Rich State Poor State 2014 7/10/15

Posted on July 10, 2015 by markinaustin

State	Dollars (millions)			Ratio to GSP
State	Revenue	Spending	Net	Revenue	Spending	Net
Alabama	23,789	61,806	-38,016	11.9%	31.0%	-19.1%
Alaska	5,449	7,502	-2,052	9.5%	13.1%	-3.6%
Arizona	40,530	58,723	-18,193	14.3%	20.7%	-6.4%
Arkansas	30,729	20,447	10,282	25.3%	16.8%	8.5%
California	369,193	236,560	132,633	16.0%	10.2%	5.7%
Colorado	52,003	35,559	16,444	17.0%	11.6%	5.4%
Connecticut	57,697	64,994	-7,296	22.8%	25.7%	-2.9%
Delaware	19,040	6,105	12,935	30.3%	9.7%	20.6%
District of Columbia	26,433	26,551	-118	22.9%	23.0%	-0.1%
Florida	154,353	150,037	4,316	18.4%	17.9%	0.5%
Georgia	79,566	55,473	24,093	16.7%	11.6%	5.1%
Hawaii	7,723	10,706	-2,983	10.0%	13.8%	-3.9%
Idaho	9,224	10,924	-1,700	14.4%	17.1%	-2.7%
Illinois	148,332	70,118	78,215	19.9%	9.4%	10.5%
Indiana	54,607	106,579	-51,973	17.2%	33.5%	-16.4%
Iowa	22,309	19,434	2,875	13.1%	11.4%	1.7%
Kansas	25,897	14,729	11,168	17.6%	10.0%	7.6%
Kentucky	30,128	71,522	-41,394	16.0%	37.9%	-21.9%
Louisiana	43,023	29,411	13,612	17.1%	11.7%	5.4%
Maine	6,902	10,525	-3,624	12.4%	18.8%	-6.5%
Maryland	59,614	62,445	-2,831	17.1%	17.9%	-0.8%
Massachusetts	100,161	68,024	32,137	21.8%	14.8%	7.0%
Michigan	71,184	69,061	2,123	15.8%	15.3%	0.5%
Minnesota	96,227	59,213	37,014	30.4%	18.7%	11.7%
Mississippi	11,011	21,879	-10,867	10.5%	20.9%	-10.4%
Missouri	61,512	44,587	16,925	21.6%	15.7%	5.9%
Montana	5,338	7,248	-1,910	12.1%	16.4%	-4.3%
Nebraska	23,885	11,335	12,550	21.3%	10.1%	11.2%
Nevada	16,579	14,629	1,949	12.6%	11.1%	1.5%
New Hampshire	11,044	8,513	2,531	15.4%	11.9%	3.5%
New Jersey	134,870	55,998	78,872	24.6%	10.2%	14.4%
New Mexico	8,758	21,212	-12,454	9.4%	22.8%	-13.4%
New York	250,618	145,994	104,624	17.8%	10.4%	7.4%
North Carolina	72,472	59,945	12,527	15.0%	12.4%	2.6%
North Dakota	7,585	56,969	-49,384	13.8%	103.3%	-89.6%
Ohio	129,901	73,441	56,460	22.3%	12.6%	9.7%
Oklahoma	32,611	25,341	7,270	17.8%	13.8%	4.0%
Oregon	28,409	28,482	-72	13.2%	13.2%	0.0%
Pennsylvania	126,374	182,015	-55,640	19.1%	27.5%	-8.4%
Rhode Island	13,888	8,373	5,514	25.3%	15.2%	10.0%
South Carolina	22,242	73,069	-50,827	11.7%	38.4%	-26.7%
South Dakota	6,734	6,033	700	14.7%	13.2%	1.5%
Tennessee	56,937	72,691	-15,755	18.9%	24.2%	-5.2%
Texas	265,336	147,338	117,998	16.1%	8.9%	7.2%
Utah	18,389	13,459	4,930	13.0%	9.5%	3.5%
Vermont	4,325	4,688	-363	14.6%	15.8%	-1.2%
Virginia	75,049	92,321	-17,272	16.2%	19.9%	-3.7%
Washington	67,813	51,083	16,730	15.9%	12.0%	3.9%
West Virginia	6,885	14,611	-7,726	9.1%	19.4%	-10.3%
Wisconsin	49,592	78,632	-29,040	16.9%	26.8%	-9.9%
Wyoming	4,892	3,560	1,331	11.1%	8.1%	3.0%
Total	3,047,160	2,649,893	397,267	17.6%	15.3%	2.3%

