ohio and especially Minnesota do surprise me. Minnesota's tax paid per capita is through the roof. I wonder if that's because the state is sparsely populated except for the areas surrounding Minneapolis-St. Paul. You might simply have the lion's share of people living around a metropolitan area that has a significant wage index.

Question, how is Federal Aid calculated? Is it welfare payments + disaster relief?

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

The Federal Aid data comes from [URL="http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fas.html"]census[/URL].
[quote]Federal government aid to state and local governments includes the following:[LIST=1][*]Direct cash grants to state or local government units.[*]Payments for grants-in-kind, such as purchases of commodities distributed to state or local government institutions (e.g., school lunch and breakfast programs).[*]Payments to nongovernment entities when such payments result in cash or in-kind services passed on to state or local governments.[*]Payments to regional commissions and organizations that are redistributed to the state or local level.[*]Federal government payments to state and local governments for research and development that is an integral part of the provision of public services.[*]Federal revenues shared with state and local governments.[/LIST][/quote]

Oh and the the tax data is from the [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls"]IRS[/URL].

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

I think that Federal Taxes paid is based on income so that explains some of your findings. FL has a large population of retired people who don't pay much in taxes and most of their income (beside SS) comes from money they have already paid taxes on.

I must ask. You think its fair that the richest 10% pay most of the federal taxes while the bottom 40% pay little to no fed taxes. Then you say its not fair that some states pay more then their share while others pay very little.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=firstdown;525688]I think that Federal Taxes paid is based on income so that explains some of your findings. FL has a large population of retired people who don't pay much in taxes and most of their income (beside SS) comes from money they have already paid taxes on.

[B][COLOR=black]I must ask. You think its fair that the richest 10% pay most of the federal taxes while the bottom 40% pay little to no fed taxes. Then you say its not fair that some states pay more then their share while others pay very little.[/COLOR][/B][/quote]


I believe in the progressive tax wholeheartedly. It's the best system to sustain a capitalistic nation around the globe. I do look forward to, however, the day where we are all on equal footing and therefore pay equally into the system.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=saden1;525816]I believe in the progressive tax wholeheartedly. It's the best system to sustain a capitalistic nation around the globe. I do look forward to, however, the day where we are all on equal footing and therefore pay equally into the system.[/quote]
How do you envision everyone achieving "equal footing"?
AND BTW, Schneed, you may want to seriously consider getting a.......woman

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Hog1;525823]How do you envision everyone achieving "equal footing"?
AND BTW, [B]Schneed, you may want to seriously consider getting a.......woman[/B][/quote]

LOL, I got one, and am raising another. I'm a financial analyst by trade, so this comes naturally.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Hog1;525823]How do you envision everyone achieving "equal footing"?
AND BTW, Schneed, you may want to seriously consider getting a.......woman[/quote]

Through enlightenment? Through a disaster that wipes out 99% of the human population? F*ck if I know man, but it would be nice....then again man is a selfish and greedy animal and Cain is programed to to kill Able no matter the situation.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=saden1;525835]Through enlightenment? Through a disaster that wipes out 99% of the human population? F*ck if I know man, but it would be nice....then again man is a selfish and greedy animal and Cain is programed to to kill Able no matter the situation.[/quote]
It wasn't a trick question Saden. I thought maybe you had a secret plan!
AND...Schneed, you......may be on the road to recovery. Back away from the spreadsheet!

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=saden1;525816]I believe in the progressive tax wholeheartedly. It's the best system to sustain a capitalistic nation around the globe. I do look forward to, however, the day where we are all on equal footing and therefore pay equally into the system.[/quote]

This will never happen and you will always have people who can't or are to lazy to be successful in life. The Federal Goverment and states have spent Billions trying to help people better there life with little success. We do live in a nation that if you set your mind to it you can become whatever you want. Clarence Thomas is a great example of a person who was born into poverty and now sits on the highest court. My parent old neighbor came from a family that had nothing and is now worth millions.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Schneed10;525592]As I look through the work here, the biggest thing this tells me is the per capita income by state.

New York is the most effective taxpayer, even net of federal aid, because they have such a high number of citizens earning very high salaries. Wall Street, big corporate execs, investment bankers, consultants, employees of the accounting firms, media outlets, and on and on. These same citizens are the ones who generate a great deal of income and capital gains through their securities assets - this also generates tax for the federal government. It is these high earners that are contributing the lion's share of the tax money, as a great percentage of their income is taxed at the highest tax bracket, 35% or more.

New Jersey and Connecticut also rank high on the list for this reason. Many citizens from these areas commute into New York.

