The donor States

[ESay]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

 

[d0gbreath]

I'm happy to see Nebraska make the donor list, as I grew up there.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Fallacy
Using the electoral college results to project individual voter government benefit rates just exposes your ignorance.
I live in a Red state and it is not Republicans who are using the government benefits.
This is why you never hear Republicans demanding more welfare.
If Democrats don't use gov benefits then why are they always demanding more?

 

[ESay]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Fallacy
Using the electoral college results to project individual voter government benefit rates just exposes your ignorance.
I live in a Red state and it is not Republicans who are using the government benefits.
This is why you never hear Republicans demanding more welfare.
If Democrats don't use gov benefits then why are they always demanding more?
View attachment 431243

What is fallacy? What is your point? That it is the Dems who get the benefits in red states and worsen the statistics?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Fallacy
Using the electoral college results to project individual voter government benefit rates just exposes your ignorance.
I live in a Red state and it is not Republicans who are using the government benefits.
This is why you never hear Republicans demanding more welfare.
If Democrats don't use gov benefits then why are they always demanding more?
View attachment 431243

What is fallacy? What is your point? That it is the Dems who get the benefits in red states and worsen the statistics?

yes

 

[ESay]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Fallacy
Using the electoral college results to project individual voter government benefit rates just exposes your ignorance.
I live in a Red state and it is not Republicans who are using the government benefits.
This is why you never hear Republicans demanding more welfare.
If Democrats don't use gov benefits then why are they always demanding more?
View attachment 431243

What is fallacy? What is your point? That it is the Dems who get the benefits in red states and worsen the statistics?

yes

So, if taken per capita, Indiana has more Democrats getting benefits than Colorado or New Jersey do. Right?

 

[Agit8r]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Washington State is a major per-capita contributor. No state income tax to deduct after all.

 

[ESay]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Washington State is a major per-capita contributor. No state income tax to deduct after all.

The point is not who is a major per-capita contributor. But who is a net-contributor.

 

[Agit8r]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Washington State is a major per-capita contributor. No state income tax to deduct after all.

The point is not who is a major per-capita contributor. But who is a net-contributor.

Ah. It used to be. But it's about even now.

Balance of Payments Portal | Rockefeller Institute of Government

rockinst.org

 

[Turtlesoup]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Propaganda BS----which I have seen for years so I know how they do it. Its about what they consider getting money back and money going in for which I couldn't help but notice your article failed to mention what they were specifically counting. Manipulators suck.

As example...florida gets most of the countries retirees who have paid into SS all of their lives--when they retire and move to florida the government gives them a ss check which is used to manipulate the data.

Same goes for military spending---most the bases in the south republican areas------but they count toward the government spending----

 

[ESay]

There is little surprise that some states pay more to the federal budget than they get back from it. But what really surprises personally me is the number of 'donor' states (only 8 out of 50) and what these states are. Among them six are the Democrat states (NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, MN) and only two are Republican (UT, NE).

Zirpoli: The states that are givers and takers of federal dollars may surprise

A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red...

www.google.com

(As far as I understand, this is a liberal outlet, so everyone is welcome to propose theirs).

How can it be explained? And dont the conservative people consider it a bit embarrassing and that should be changed?

Propaganda BS----which I have seen for years so I know how they do it. Its about what they consider getting money back and money going in for which I couldn't help but notice your article failed to mention what they were specifically counting. Manipulators suck.

As example...florida gets most of the countries retirees who have paid into SS all of their lives--when they retire and move to florida the government gives them a ss check which is used to manipulate the data.

Same goes for military spending---most the bases in the south republican areas------but they count toward the government spending----

Yes, that is a good point. Obviously, they include 'federal' spending as the money being recieved back by a state.