Filed under: Open Thread |

« Morning Report: Mansions pile up in Greenwich 7/10/14 Morning Report: Greece capitulates 7/13/15 »

12 Responses

markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 11:26 am said:

Not a surprise: CA, TX, and NY 1-2-3 as donors.

Surprise to me: PA a big donee. I think that has not usually been the case. Is the economy suffering there?

MN pays in enough to cover what WI takes out.

89% of NDs Gross State Product is federal taxes it gets from the rest of us. Huh?

What stands out for you?

LikeLike

Reply
Let the mutherfuker burn!, on July 10, 2015 at 11:47 am said:

Mark, is there a source article for this?

Thanks!

LikeLike

Reply
- markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 12:06 pm said:
  
  Mark, is there a source article for this?
  
  Copy-paste from Wikipedia.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 11:54 am said:

I’d be interested in what the spending was comprised of for each state.

Also on this:

89% of NDs Gross State Product is federal taxes it gets from the rest of us. Huh?

I don’t think that is a correct conclusion. Government transfers do not count towards GSP. The correct conclusion is that ND is receiving from the feds a bit more than it produces for itself. (Govt transfers = 103% of GSP) That is why I think that net of the ratios of rev/spending to GSP is kind of meaningless.

LikeLike

Reply
- markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 12:09 pm said:
  
  I’d be interested in what the spending was comprised of for each state.
  
  Do you mean “What comprised the federal spending in each state?”
  
  I think that is available.
  
  And I am sure you are correct about ND’s 89+%.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:20 pm said:
    
    Mark:
    
    Do you mean “What comprised the federal spending in each state?”
    
    Yeah. Like is it maintenance of a military base, or welfare payments. And, if the former, does that include salaries of soldiers? Does the cost of maintaining an FBI office in Topeka count as spending on Kansas? That sort of thing.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm said:
      
      I read the wikipedia entry, and the figures for fed spending include wages and salaries. Those should be excluded, as those do not represent transfers, but rather (at least theoretically) an exchange of value for value. The person provides a service and gets paid in exchange.
      
      Also, I think it would be more interesting to compute the spending/revenue ratio rather than looking at absolute numbers. CA may be the biggest “donor” in absolute terms, but as a percentage Deleware is a much bigger donor. It collects back from the fed only 32% of what it pays, while CA collects back fully 64%.
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:42 pm said:
      
      Ah…I see that the wikipedia entry does what I suggested further down in the article. It looks like the numbers vary quite a bit from year to year. For example, CA has only a 64% spending/revenue ratio in the latest year, but in 2012 and 2011 it was 97% and 99% respectively. In 2009 the ratio was over 100%, meaning CA was a net receiver, not donor. Same is true for TX in 2012 and 2011 (145% and 149%!).
      
      I think a closer look at just what the spending is comprised of, and where the tax revenues are coming from, is necessary to make it more meaningful.
      
      LikeLike
    - markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 12:39 pm said:
      
      See this site:
      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
      
      LikeLike
    - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm said:
      
      Mark:
      
      See this site:
      
      Does that break down spending by both category and state together? That would be interesting. For example, as a retirement state I would imagine that a large portion of government spending in Florida would come from Social Security, which would also tend to limit the revenues it is paying in. Retirees aren’t working and paying income tax. That tells a different story from, say, Alaska where most of the government spending goes towards the military.
      
      LikeLike
jnc4p, on July 10, 2015 at 7:26 pm said:

Brent – Good piece on the voter demographics argument that both you and I make regularly:

“Update: My colleague Derek Thompson picks up the baton from me and digs deeper into the demographics of the so-called 47 percent. One important note he makes is that it’s often the lowest-income people in these red states who are most likely to vote Democratic — it’s just that the rest of the population is conservative enough to carry the states into the Republican column.

