Unfair Taxation Without Adequate Representation: Red States rip-off Blue States

But CA is nearly bankrupt!

A fact which is directly affected by the afore-mentioned disparity in federal funding.

And, though CA has higher salaries, it also has a MUCH higher cost-of-living.


California is the 8th or 9th largest economy in the world, despite its in/solvency.

Subtract California and we are approaching 3rd world status, fast. Hell we're there anyway.


Alaska's stats are even more shocking when you consider the Federal Government owns almost 75% of its landmass. That's a higher percentage than even "The District", which isn't a state.
 
As should be obvious to everyone by now, small population states (mainly Republcan) have a large per capita advantage in representation over large population states (mainly Democratic).

For instance, in both Congress (including Senators and House members) and the Electoral College:

Wyoming has one representative for every 174,277 people.

California has one representative for every 664,604 people.

That's approximately 4X the representation per capita.

See Chart

In addition, small population states generally receive more federal funding per capita (as seen here: US Census Funding data ),

and contribute less tax revenue than large population states, per capita (As seen here).

This would be a good example of unfair taxation without adequate representation.

I say large population states should sue the federal government for all the money small population states have been stealing from us via the Federal Government over the last few decades. Who's with me?

No need to sue the federal government. Most federal programs are progressive designed to help low income States the most. Right now we have 3 progessives running our country: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The solution is to vote out the progressives. Are you doing your part?

So how do you explain the progression of previous years? Huh?
 
If you don't want the money to go to 'Red' States, remove progressives.

Since congress gives out federal funding, and often gives it out for pet projects and pork, perhaps giving equal representaion per capita would work better.

Alaska gets a whole lot of federal funding, relatively, but has a rather high average salary. Why? because Alaska is the highest recipient of pork, per capita, in the United States. (Source: USA TODAY)

Take West Virginia, a rather poor state, but traditionally Republican (until last year), yet they have reelected Democrat Robert Byrd for decades because he brings home the bacon. His earmarks top all others, yet it's Republicans who bitch and moan ad nauseam about earmark spending. Except in their own states, that is.
 
Take West Virginia, a rather poor state, but traditionally Republican (until last year), yet they have reelected Democrat Robert Byrd for decades because he brings home the bacon. His earmarks top all others, yet it's Republicans who bitch and moan ad nauseam about earmark spending. Except in their own states, that is

Ahh Sen Byrd. If ever there was a prime example of why term limits should be enacted...

Him and Ted Stevens, though thankfully Ted the "pork king" is out.

Though, Byrd's earmarks only top all others in TOTAL, because he's been in office for so damn long.

Ted had the high marks for recent pork totals.
 
Last edited:
Take West Virginia, a rather poor state, but traditionally Republican (until last year), yet they have reelected Democrat Robert Byrd for decades because he brings home the bacon. His earmarks top all others, yet it's Republicans who bitch and moan ad nauseam about earmark spending. Except in their own states, that is

Ahh Sen Byrd. If ever there was a prime example of why term limits should be enacted...

Him and Ted Stevens, though thankfully Ted the "pork king" is out.

Though, Byrd's earmarks only top all others in TOTAL, because he's been in office for so damn long.

Ted had the high marks for recent pork totals.

Term limits will never happen because it takes Congress to do a resolution to amend the Constitution, so they would be voting term limits for themselves. Catch-22. I think an age limit would be more to MY liking.

I also think Congress should remove the committee chair assignments based on tenure alone. You get the systemic politicians in there who know how to game the system, which contributes to gridlock in moving a bill through.
 
As should be obvious to everyone by now, small population states (mainly Republcan) have a large per capita advantage in representation over large population states (mainly Democratic).

For instance, in both Congress (including Senators and House members) and the Electoral College:

Wyoming has one representative for every 174,277 people.

California has one representative for every 664,604 people.

That's approximately 4X the representation per capita.

See Chart

In addition, small population states generally receive more federal funding per capita (as seen here: US Census Funding data ),

and contribute less tax revenue than large population states, per capita (As seen here).

This would be a good example of unfair taxation without adequate representation.

I say large population states should sue the federal government for all the money small population states have been stealing from us via the Federal Government over the last few decades. Who's with me?

No need to sue the federal government. Most federal programs are progressive designed to help low income States the most. Right now we have 3 progessives running our country: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The solution is to vote out the progressives. Are you doing your part?

So how do you explain the progression of previous years? Huh?

What years? Let's address the OP's post. Fact: most federal programs are progressive, designed to help low income States the most. How we got here doesn't matter. It's the progressive federal programs that have caused this. Whether a progressive has an (R) or a (D) at the end of their name makes no difference.
 
Well let's see, how to address this as to the poster who suggested that if we dropped Cali. we would be a 3rd world nation, he neglects the following,

Texas had a gross state product (GSP) of $1.09 trillion, the second highest in the U.S.[129][130] Its GSP is comparable to the GDP of India or Canada which are ranked 12th and 11th worldwide. Texas's economy is the third largest in the world of country subdivisions behind California and Tokyo Prefecture

As of 2007, the gross state product (GSP) is about $1.812 trillion, the largest in the United States. California is responsible for 13 percent of the United States gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2006, California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries in the world (all but eleven countries by Purchasing Power Parity). However, California is facing a $26.3 billion budget deficit for the 2009-2010 budget year.

