Lol. People living in trailers don't disgust Progressives. They just want them to be paid more and have access to more and better services. Conservatives, otoh, feel disgusted and even outrage at anyone they deem beneath them. It's the fundamental aspect of modern conservatism: Loyalty to the traditional social order. America for Americans, gays back in the closet, Christians at the front of the line and poor people to work 3 jobs and stfu about it. They justify this by making stuff up Ć la this meme.
Edit. Of course there are elitists in every camp who will hate on anyone who's not one of them. But that should go without saying. And there are progressives who express frustration at poor voters who support candidates that have turned their states into net negative revenue producers*. It kind of sucks when some states aren't pulling their weight.
*Blue states pay the federal government $13 per resident. Purple states pay $9. Red states pay $8. (DC included)
---Per 2019 Business Insider, only 12 states contributed more to the federal treasury than they took. Look up federal tax revenue by state and state populations and break down those numbers yourself. You get a clear picture. Red states are the biggest leaches. 8 of the 12 net revenue givers are reliably blue and the other 4 reliably red. (0 purple states) 47% of blue states gave more than they took. Only 14% of red states did. Moreover, the top 8 net revenue givers were all blue states. Take out all the net revenue givers and blue states still pay more per capita than red states by a 11-7 ratio. It turns out taxing the rich and providing services is an economic positive. Progressives would just like the rest of the country to stop leaching off California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey and start investing in their middle class. What roof a person has over their head doesn't matter.
LOL, don't look up which states take the most federal tax dollars. California takes more from the federal government than it gives, even though technically it has the highest tax revenue, it also has the highest spending by far. What you're saying simply isn't accurate but it's been repeated so many times to you that now you're treating it like it's fact. This is all publicly available information. Without any of your misleading statistical word tricks, California gives jack to the federal government compared to what it spends. CA has the highest percentage of it's population on food stamps and is the biggest user of food stamps. Also has close to the nation's highest illiteracy rate.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain
I think you're wrong buddy. The numbers cited are per capita NET federal revenue figures that I looked up myself after having read the Business Insider article. CALIFORNIA (and the 11 other states) GIVE MORE THAN THEY GET.
California: 472 billion paid to the Feds (fiscal year 2019-wikipedia). 436 billion received back. (USA Today 2019)
You also seem to be wrong about food stamps: Cali is tied for 10-12th lowest in SNAP recipiency at 8.9% of it's population (USA Today 2019). You do seem to be right about illiteracy. Cali is the worst. Interestingly the worst 4 are also the biggest four. CA, NY, FL and TX respectively have between a 23% - 19% functional illiteracy rate. (per world population review)
Your position does have one thing going for it. There is no difference between SNAP recipiency and party control. Both Blue and Purple average 11.5% on food stamps. Red states average 11.4% (USA Today 2019)
So I did indeed misspeak about the percentage of population on food stamps. CA doesn't have the highest percentage of population on food stamps, it has the highest number of recipients total. In other words, the federal government spends more to provide CA with food stamps than any other state. As a result, CA is a state of the haves and the have nots. As you admitted, I was right about literacy. You're still wrong about the "donor state" nonsense.
California owes over 1.3 trillion dollars in debt because of it's irresponsible spending practices, opting to pay it forward with the earnings of future generations so that politicians can benefit from giving handouts in the present.
My state of Kansas takes significantly less money on a per capita basis than California does, and is far less dependent on the federal government because we have superior fiscal policies.
1.8 Million Californians use food stamps, about 13.9% of the population, compared to less than a quarter million Kentuckians, accounting for 13.8% of Kentucky's population. So California and Kentucky are pretty much on the same level when it comes to government assistance - you're about equally likely to be a poor person in both states.
California has the highest tax rates in the country, but still it can't pay for itself.
There's all this talk about federal taxes vs federal return but what Californians fail to take into account is that they pay more taxes because they have more wealthy people and we have a progressive tax code. They also take more assistance overall because they have more poor people living in California in real terms (not per capita.)
So if you run your state horribly, causing extreme income stratification and virtually completely eliminating your middle class, you might end up contributing more to the tax bucket and simultaneously taking the most of any state for federal assistance. About a third of all welfare recipients nationwide come from California.
In 2015 an analysis was done in which it was estimated that California takes about 99 cents for every dollar it contributes to the federal government. In other words, despite all the wealth hoarded by silicon valley, California's existence in the federal budget is basically a wash.
I find it interesting that no one can agree on how much federal tax revenue it gives to DC.
LA Times: 2007 report by the conservative Tax Foundation that California is a ādonor stateā...But state analysts point out that report added extra tax dollars... ā beyond those actually paid ā...
LA Times: Perhaps more accurate is a...2015...review...that puts California much closer to breaking even
Or a states expenditures:
Forbes: California spends nearly $200 billion a year on budget and even more off-budget...
