Serious question: can states revolt against government spending/taxes?

This question was settled in 1865 over something much more important than balance sheets.

 

I thought California took in less Federal tax money than is paid out. I think it's the rural states like Kentucky, West Virginia that take in more than they spend.

They have a large number of wealthy people per capita, who are taxed heavier, compared to most states.

 

One need only look at the blue state GDP versus red state GDP.

I love that the assumption is the reverse, based on this myth of "hard working Americans" supporting a bunch of "lazy poor people."

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

I found it on the tax foundation website. They have list with 2005 data.

California received $0.78 in return for every federal tax dollar paid.

New Mexico is tops at $2.03.
Mississippi is 2nd at $2.02
Alaska is 3rd at $1.84.
Louisiana is 4th at $1.78

I am confused by Alaska being so high, I thought they had plenty of local revenue from oil and gas companies.

I am lost as to why New Mexico is so high also. Is this because of the Border security?

Louisiana and Mississippi because of the billions federal spending for Hurricane Katrina.

 

I looked further on the website for a map. This is strange to me. You are right, it does contradict that myth.

 

I dont think any state would secede because every state receives a crapload of money from the government.

That said, I understand the question since we see trillion dollar federal deficits for at least 2 years, probably more, while the states pretty much balance their budges (most of the time).

 

Why would a "state" revolt? State governments are handed big fat checks from the federal government. They are not handed invoices.

 

So you don't believe in the concept of one country, one people, sharing the resources, contributions, responsibility, ...
Might as well secede and turn into 50 separate countries.

Along the same line, why do you stop at the state border. I am pretty sure I am paying more into the coffer than many people in this state, maybe including you. I wish they would just kick free loader like you out of the state as well. How do like them apples?

 

Oh, now this is cute. You are generalizing that a state's voting tendencies determine each and every member's work ethic? Just too cute. The blue states are blue because lazy poor people infest urban areas to to find wealthy people's blood to suck from. These 'takers' outnumber the successful and vote Democratic. Really the Democratic base is comprised of people with a sense of entitlement to government handouts and overeducated (not necessarily smart) people who are sympathetic to them. I pity the hard working, self sufficient, people making an honest living who have to support these people who want others to do all the work.

 

You get on his case for generalizing, but then you go ahead and do a whole bunch of generalizing yourself.

You know what they say about people in glass houses...

 

No, states cannot revolt, if we learned anything from Iraq it's don't mess with the fed

 

im pretty sure its called nullification. where a state has a right refuse or rather consider void federal laws (ie taxes) it feels are unconstitutional. i believe this was mainly practiced in the late 1700s and early 1800s with alien sedition acts and more importantly in south carolina with refusal to pay tariffs on goods [which some people argue was one of the main causes of the civil war.] -- for this reason the concept of states rights specifically with nullification has been repudiated.

i doubt concessions will be taken so easily before such things are allowed.

 

Looking at the map I notice that the top ten lowest spending states compared to the dollars they send to the Federal government, they tend to be states with a large population that also have a hefty state income tax.

 

One of the difference makers that jumps out at you looking at that map is that NM, MT, ND,SD, and AK all have large Native American populations as percentage of residents. AZ has a large number of Native Americans, but the total population is such that they are probably less in terms of a percentage.

AK and HI also benefit greatly because of the amount spent on Defense.

MD, WV, and VA all benefit from being in proximity to DC.

MS and AL are just dirt poor backwards states.

 

Thanks for that -- it's very interesting, no? NY, MA, and CA, liberal bastions all, average about $0.78 of federal spending per income tax dollar paid. How about the more conservative bastions of OK, UT, and KY (just going by vote margin in the latest election)? $1.36. of federal spending per income tax dollar collected.

And you know, that's fine. There's no need for every state to come achieve a $1 or less ratio. I'm not trying to insult those states, but rather the outmoded and demonstrably dishonest viewpoint that liberal areas are somehow living off the life's blood of stalwart conservative areas.

To support the myth of sycophantic blue states, one must contort his or her mind horribly, leaving the realm of logic far, far behind.

PS -- Ari, did you look at the map? California is pulling more of the federal load than Texas; the feds are taking much more than their fare share from Cali, when compared to Texas. Cali should leave the union before Texas.

 

The #1 welfare recipient isn't lazy poor people in urban areas.
It's actually AIG. They are announcing a $150 government rescue package. This is on top of the billions that they have already received. Every month, we give them more money.

 

Touchy? Why would I be? You asked a question. I just gave you a scenario to show how narrow minded and backward thinking that question was.
If you are not for it, or at least think it is a good idea, why even raise the question? Don't be wus, admit to it and argue your case.