So that said, all of the posters seem to have a basic lack of understanding as to the type of nation they live in. There is a reason why this nation does not have a system whereby the majority rules. You would live in a nation that was basically controlled by California, NY, and Texas. The founders of this nation understood this very well, and understood that this nation was formed as compact between states and that in order for these states to keep their sovereignty they must have fair representation. If all those who advocate this sort of thing really are set on this sort of path then I suggest that you start by trying to Amending the constitution to reflect your desires, but then you might find that the 2/3rds of the states required to pass such a measure would stop you each and everytime. Someone did mention something about creating more states, and here is a little side note on that issue Texas is the only state to my knowledge as part of it's compact to join the Union that to this day can split into up to 5 states. I may suggest that your state legislatures are a better reflection of the populations of your states and that the laws you desire are better passed there. The fact that you have states that are considered red and blue, one thing you might want to consider here too, red states, and blue state don't always remain that way. So what you are suggesting may not end up with the desired results you seek. As for the money aspect of it, this thread has a very narrow focus when it comes to Federal Funding and omits, many factors a few of which I pointed out.
 
You can't compare Texas to California based on GSP alone. California has more than 50% the population than Texas does and Texas is just about last on everything including healthcare and education.

Texas: 24M people
California: 37M people

Texas: 1.8T GSP
California: 1.2T GSP

Texas: 268K sq mi area
California: 163K sq mi area

Texas: $311.14 GSP Per Capita #13
California $280.45 GSP Per Capita #30

So Texas has over 50% less people than California does and California's GSP per capita is much higher. They do it with half the land mass and do a better job on just about everything. You can have Texas.

A Trillion is one thousand Billion. The budget deficit for California being 26.3B is less than a .5 percent deficit. A lot of money by itself, but not a huge dent when the GSP and GSP per capita is considered.
 
Last edited:
Last I checked 24 million is no where close to 50% less in population than Cali. In fact if you wanted a state that had 50% less population than Cali. you would have to look for one that was around 18.5 Million. You may want to look at Florida if your going to make that sort of comparison. As for size Texas is 260, 000 sq. miles approx. and Cali. is 170,000 sq miles approx. As far as the deficits go lets take a look those too..

In his State of the State Address for the 2008-9 budget term, Governor Rick Perry, pointed to the strength of Texas’s economy noting that Texas added 1.2 million new jobs in the last five years, that 70% of new jobs created in the United States from November 2007 to November 2008 were created in Texas, and that despite facing a $10 billion deficit in 2002, Texas is operating with a surplus without having raised taxes on its citizens
Texas state budget - Sunshine Review

The coming California bankruptcy
Governor Schartzennegger has announced a huge budget deficit this year. He tried to cut spending a year ago, and got nowhere.

Schwarzenegger’s $141 billion budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year proposes cutting 10 percent from every state agency, even as California struggles to provide for millions of [illegal] new residents, fix failing schools and address myriad problems in its overcrowded prisons.

The across-the-board spending cut is the kind of draconian tactic his Republican Party colleagues have long sought to realign state spending and revenue.

But it touched off a firestorm of criticism among the state’s ruling Democratic majority in the Legislature and promised to put his pledge to move California beyond partisan politics to the ultimate test.

The coming California bankruptcy « A Brief History…

I don't feel the need to mention the deficit in Cali. because it's well documented , and I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you I will take Texas over California and be happy to say that I'm accepting a state that has financial issues yes, but is still in the black.
 
Texas' property taxes are off the hook. For a modest 100k to 120k house the taxes are more than I pay for a 700k house here. They don't have a state income tax, but the property taxes are horrible. Durable goods cost what they do here. If you live in Texas you can't buy a cheaper refrigerator, it costs the same. Like I said, Texas is last in just about everything, like their neighbors in the gulf. I'd have a huge surplus too if I neglected to get what was needed in my household.

If Texas has 24M people, and half of 24 is 12, and California has 37M people, and 24+12=36, then then California has more than 50% people than Texas does. Simple math.
 
If California has 36 Million people and half of 36 million people is 18 million, then 18 million is 50% of California's population. Texas has 24 Million people 24 +18 = 36? since when? You really need to understand this a little better, in fact Texas population is 66.67% of California's if you round it out. Divide 24 by 36 and you come out with the value if you want to know the difference thats easy too. But its not 50% by any stretch of the the imagination.
 
If you have 24 apples, and I have 37, then I have over 50% more than you. I have 13 more. Half of what you have [50% of what you have] is 12.


Texas has roughly 13 million less people than does Califorinia, so Texas would have to increase its population by over 50% to have as many people as California. This is where the GSP and GSP Per Capita come in. California's GSP Per Capita is way higher than Texas', but they have 13 million more people, MORE than half of the population of Texas MORE.
 
say that I'm accepting a state that has financial issues yes, but is still in the black.

The ONLY reason Texas is in the black is due to the huge amount of oil found there. They're damn lucky to have the natural resources they do, because otherwise their economy would have collapsed long ago.
 
say that I'm accepting a state that has financial issues yes, but is still in the black.

The ONLY reason Texas is in the black is due to the huge amount of oil found there. They're damn lucky to have the natural resources they do, because otherwise their economy would have collapsed long ago.

Yeah, how's that whole "We love having millions of illegals because the lettuce is so fucking cheap" strategy working out?
 
say that I'm accepting a state that has financial issues yes, but is still in the black.

The ONLY reason Texas is in the black is due to the huge amount of oil found there. They're damn lucky to have the natural resources they do, because otherwise their economy would have collapsed long ago.



Oil and the fact that they suck, and won't spend the money so they don't suck.
 
Yeah, how's that whole "We love having millions of illegals because the lettuce is so fucking cheap" strategy working out?

For whom? I'd venture to say that the "illegal" issue is comparable in both states. The smarter illegals probably go to California though, it's nicer there and the schools are better and the weather is nicer so the wedge keeps getting wider.
 

Forum List

Back
Top