The Great Sort Continues

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
States don't pay taxes, they receive tax money. It would be more accurate to say the the taxpayers of states like, NY, CA, and MA pay more in federal taxes than those states receive from the federal government.

That's what I was implying, the report makes that clear.

It should be equally clear that the amount of federal taxes paid by the citizens of a state should have little relation to the amount of federal tax money that state receives. One figure is based on the incomes of the taxpayers, the other is based on the number of people in the state. And neither figure should determine that state's state tax rate.

For instance, California has a higher population with a higher average income than Alabama. So the federal government takes in more tax money from CA. Both states receive federal funds based on their populations, so CA receives more, but percentage wise less than the citizens paid. This doesn't make AL a "moocher" state. If AL had the same average income as CA, the percentages would be the same.

But if AL had the same percentage of movie millionaires, tech billionaires, etc., as CA, those people wouldn't want to move to CA because CA's state tax rate and cost of living would be undesirable.

The article you linked showed Virginia as a top "moocher" state, but it doesn't take into account federal expenditures like military bases and other federal government facilities in the state in relation to the relatively small population.

The article compares apples to pineapples and concludes that there is a lack of orange equity while ignoring potatoes.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
This doesn't make AL a "moocher" state. If AL had the same average income as CA, the percentages would be the same.

But the percentages AREN'T the same, when you get more than you pay you're a mooch. There is no other way to dissect this.

The article you linked showed Virginia as a top "moocher" state, but it doesn't take into account federal expenditures like military bases and other federal government facilities in the state in relation to the relatively small population.

Already addressed ad nauseum and Virginia doesn't have a 'small' population, it's 12th.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We could address the relatively unequal distribution of federal responsibility per state and I think the picture would be clearer, and when we talk about that we're not talking about welfare, but total federal responsibility including land usage and custodianship, government workforce, military obligation, and similar as spread out over the entire country.

originally posted by: ketsuko
We could address the relatively unequal distribution of federal responsibility per state and I think the picture would be clearer, and when we talk about that we're not talking about welfare, but total federal responsibility including land usage and custodianship, government workforce, military obligation, and similar as spread out over the entire country.

Once again, this is money paid by taxpayers and businesses and money received by the same. Federal land management, miltary bases and the like are not factored in. It's solely how much did you pay and how much did you get back so welfare is a factor, broke asses getting their mooch money is the name of the game. Get a job, wastrels, try being productive.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You try again .
This was in response to a post regarding one Demographic .
As stated .
You are overthinking .
Again .

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

But the percentages AREN'T the same, when you get more than you pay you're a mooch. There is no other way to dissect this.

The people "giving" are not the same ones "receiving." They just happen to live in the same geographical area.

Suppose Cindy, who lives in Idaho and makes $100k, gives $100 to the Salvation Army.
Bob, who lives in Kentucky and makes $50k, gives $20 to the Salvation Army.
The Salvation Army gives Rick, who lives in Idaho, a parka. They give Mary, who lives in Kentucky, a raincoat.

Who is the mooch in that scenario?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
We could address the relatively unequal distribution of federal responsibility per state and I think the picture would be clearer, and when we talk about that we're not talking about welfare, but total federal responsibility including land usage and custodianship, government workforce, military obligation, and similar as spread out over the entire country.

Once again, this is money paid by taxpayers and businesses and money received by the same. Federal land management, miltary bases and the like are not factored in. It's solely how much did you pay and how much did you get back so welfare is a factor, broke asses getting their mooch money is the name of the game. Get a job, wastrels, try being productive.

Oh, but I disagree. If I were looking to make a point about which states simply receive the most federal money, I would very much factor all that in because it adds to the total, just like suicide deaths make gun violence stats look worse.

originally posted by: Gothmog
This was in response to a post regarding one Demographic .

LOL, sure. What's the demographic?

This should be fun.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Suppose Cindy, who lives in Idaho and makes $100k, gives $100 to the Salvation Army.
Bob, who lives in Kentucky and makes $50k, gives $20 to the Salvation Army.
The Salvation Army gives Rick, who lives in Idaho, a parka. They give Mary, who lives in Kentucky, a raincoat.

Who is the mooch in that scenario?

That's charity as is completely optional. In the states that pay there are more Cindy's and Bob's and less Rick's, unlike the poor states where it's Rick's and Mary's for miles who get redistributed wealth.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Oh, but I disagree. If I were looking to make a point about which states simply receive the most federal money, I would very much factor all that in because it adds to the total, just like suicide deaths make gun violence stats look worse.

The per capita calculation:

A Closer Look at the Top-Five and Bottom-Five States

Table 5 shows the per capita balance of payments for the top-five and bottom-five states, and each
state’s difference from the United States average. It also includes a breakdown of expenditures and
receipts. In FFY 2019, Kentucky’s per capita balance of payments is the most favorable in the country
at $14,153, which is $11,741 above the national average of $2,412 per capita. Kentucky displaced Virginia
for the top spot this year. Connecticut’s is the worst, at -$1,614. Connecticut’s per capita balance of
payments is $4,026 below the national average.

All of the top-five states benefited from higher-than-average levels of Federal spending. Kentucky,
Alaska, and West Virginia also benefitted from lower-than-average tax burdens. Three of the bottom five states received lower-than-average Federal spending. The bulk of their negative balances is
driven by their significantly higher-than-average tax payments. The residents of New Jersey, New
York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut contributed at least $3,000 more per capita in taxes than the
national average.

Both Kentucky and West Virginia have something in common, Appalachia. Compare this report with the other one I also posted on the top ten states with the most people under the poverty level and you start to see some very serious correlation.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Let's use your definition, when you get more than you pay you're a mooch, and apply it to the principals involved.

Taxpayers -

For the most part, taxpayers get less money from federal and state governments than they pay in. There are exceptions, of course, in the case of some individual taxpayers. I wouldn't necessarily consider all who get more than they receive as moochers. Some may just need some temporary assistance, and they wind up paying more than they receive over time. But on a case by case basis, the majority pay more than they get. As a group, I'm going to classify them as not moochers by your definition.

The Federal Reserve Bank -

The money paid by the taxpayers doesn't go to the Federal Government, it goes to pay off the debt borrowed by the Federal Government. Of course, we all know the Federal Reserve Bank didn't have the money to begin with. They just create it out of thin air and loan that money to the Federal Government with interest. Due to that interest the Federal Reserve Bank gets more money than they give out. By definition, moochers.

The Federal Government -

The Federal Government doesn't have money, so they borrow it. They spend every bit they borrow plus some, which is why they have to keep borrowing more. They leave the taxpayers on the hook to pay that principal and interest back. Since they pay out at least as much as they get, not moochers.

State Governments -

I don't know which states have budget surpluses these days, but if a state spends the money they receive from the Federal Government the way it is supposed to, then it's a net zero. If a state gets, say, $100 million from the Federal Government for social programs and spends at least that amount on social programs, then they are not getting more than they give. By definition, not moochers.

If a state doesn't spend the money they get from the Federal Government for social programs on social programs, then there are different definitions for that. Fraud and embezzlement come to mind.

The only entities I see in this money circle who fit the definition of moochers would be a small minority of taxpayers and the Federal Reserve Bank.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I wouldn't necessarily consider all who get more than they receive as moochers. Some may just need some temporary assistance, and they wind up paying more than they receive over time. But on a case by case basis, the majority pay more than they get. As a group, I'm going to classify them as not moochers by your definition.

Temporary aid is temporary, when it's systemic moochism then you're a mooch.

But hey, all those people should thank me when they get Code Red Dew and vape pens with their EBT card.