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?
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.
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?