Which US State Is the Biggest Federal Mooch?

The progressive concept, that richer people pay more taxes and poorer people get more benefits, fits perfectly into that pattern.

Lefty Californians complain that they send more money to Washington than they get back, but isn't that what socialism is about, reducing inequality?

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

It seems to be the conservatives do more complaining than anyone whether it is California or anywhere else. You either complain that the liberals are doing things you don't like or that they aren't doing enough. Now you seem to be complaining that what they are doing seems to be working???

--

Rick C

That's an amusing jab (and not completely undeserved), but that's based on the percentage of a state's budget that hinges on federal assistance, not per capita costs of a state's citizens to the federal taxpayer.

If you look at it that way--per capita--California (a wealthy state) has

1/8th of the United States' population but fully 1/3rd of all the people on welfare, and New York leads the way in dependency spending per-capita.

From that same author:

California also has the highest percentage living in poverty, followed by Washington D.C.

Cheers, James Arthur

I recall having a few conversations with folks in central Virginia, a very conservative as well as a poor area, when Obamacare was new. Many were dead set against it even though they were exactly the people who would benefit from it. Turns out they had *NO IDEA* what it was!!! I asked and none of them could tell me except things like, "a way to bankrupt the country" or "socialized medicine". I remember explaining to one lady that it was just medical insurance and she replied, "Well, that doesn't sound so bad".

Virginia was one of the states that refused the associated funds from the feds and as a result left their citizens less well off. I see on this map they are one of the states least funded by the Federal government, even lower than CA and topped only by North Dakota. I have no idea why legislators would not want their citizens to receive the benefit of the money they pay in taxes.

I find it funny that anyone would want to even do this analysis in order to find the "biggest Federal mooch" state. Trump seemed to gain support when he proclaimed that he pays no taxes because he is taking advantage of the laws. So why would anyone blame the states for accepting tax money from the Feds? The whole thing is just howler monkeys jumping up and down.

Thanks Win...

--

Rick C

The United States has spent >$22 trillion dollars[*] on this welfare experiment--more than the entire national debt--since 1964, eliminating poverty, equalizing education, incomes, Affirmative Action, etc.

[*] e.g.,

To do this we have taken on debt that threatens our nation's collapse.

Is it working? Has giving money to the poor that they did not earn cured them of their poverty? Are the ghettos gone, crime eliminated, incomes equalized, unemployment ended, education cured, etc?

Cheers, James Arthur

Please cite when/where Trump said he "pays no taxes."

Cheers, James Arthur

YOUR reference...

"Material poverty has declined, to be sure. Census Bureau data show that the average household classified as ?poor? not only reports having enough food, but also many amenities, including air-conditioning, cable TV, Internet access and personal computers."

--

Rick C

r

e-great-society

That's not actually why the national debt is high - the global financial cr isis, brought on by US banks behaving badly - prompted a serious bout of d eficit-funded stimulus spending. If the spending had been better directed, at people with the least money - it wouldn't have needed to go on as long.

More spending on reducing poverty and equalising education would have reduc ed the total debt, and might have made some difference

James Arthur likes to think that good intentions are all that is required. Hoover's belated realisation that stimulus spending was good idea that resu lted in his spending far less on it than could have any effect, is taken as evidence that FDR's much larger stimulus spending isn't what turned the ec onomy around.

Sweden collects 55% of the GDP in taxes, Germany 45%. Both spend enough on social services and education to make a real difference.

The US collects 30% of it's GDP in taxes - I reply on Thomas Pekitty's figu res, not the bogus stuff that James Arthur trawls out of his right-wing web

-sites - and doesn't spend enough to make any dramatic difference.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You are low hanging fruit today...

--

Rick C

He hasn't admitted it anywhere I've seen, but his accountant has said that Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, which could mean that he didn't pay any income tax for the next 18 years.

The fact that Trump won't release his tax returns makes the story tolerably credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

er

the-great-society

d

ts having

You didn't answer the question. The question is not whether we are making people extremely comfortable and well-equipped in poverty, the question was whether or not we are 'curing' poverty, getting them out of it.

Is it working? Has giving money to the poor that they did not earn cured them of their poverty? Are the ghettos empty, crime eliminated, incomes equalized, unemployment ended, education cured, etc?

Cheers, James Arthur

Trump didn't say he didn't pay taxes. He said he used a loss carry-forward, a perfectly ordinary, reasonable provision for not paying taxes on $1 billion in income that he did not have.

Should Trump have paid income tax on money he lost, then paid tax AGAIN when he tried to recoup it?

It's surprising how many people can't understand this.

Cheers, James Arthur

When people are not malnourished and able to obtain an education and otherwise advance themselves, I would say yes, poverty is cured. Just as with many things we may not have eliminated it, but we have made a large dent in poverty and greatly mitigated the impact.

Do you judge everything by a perfect standard? I know nothing that has obtained perfection.

--

Rick C

So he paid no income taxes!

I think we *all* understand except for you. Yes, he had losses in some year that he was able to carry forward to offset income which he then paid no tax on. He admitted it himself. Why can't you understand that?

--

Rick C

Poor white people, dreaming their dreams of being billionaires down on their luck, imagining that if government just got out of the way, corporations would be free to employ them. Free to be on their side.

If only we had lower taxes...

If only we had a Conservative president...

If only, if only. If only X were different, I could be happy.

A Michael Jackson song I like a lot:

society

OK. So, you're conservative. And you're on this group, so you're an engineer, which should make you close to a scientist. Based on which states are liberal and which aren't, the "liberal experiment" clearly works when it's allowed to play out, and doesn't work where it's blocked by local politics.

So, what does that say about whether it works or not? If the conservative approach is so good, why are the red states poorer?

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com 

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

To put it more scientifically, America has too many "alloplastic defenses."

I had thought that the Conservative party was all about "personal responsibility." In a sense, yeah, that is what it's all about.

I don't know if it is correct or not, but I haven't seen anything in this discussion that says the red states are poorer than the blue states. What are you citing?

--

Rick C

er

g

ther

ms

ng

g-the-great-society

.

red

es

t

orts having

g

as

Not according to

most_Always_Do_Better

No, because pretty much all of the recent improvements in US economic outpu t have ended up in the pockets of the top 1% of the income distribution.

This cuts into social morale - the takeaway message of "The Spirit Level" - discouraging the less well off from putting much effort into improving the mselves, because they've got to improve themselves all the way into the top 1% to make any real difference.

The US also doesn't invest enough in improving the productivity of the wage

-earning part of the population. Germany spends a lot more money on this an d it seems to have paid off.

James Arthur's right-wing blinkers seem guaranteed to ensure that he won't be able to see this. Any talk about higher taxes - re-distribution in his d ialect - and the blinds go down.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney