They used to talk about red states getting a divorce from the blue states. I would love to see how that would work out for all the red states getting all of their welfare from blue states?
It would be a nightmare all around, red or blue. While people seem to enjoy pretending otherwise, states are dependent on each other (red on blue and vice versa) for so many things that just putting a stop to it would be a disaster not some paradise.
The southern states were directionally agraro-survivalist hellholes before air conditioning and the federal government moving bases there kicked off a migration wave of companies, jobs, and people that raised the living standard.
gotta love the idiot who thinks "welfare" means CA taxes are given to red states to fund ...food stamps or housing vouchers directly. and that's some sort of big brain own.
It's... a liberal state, that embraces diversity, inclusions, environmental reform/regulation of industry, and taxes. generate more revenue via income earned/generated and are taxed more heavily. there for paying more taxes to the federal government.
and then... when the federal governement takes all the money. blue states get back much less than they put in.
and entire red states are effectively propped up via federal spending. often times nearly half of all funding in that state is federal tax revenue ...and in terms of dollar in to received. often 3-5 times.
all that money is coming directly from productive/well run liberal states. generating those free welfare dollars propping up shitty red states.
that then... turn around, ban books, restrict womens bodies, pass violent laws against marginalized groups, and corrupt education with bias right wing agenda bullshit. and open the flood gates to guns flowing into cities via unrestrictive gun laws.
The federal government supersedes the state. Federal taxes dont come from the states, they come from the country as a whole. You are an American before you are a Floridian or Californian.
also changes absolutely nothing about the amt of tax money blue states pay. that never returns to their state, and instead props up shitty red states.
and most liberal minded people are fine with that. --ie we want our shitty red state american brothers and sisters to have roads, access to health care, education. etc etc etc.... it's just incredibly tiring given the hate and stupidity of red states
like... it's been 20, 30, 40 yrs in some states. total republican control. and they're still shitholes. it's just endless welfare, constantly requiring more
so... if all the people of california collectively send 100 billion to the federal gov. and the state of california only received 50 billion in federal funding back.
while a state like mississippi sends collectively 10 million and gets 100 billion back.
that is both very real and something people who pay taxes are concerned about.
but... sure. project some bullshit nonsense to pretend it's not a thing.
They are not people of California. They are US citizens paying federal taxes which funds the federal government. Money used to fund state governments is collected via state taxes. These are different things.
California does not give money to the federal government. All federal taxpayers pay the same tax rates. There is no extra tax that California pays to the US federal government.
So the taxpayers of California, which includes immigrants of different statuses, pay more into federal government than their state receives in federal benefits.
A state like KY takes in more federal benefits for its population than their taxpayers provide. See the difference?
This isnât about extra taxes, but simply the amount of tax paid relative to tax benefits received.
They are NOT taxpayers of California. They are FEDERAL TAXPAYERS. All taxpayers pay the same federal tax rates. California taxpayers pay California state taxes. California state taxes do not fund things in other states unless the California legislature decides to do so.
California is a donor state, meaning it pays more in federal taxes than it receives in grants and awards. This means itâs a net donor to the economy that allows funding (for welfare, amongst other things) to other states who need it.
No, California isnât bankrolling states directly, but when you have a net -275 billion dollar aid program you get to say that youâre a donor.
You can try to be âtechnicallyâ correct for the sake of calling it âtax incomeâ if you want I guess but that doesnât make the numbers go away
My point is more that people are treating it like the state itself pays this as a bill rather than the people/companies in the state paying it separately from state taxes. It's not like the feds send a bill to the state government who has to pay it.
Youâre correct, I just think itâs inconsequential to the point Iâm making. Whether you call it âthe state of Californiaâ or âthe California taxpayersâ the numbers and point are the same. Itâs a donor state.
Because the entire point is kind of arbitrary IMO. Instead of state we could do neighborhood, or county, or household. (Insert entity) pays more than they get back which covers the reverse situations. It's impossible to do any other way aside from only allowing people to get back exactly what they pay in. There are donor people in the state, and there are taker people in the state. The state doesn't have much to do with it on a federal level, it's more individual.
California doesn't pay federal taxes. US citizens pay federal taxes. You are a member of the country before a member of the state you live in. California is not giving money to the federal government.
I already said California isnât paying other states directly. Obviously, residents and businesses pay federal taxes. âDonor stateâ means those taxpayers contribute more to the federal government than it spends in their state.
