"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:56:37 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:51:49 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they
can't
use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying
for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing
subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes
than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.
Cites for that, please?
Didn't we just go through this a month or so ago? Anyway, here's one
tally.
Look at Table 4:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html
They base their measures on the Consolidated Federal Funds Report from
the
Census Bureau, so they're probably the most consistent, state-to-state.
Yeah, we out in the west get a lot of return. My state got less than
yours, 35 cents on the dollar. We get/pay $0.35/$1.16, Joisey comes in
at $0.39/$0.57. (or am I reading Table 1 vs. 4 wrong after 5 minutes
of research?)
Yike, you're reading it backwards. For every dollar in federal taxes you
pay, you get $1.16 of federal money is spent in Oregon. That's what the
table says. New Jersey gets $0.57 back for every dollar we pay. We're
supporting half the country. g
Take your time, as math teachers used to say, so you don't make silly
mistakes.
Um, Ed, I just looked at table 1 again and under the column titled
"Amount Returned to State per Dollar Paid in Taxes", Oregon is $0.35
and we're ranked 47th. I'd call that low return, wouldn't you?
g They didn't do a very good job of labelling things, but take a look at
the title for that table you're reading. The title is "Table 1: Taxes for
the Military and Expenditures by State." They should have said "Taxes for
the Military and Military Expenditures by State." They were a little sloppy.
You're looking at taxes and expenditures for the military only. You want
"Table 4: Total Expenditures by State." If you still question this, take a
look at the "IRS Total Collection" figure a couple of columns across in
Table 4. You may recognize that as the total tax revenue of the US.
All together now...and a vun, and a twoa, and a three...
OK, it was table 4 where I made the mistake. I misread the column
title "Expenditures in State per Dollar Paid by State Taxpayers"
as "expenditures by state". Mea culpa.
Darn, when you do this as a running commentary, I often find I just wrote
something that was a complete waste...like now. Not complaining, not
complaining....
It's actually their culpa. As I said, they were sloppy in writing the
headings for the columns.
In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.
So, what's North Dakota's excuse? Montana's? Idaho's?
Excuse for what? ND is $1.39 after paying out $2.26.
sigh Hey, Larry, read the column headings -- the second column,
particularly. ND gets $2.26 back for every dollar they put in. Not bad,
eh?
New Mexico is tops at $3.10!
I didn't do New Mexico because of all the illegals there. I figured you'd
complain, so I passed it by.
Now, having said all that, let me point out that someone might argue with
you about these numbers because the Tax Foundation or whatever has a
slightly different set of numbers. It's safe to ignore them. They aren't
sticking to original-source data and they have an ax to grind. And the
relationships are still pretty much the same. At least, NJ comes out sucking
hind tit, as usual.
There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column. One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.
In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of course.
These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.
--
Ed Huntress