You'll note similar contributions amongst Massachussets (Boston, a large financial center), Illinois (Chicago). Then note poor states who are suffering most from economic troubles, Michigan's unemployment in the Detroit area pulls it down to one of the biggest drags.

Wage index also plays a huge role here. The states at the top of the list are high wage index states. An accountant coming out of college may start at 60K in NYC, and 40K in the south. Note the presence of South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia near the bottom of the list. Cost of living in these areas is some of the lowest around, resulting in lower wages, resulting in lower taxes paid.

Florida is indeed an anomaly because of the retirees. They don't pay taxes on the social security checks they're drawing.

It is important that people not interpret this chart, particularly the drag index, as an indicator of one state doing more than another to fund the federal budget. It is not attributable to anything the state or the citizens are doing, it is merely reflective of:

- The geography of high paying jobs - where are the lion's share located? Major cities.
- The cost of living (and as a byproduct, wage index) of each state.

Unless you're a believer in a flat tax, one should expect New York to contribute more taxes on a per capita basis than any other state, simply because they make so much money. And it should be no surprise that California pays more than most states in taxes. They have way more people than most states and plenty of urban centers with high paying jobs, not to mention a booming tourism industry.

Saden, a very valuable analysis would be to add [B]mean[/B] household income by state to the report, and then calculate [B](Gross Tax Paid - Federal Aid Received) / (Population x Mean Household Income)[/B]. This would show you the percent of income paid to the federal government, net of aid. I'd postulate that you'll see a much more even distribution amongst the states.[/quote]


Median data is available from the census and is preferred due to the fact that it's not sensitive to extremes like mean. Also, I don't understand the formula you gave. Can you clarify?

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Schneed10;525592]As I look through the work here, the biggest thing this tells me is the per capita income by state.

New York is the most effective taxpayer, even net of federal aid, because they have such a high number of citizens earning very high salaries. Wall Street, big corporate execs, investment bankers, consultants, employees of the accounting firms, media outlets, and on and on. These same citizens are the ones who generate a great deal of income and capital gains through their securities assets - this also generates tax for the federal government. It is these high earners that are contributing the lion's share of the tax money, as a great percentage of their income is taxed at the highest tax bracket, 35% or more.

New Jersey and Connecticut also rank high on the list for this reason. Many citizens from these areas commute into New York.

You'll note similar contributions amongst Massachussets (Boston, a large financial center), Illinois (Chicago). Then note poor states who are suffering most from economic troubles, Michigan's unemployment in the Detroit area pulls it down to one of the biggest drags.

Wage index also plays a huge role here. The states at the top of the list are high wage index states. An accountant coming out of college may start at 60K in NYC, and 40K in the south. Note the presence of South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia near the bottom of the list. Cost of living in these areas is some of the lowest around, resulting in lower wages, resulting in lower taxes paid.

Florida is indeed an anomaly because of the retirees. They don't pay taxes on the social security checks they're drawing.

It is important that people not interpret this chart, particularly the drag index, as an indicator of one state doing more than another to fund the federal budget. It is not attributable to anything the state or the citizens are doing, it is merely reflective of:

- The geography of high paying jobs - where are the lion's share located? Major cities.
- The cost of living (and as a byproduct, wage index) of each state.

Unless you're a believer in a flat tax, one should expect New York to contribute more taxes on a per capita basis than any other state, simply because they make so much money. And it should be no surprise that California pays more than most states in taxes. They have way more people than most states and plenty of urban centers with high paying jobs, not to mention a booming tourism industry.

Saden, a very valuable analysis would be to add [B]mean[/B] household income by state to the report, and then calculate (Gross Tax Paid - Federal Aid Received) / (Population x Mean Household Income). This would show you the percent of income paid to the federal government, net of aid. I'd postulate that you'll see a much more even distribution amongst the states.[/quote]
Social Security is taxed but its either capped or a lower % and you can thank Bill Clinton for that double taxation.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

What if the congress had just taken the approx. 800Billion, and given every person over 16 (approx 240 million in 2008) 3333 dollars, not tax cuts, not spending programs, just a flat 3333 dollars. That would have been interesting. Some it would have been a windfall, some would have repaid loans, some would have invested, and still others would not have noticed that amount. but it all would surely have been a stimulus.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;526591]What if the congress had just taken the approx. 800Billion, and given every person over 16 (approx 240 million in 2008) 3333 dollars, not tax cuts, not spending programs, just a flat 3333 dollars. That would have been interesting. Some it would have been a windfall, some would have repaid loans, some would have invested, and still others would not have noticed that amount. but it all would surely have been a stimulus.[/quote]
That would have been way too easy but then there would be no strings attached to the money and would not make any voters dependent on goverment programs (vote buying).

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

no exec pay capping either although they would have laughed at getting 3333.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=firstdown;526604]That would have been way too easy but then there would be no strings attached to the money and would not make any voters dependent on goverment programs (vote buying).[/quote]

Exactly. The last thing government wants to do is make the people independent of it.

Even if you did give every poor person $50,000 or a million, they would eventually wind up the same way they were before.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=saden1;525962]Median data is available from the census and is preferred due to the fact that it's not sensitive to extremes like mean. Also, I don't understand the formula you gave. Can you clarify?[/quote]

The reason I chose mean was to get the math to work out right. Median represents the midpoint household income, but the mean reflects the skew caused by the extremely high earners. My whole point here is that contributions by state are indeed skewed by these high earners. It is those high earners that carry the New Yorks and Connecticuts into very high positions on the drag index. By including that skew in the formula by using mean, you'll see an even distribution amongst the states.

In terms of the math, do the following:

A) Add a column on the end labeled Gross Tax Net of Aid. The formula here is Gross Tax Contribution minus Federal Aid Received. This tells you what the state pays in to the Federal Government after netting out the aid they receive.

B) Add a second column at the end labeled Gross Income. The math is your population number times a Mean Household Income. (I suppose if it's easier to find GDP by state than Mean Household Income, you can use that instead of doing this part of the formula).

C) Add a third column labeled Ratio of Contribution to Income. For the calculation, divide the result of step A by the result of step B.

You'll see that the results of C show very similar %s from state to state. NY will still be a bit higher than the others, but it's a more meaningful stat, because it shows what % of their income is being turned over to Uncle Sam.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;526591]What if the congress had just taken the approx. 800Billion, and given every person over 16 (approx 240 million in 2008) 3333 dollars, not tax cuts, not spending programs, just a flat 3333 dollars. That would have been interesting. Some it would have been a windfall, some would have repaid loans, some would have invested, and still others would not have noticed that amount. but it all would surely have been a stimulus.[/quote]

From an economic standpoint, the democratic argument is that too many people would save it. Which doesn't help give the immediate shot in the arm for creating jobs. To an extent they're right.

Consumer confidence is really low right now, which is always an indicator that people are afraid to spend money. They instead save it.

But eventually that money would trickle back into the economy and give us the economic boost. Some argue that doing it your way would be more efficient in the long run, and I think they're probably right. But it wouldn't get the immediate results democrats are looking for.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Schneed10;526721]From an economic standpoint, the democratic argument is that too many people would save it. Which doesn't help give the immediate shot in the arm for creating jobs. To an extent they're right.

Consumer confidence is really low right now, which is always an indicator that people are afraid to spend money. They instead save it.

But eventually that money would trickle back into the economy and give us the economic boost. Some argue that doing it your way would be more efficient in the long run, and I think they're probably right. But it wouldn't get the immediate results democrats are looking for.[/quote]

Well I'm not sure what part of the stimulas bill will hit the economey very fast with the bill passed. Heck 40% of it will not be spent until 3 years from now and another large portion does not really do much more then grow goverment. The actual building of schools, roads, etc.. is like only 10% of the entire bill but if your on welfair now don't worry more money is heading your way.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=firstdown;526749]Well I'm not sure what part of the stimulas bill will hit the economey very fast with the bill passed. Heck 40% of it will not be spent until 3 years from now and another large portion does not really do much more then grow goverment. The actual building of schools, roads, etc.. is like only 10% of the entire bill but if your on welfair now don't worry more money is heading your way.[/quote]

Well a significant portion of the bill comes in the form of tax credits. We'll see those when we file our tax returns next winter.

Also, what people fail to understand is that if you give people on welfare more money, they WILL spend it and spend it immediately. Forget whether you think that's fair or not, that's not the point, the point is the money gets spent, businesses do better as a result, and more jobs get created.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Schneed10;526801]Well a significant portion of the bill comes in the form of tax credits. We'll see those when we file our tax returns next winter.

Also, what people fail to understand is that if you give people on welfare more money, they WILL spend it and spend it immediately. Forget whether you think that's fair or not, that's not the point, the point is the money gets spent, businesses do better as a result, and more jobs get created.[/quote]
So, how many people are on welfare, and if they were given 3333, wouldn't that add up to quite a chunk of money going straight into the economy.

Also, a lot in the middle class would probably clear up any past due credits (I guarantee that's where mine would go) which would restore credit worthiness immediately (especially if followed with some sort of credit amnesty for a limited time period).