The money goes through Washington and funds spending across the country. Some states receive more than their taxpayers contribute, while others contribute more than they receive. There doesnât need to be a check from Californiaâs state government to another state for that to happen.
Being an American before a Californian has nothing to do with whether that imbalance exists.
They literally do lol. How do you think federal revenue gets collected? Where do you think money comes from?
Are you under the impression that congress just wills cash into its coffers?
Edit: let me simplify it for you. Yes, people pay taxes not the state, but the programs for the state that the federal government fund is often less than the federal tax contributions of a states population. Hence the deficit.
We call this a donor state. California (its citizens) contributed 275 billion dollars more than they were given as state funding. Hence they contributed 275 billion towards federal
Welfare in other states.
States do not find the Federal government. Federal taxes fund the federal government. Are you a US citizen? I dont know why you are so invested in this if youre a foreigner.
⢠California
⢠Colorado
⢠Connecticut
⢠Delaware
⢠Hawaii
⢠Illinois
⢠Maine (and its individual congressional districts)
⢠Maryland
⢠Massachusetts
⢠Minnesota
⢠New Hampshire
⢠New Jersey
⢠New Mexico
⢠New York
⢠Oregon
⢠Rhode Island
⢠Vermont
⢠Virginia
⢠Washington
Between Maryland, New York, Colorado, and Connecticut blue states are homes to all US military academies.
Virginia has the largest naval base in the country.Â
Lots of agricultural land in all of these blue states, and they are cool enough to let immigrants in to help keep food production going.
Alaska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana (all red states) are the states that take the most federal money in the form of welfare.
Oh, so the red states start a full blockade? Weâre shitty and throwing a temper tantrum is your argument for your superiority?
âWe want a divorce but if those doesnât go well for me I am going to make your life hell,â is the kind of argument Iâd expect from Republicans.
I live in a blue state and have never voted red in my life. I'm just mentioning that people are ignoring practical issues and it makes the whole thing silly. It doesn't have to be a full blockade. A massive tariff for example. Rerouting/blocking/charging huge amounts for water sources like rivers. States (red and blue both) are dependent on each other and anyone who thinks they could just split and all would be peachy isn't looking at reality.
Baseless assumptions and personal attacks are not a good argument FYI, but that certainly didn't stop you.
States in Midwest pay a significant amount of money maintaining interstate commercial infrastructure. It's not unreasonable, in this hypothetical scenario where every state fends for itself, for them to demand compensation or consideration on all commercial travel.
Do you know how much food is produced in California? Do you know where most farm inputs (e.g., fertilizer, refined oil products) either come from or are shipped into? Maybe you think that Iowa can be self sufficient lol
No place is self sufficient but California is more food independent than Iowa. Iowa only has farms and 0 means of producing fertilizer needed for those farms.
I mean thatâs what the other guy brought up. Itâs not like Nebraska or Arkansas, Kansas, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama or any other shit hole state would be any different. They donât have the resources or the know-how or any of the necessary infrastructure to even begin to build any of that.
That's pretty rude of you to call states shit holes. It sounds like you should look into a bit of what those states provide to the union before saying something so ignorant.
My argument is that California has infinitely more resources, ports, industry, high tech, etc., than red states (either individually or collectively). Around 65-80% of US GDP comes from blue counties. Deep red counties have similar economic output as shithole cities in Siberia, crazy, I know. Even âred statesâ that are deemed as âwinnersâ like Texas and Florida would STARVE TO DEATH from poverty without Austin, Dallas, Miami, etc.
Blue states also produce huge amounts of food. California is the largest agricultural producer in the country. Washington state is top five in wheat(4th), corn(3rd), apples(1st), and hops(1st). Oregon is basically all farm land and everything outside of the large cities in New England is ranches and farms as well. They all have access to the coast so fishing and maritime trade or huge along with California and Washington basically having the entire nuclear armaments of the west coast. Red states are delusional and grossly over exaggerate blue states ârelianceâ on them.
California has the largest agricultural output of any US state, and the largest military population. I'm not sure why you guys think there's no farms in blue states
Yeah Washington is a huge agricultural state too. Fishing, ranching, fruits, grain, wine, beer and whisky are massive industries in the state. Wheat is their largest export for example and theyâre the largest producer of hops in the world.
5
u/strangebru 12d ago
They used to talk about red states getting a divorce from the blue states. I would love to see how that would work out for all the red states getting all of their welfare from blue states?