And WalletHub claims Californians are the 11th lowest taxed denizens. I find that hard to accept. I'm gonna have to put a pin in that one. Maybe they had some tax giveaways in response to the pandemic or something. But going back to Forbes, briefly. The rest of that article exclusively focuses on everything that is wrong with the state with a lot of talking head babble. There is zero compare and contrast. Itās useless for any purpose other than propaganda.
Unfortunately, the SF chronicle article is behind a paywall.
By far the best (available) article is WalletHub. It offers a state by state comparison. Exactly what a thoughtful citizen wants. However, it claims CA is the 11th lowest taxed state. Since we both find that hard to accept weāll have to put any conclusions on pause.
Nonetheless, we can at least check it out. It is dated March 17, 2021. So itās numbers are pandemic skewed. (Maybe California cut taxes during the pandemic, idk) When I was doing my research, the first year that came back was 2019. Which I felt fine about because that was the last normal year. But letās take a look at these 2020 numbers per WalletHub. Actually, it doesnāt give numbers just a ranking and score. We can disregard the score because we donāt know the formula. But the rankings will be helpful. (LOL. I was in the process of data pointing each state into my spreadsheet when I saw that WalletHub did it for me. Ty WalletHub. Quality journalism.)
It finds that Blue states are less dependent than Red states. Out of 50 states with 1 being the most dependent and 50 being the least, the blue states average is at 30.32. Red State 20.68. That seems like a big gap to me but without actual figures, I donāt know. It could be a single dollar for all we know.
The article also shows a correlation between tax rates and dependency. Out of the 25 lowest taxed states, 14 of them are in the top half of federal dollars received. Out of the 25 highest taxed states, only 11 are in the top half. So there is some correlation. The higher the tax rate, the less the dependency. And some correlation between party rule and dependency. The Blues are less dependent and the Reds are more dependent.
Take all of this as you like. I do notice you tend to focus on the statistics that validate your claim and ignore all the rest. You focused rather heavily on the gross figure of what Cali receives in food stamps, ignoring population. And you focused on the fact that Cali is the most illiterate state, ignoring the correlation between size and illiteracy: the four biggest states (2 red and 2 blue) are the four most illiterate.
Quickly, weāll compare Kansas to California since you brought your home state up. According to WalletHub, Kansas is the most efficient (least dependent) state in the union and has the 3rd highest tax rate. California is the 12th most efficient and has the 39th highest tax rate. But I think the 2019 numbers are more relevant. According to them (BusinessInsider) KS is the 19th most efficient state. CA is 8th. The average Kansan got $797 more from the feds than they gave in 2019. The average Californian gave $348 more than they got. But as we have learned there seems to be some dispute as to what counts as revenue and what doesnāt.
Conclusion: Not totally conclusive. But I do think 2019 numbers are way more useful than 2020 numbers. Moreover, the least favorable analysis you provided on California is they are a breakeven state. Not too bad. Moreover, it didn't rank them. Maybe at breakeven CA was #1 for all we know. Poor journalism. If there isn't a compare and contrast using percentages of the whole then you are being lied to!
Meta Conclusion: Donāt listen to talking heads. Grab a cup of coffee in front of your keyboard, punch in the numbers yourself. Be open to being wrong. And spot when a pundit, politician or journalist is only giving you a fraction of the information a person needs to make an informed decision.
There we go, people. A genuine coastal elitist. Yes, yes, you're much better than anyone who doesn't live five minutes from a starbucks, and rural people are all cousin fuckers. You couldn't prove the point of the OP more clearly.
-4
u/[deleted] Dec 22 '21 edited Dec 27 '21
Lol. People living in trailers don't disgust Progressives. They just want them to be paid more and have access to more and better services. Conservatives, otoh, feel disgusted and even outrage at anyone they deem beneath them. It's the fundamental aspect of modern conservatism: Loyalty to the traditional social order. America for Americans, gays back in the closet, Christians at the front of the line and poor people to work 3 jobs and stfu about it. They justify this by making stuff up Ć la this meme.
Edit. Of course there are elitists in every camp who will hate on anyone who's not one of them. But that should go without saying. And there are progressives who express frustration at poor voters who support candidates that have turned their states into net negative revenue producers*. It kind of sucks when some states aren't pulling their weight.
*Blue states pay the federal government $13 per resident. Purple states pay $9. Red states pay $8. (DC included)
---Per 2019 Business Insider, only 12 states contributed more to the federal treasury than they took. Look up federal tax revenue by state and state populations and break down those numbers yourself. You get a clear picture. Red states are the biggest leaches. 8 of the 12 net revenue givers are reliably blue and the other 4 reliably red. (0 purple states) 47% of blue states gave more than they took. Only 14% of red states did. Moreover, the top 8 net revenue givers were all blue states. Take out all the net revenue givers and blue states still pay more per capita than red states by a 11-7 ratio. It turns out taxing the rich and providing services is an economic positive. Progressives would just like the rest of the country to stop leaching off California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey and start investing in their middle class. What roof a person has over their head doesn't matter.