Finally, a lot of the savings would probably go into the stock market. It sure seems like a win win, i mean who would vote against the politician that could say" I put 3333 dollars in your pocket"

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Schneed10;526801]Well a significant portion of the bill comes in the form of tax credits. We'll see those when we file our tax returns next winter.

Also, what people fail to understand is that if you give people on welfare more money, they WILL spend it and spend it immediately. Forget whether you think that's fair or not, that's not the point, the point is the money gets spent, businesses do better as a result, and more jobs get created.[/quote]
So the people who sit back and do nothing get my/our money to spend as they want while we support them even more. You say we will get a tax credit but I have not read anything explaining who will receive this tax credit.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Beemnseven;526677]Exactly. The last thing government wants to do is make the people independent of it.

[B]Even if you did give every poor person $50,000 or a million, they would eventually wind up the same way they were before[/B].[/quote]

I disagree, I know several people who would rather be free of debt and live comfortably instead of trying to keep up with the Jones's. I was one of them. My wife and I live very modestly off of our salaries. We may not be rich, nor have the latest and greatest of cars or gizmo's, but we can afford to do just about anything we want at any time because we do not owe alot money. We do not spend it just because we have it either. At one time in my life I lived check to check. I swore that if I ever got out of that mess, I would never do it again. I am not the only one out there who feels that way.

If the governmet would have given every adult 50K, then the majority would have become debt free... save their mortgages and they woud have had the financial freedom to spend money outside of past debt. In other words the majority could have obtained almost complete financial freedom. The spending that would have resulted from that would have eventually boosted the economy. Instead we gave the money to banks and corporations for them to sit their happy asses on, pay out large bonuses to CEO's, and layoff employees in order to make their bottom line look better. We always do things ass backwards in the U.S.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

For some reason, I can't help but think of the old "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime".

I think the "idea" however non-functioning it is and will be is to create/preserve jobs, not handout money.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

Look at what happened during the Depression. There was the first “new deal” and the “second new deal”. The whole lets not give handouts was the thought by the government then too.

What happened? During the First new Deal they tried giving Tax cuts to the large corporations hoping that it would boost the economy and enable them to provide new jobs along with other things. Did it? No, because if it had worked there wouldn't have been a second new deal. In the second New Deal they attacked the problem at its source...The people.

The Government set up special works projects etc. so that "it wasn't a handout" but in the end they were still fighting the depression along with getting some other things taken care of. In fact 95% of our highway system was built during the depression and funded by the Government.

So you do not want to give out handouts...fine, Don't give handouts to corporations either. Lets fund a whole bunch of special projects to better the infrastructure. One particular project that comes to my mind is New Orleans. It needs to be rebuilt badly. How about, we rebuild it so well that it never has to worry about being flooded again? If man can make an Island that floats out in Southwest Asia, then we can use the same technology to float the infrastructure of New Orleans during floods and hurricanes. Think about it. That is a large project that would require a lot of workers and it isn't a handout.

But my thinking is, if you are going to give a handout, which our government did; then give it to the people not to the corporations. History has already taught us twice now that it doesn't work that way.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Angry;526820]I disagree, I know several people who would rather be free of debt and live comfortably instead of trying to keep up with the Jones's. I was one of them. My wife and I live very modestly off of our salaries. We may not be rich, nor have the latest and greatest of cars or gizmo's, but we can afford to do just about anything we want at any time because we do not owe alot money. We do not spend it just because we have it either. At one time in my life I lived check to check. I swore that if I ever got out of that mess, I would never do it again. I am not the only one out there who feels that way.

If the governmet would have given every adult 50K, then the majority would have become debt free... save their mortgages and they woud have had the financial freedom to spend money outside of past debt. In other words the majority could have obtained almost complete financial freedom. The spending that would have resulted from that would have eventually boosted the economy. Instead we gave the money to banks and corporations for them to sit their happy asses on, pay out large bonuses to CEO's, and layoff employees in order to make their bottom line look better. We always do things ass backwards in the U.S.[/quote]

You might be that way but I see it everyday that people spend and spend on things they do not need or can not afford. If the goverment did hand out that kind of money some people would do the right thing and either put the money away or would buy stuff they did not have to have. When the housing market was going crazy I wondered how people could afford the house they purchased. You can blame the banks for some of that but the bulk of the blame goes to the people who still decided to purchase the home. I saw person after person buying home and used a 2nd mortgage to finance the down payment. People got greedy and want more home then they could afford. They got these interest only loans instead of saving the money they saved on their mortgage tp pay down the priciple in 5 years they purchased other things like cars. So now when the 5 year interest only thing ran out the money they saved was tied up in othe dept so then they had a problem. Thus here we are today.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Angry;526826]Look at what happened during the Depression. There was the first “new deal” and the “second new deal”. The whole lets not give handouts was the thought by the government then too.