In 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 — which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters — both in the red states and the blue.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/

See also:

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/red-state-rising.html

LikeLike

Reply
Brent Nyitray, on July 11, 2015 at 3:33 pm said:

I love the mentality of the left: If it benefits someone in a red state it by definition is helping out the right…

LikeLike

Reply

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world. Cancel reply

markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 11:26 am said:

Not a surprise: CA, TX, and NY 1-2-3 as donors.

Surprise to me: PA a big donee. I think that has not usually been the case. Is the economy suffering there?

MN pays in enough to cover what WI takes out.

89% of NDs Gross State Product is federal taxes it gets from the rest of us. Huh?

What stands out for you?

LikeLike

Let the mutherfuker burn!, on July 10, 2015 at 11:47 am said:

Mark, is there a source article for this?

Thanks!

markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 12:06 pm said:

Mark, is there a source article for this?

Copy-paste from Wikipedia.

LikeLike

ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 11:54 am said:

I’d be interested in what the spending was comprised of for each state.

Also on this:

I don’t think that is a correct conclusion. Government transfers do not count towards GSP. The correct conclusion is that ND is receiving from the feds a bit more than it produces for itself. (Govt transfers = 103% of GSP) That is why I think that net of the ratios of rev/spending to GSP is kind of meaningless.

markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 12:09 pm said:

I’d be interested in what the spending was comprised of for each state.

Do you mean “What comprised the federal spending in each state?”

I think that is available.

And I am sure you are correct about ND’s 89+%.

LikeLike

- ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:20 pm said:
  
  Mark:
  
  Do you mean “What comprised the federal spending in each state?”
  
  Yeah. Like is it maintenance of a military base, or welfare payments. And, if the former, does that include salaries of soldiers? Does the cost of maintaining an FBI office in Topeka count as spending on Kansas? That sort of thing.
  
  LikeLike
  
  - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm said:
    
    I read the wikipedia entry, and the figures for fed spending include wages and salaries. Those should be excluded, as those do not represent transfers, but rather (at least theoretically) an exchange of value for value. The person provides a service and gets paid in exchange.
    
    Also, I think it would be more interesting to compute the spending/revenue ratio rather than looking at absolute numbers. CA may be the biggest “donor” in absolute terms, but as a percentage Deleware is a much bigger donor. It collects back from the fed only 32% of what it pays, while CA collects back fully 64%.
    
    LikeLike
  - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:42 pm said:
    
    Ah…I see that the wikipedia entry does what I suggested further down in the article. It looks like the numbers vary quite a bit from year to year. For example, CA has only a 64% spending/revenue ratio in the latest year, but in 2012 and 2011 it was 97% and 99% respectively. In 2009 the ratio was over 100%, meaning CA was a net receiver, not donor. Same is true for TX in 2012 and 2011 (145% and 149%!).
    
    I think a closer look at just what the spending is comprised of, and where the tax revenues are coming from, is necessary to make it more meaningful.
    
    LikeLike
  - markinaustin, on July 10, 2015 at 12:39 pm said:
    
    See this site:
    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
    
    LikeLike
  - ScottC, on July 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm said:
    
    Mark:
    
    See this site:
    
    Does that break down spending by both category and state together? That would be interesting. For example, as a retirement state I would imagine that a large portion of government spending in Florida would come from Social Security, which would also tend to limit the revenues it is paying in. Retirees aren’t working and paying income tax. That tells a different story from, say, Alaska where most of the government spending goes towards the military.
    
    LikeLike

jnc4p, on July 10, 2015 at 7:26 pm said:

Brent – Good piece on the voter demographics argument that both you and I make regularly:

“Update: My colleague Derek Thompson picks up the baton from me and digs deeper into the demographics of the so-called 47 percent. One important note he makes is that it’s often the lowest-income people in these red states who are most likely to vote Democratic — it’s just that the rest of the population is conservative enough to carry the states into the Republican column.

In 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 — which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters — both in the red states and the blue.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/

All Things in Moderation

Login

Quote of the Moment

Sites to visit in moderation

Authors

The Tag Cloud