What happened? During the First new Deal they tried giving Tax cuts to the large corporations hoping that it would boost the economy and enable them to provide new jobs along with other things. Did it? No, because if it had worked there wouldn't have been a second new deal. In the second New Deal they attacked the problem at its source...The people.

The Government set up special works projects etc. so that "it wasn't a handout" but in the end they were still fighting the depression along with getting some other things taken care of. In fact 95% of our highway system was built during the depression and funded by the Government.

So you do not want to give out handouts...fine, Don't give handouts to corporations either. Lets fund a whole bunch of special projects to better the infrastructure. One particular project that comes to my mind is New Orleans. It needs to be rebuilt badly. How about, we rebuild it so well that it never has to worry about being flooded again? If man gan make an Island that floats out in Southwest Asia, then we can use the same technology to float the infrastructure of New Orleans during floods and hurricanes. Think about it. That is a large project that would require a lot of workers and it isn't a handout.

But my thinking is, if you are going to give a handout, which our government did; then give it to the people not to the corporations. History has already taught us twice now that it doesn't work that way.[/quote]

I agree 110%.

It's sort of like building a team in the NFL. You've gotta build from the ground up and focus on the trenches.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Angry;526826]Look at what happened during the Depression. There was the first “new deal” and the “second new deal”. The whole lets not give handouts was the thought by the government then too.

What happened? During the First new Deal they tried giving Tax cuts to the large corporations hoping that it would boost the economy and enable them to provide new jobs along with other things. Did it? No, because if it had worked there wouldn't have been a second new deal. In the second New Deal they attacked the problem at its source...The people.

The Government set up special works projects etc. so that "it wasn't a handout" but in the end they were still fighting the depression along with getting some other things taken care of. In fact 95% of our highway system was built during the depression and funded by the Government.

So you do not want to give out handouts...fine, Don't give handouts to corporations either. Lets fund a whole bunch of special projects to better the infrastructure. One particular project that comes to my mind is New Orleans. It needs to be rebuilt badly. How about, we rebuild it so well that it never has to worry about being flooded again? If man gan make an Island that floats out in Southwest Asia, then we can use the same technology to float the infrastructure of New Orleans during floods and hurricanes. Think about it. That is a large project that would require a lot of workers and it isn't a handout.

But my thinking is, if you are going to give a handout, which our government did; then give it to the people not to the corporations. History has already taught us twice now that it doesn't work that way.[/quote]
Sir your history is off it was WWII that pulled us out of the depression.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=firstdown;526833]Sir your history is off it was WWII that pulled us out of the depression.[/quote]

Last time I checked making ammunition and weapons for the military was a special works project.

Edit: And this time War helped pull us into a depression.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Angry;526826]Look at what happened during the Depression. There was the first “new deal” and the “second new deal”. The whole lets not give handouts was the thought by the government then too.

What happened? During the First new Deal they tried giving Tax cuts to the large corporations hoping that it would boost the economy and enable them to provide new jobs along with other things. Did it? No, because if it had worked there wouldn't have been a second new deal. In the second New Deal they attacked the problem at its source...The people.

The Government set up special works projects etc. so that "it wasn't a handout" but in the end they were still fighting the depression along with getting some other things taken care of. In fact 95% of our highway system was built during the depression and funded by the Government.

So you do not want to give out handouts...fine, Don't give handouts to corporations either. Lets fund a whole bunch of special projects to better the infrastructure. One particular project that comes to my mind is New Orleans. It needs to be rebuilt badly. How about, we rebuild it so well that it never has to worry about being flooded again? If man gan make an Island that floats out in Southwest Asia, then we can use the same technology to float the infrastructure of New Orleans during floods and hurricanes. Think about it. That is a large project that would require a lot of workers and it isn't a handout.

But my thinking is, if you are going to give a handout, which our government did; then give it to the people not to the corporations. History has already taught us twice now that it doesn't work that way.[/quote]
You picked New Orleans as your example? Wow poor choice. That is a fine example of how the federal goverment waist money. If the money was just giving to the people we would have done a better job then all the waist that started with the federal goverment down to the cities in NO. So now you want to tear down the city put it on some giant float and then rebuild the city on this floating island. I think Obama needs to up the stimulas to 6 billion to float that project.

Re: Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State
 

[quote=Angry;526835]Last time I checked making ammunition and weapons for the military was a special works project.

Edit: And this time War helped pull us into a depression.[/quote]
I agree with the first part but I have not heard anyone saying that the current war pulled us into this current mess. My whole point is that this stimulas does not spend but about 10% into actual jobs like building roads and schools.