No state pays a cent to another state or to the federal government. It is residents of each state that pay federal taxes, which the federal government in turn uses to provide funding and services to states and individuals.

The Rockefeller Institute data (https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...) shows that it's not so much "blue states" as frequently claimed, but taxpayers of four very wealthy Northeast states (the Tri-State area plus Massachusetts) that account for the vast bulk of citizens paying more than they receive from the federal government. After them come CO, NE, UT, and MN, of which half voted for Hillary/Biden and half for Trump. All other states, including CA, are net beneficiaries of the taxpayers in the top eight (and, again, really, it's the top four).

The 10 states at the bottom of the Rockefeller report's per capita list—that is, the states that benefit from the most federal spending per person compared to how much each person pays in federal taxes—are

Hillary/Biden-voting states: VA, NM, MD, HI, 1/2 of ME

Trump-voting states: KY, AK, AL, WV, MS, 1/2 of ME

> The Rockefeller Institute data (https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...) shows that it's not so much "blue states" as frequently claimed, but taxpayers of four very wealthy Northeast states (the Tri-State area plus Massachusetts) that account for the vast bulk of citizens paying more than they receive from the federal government.

Yeaaah… no. It only shows that under the default of 2018 BOP.

If you select the last primary tab and look at the 4 years tally, you will see a picture rather more inline with the "folk knowledge", including that while Californians have had a BOP just shy of positive from 2017, their negative BOP in 2015 and 2016 puts them rather into the negative for the 4 years period. Less so than the tri-state or Colorado, but the picture you're painting is at best misleading.

Yes, thank you for explicitly phrasing the problem the way I should have.

Cato has different numbers than Rockefeller.

https://www.cato.org/blog/winner-loser-states-centralized-go...

I've lived in multiple blue states, and they're all "losers" by this definition.

Note also that VA and MD are in this category for very different reasons than KY, AL and WV. Virginia and Maryland are extensions of the Washington, DC government complex (the Pentagon is in Virginia). A large portion of the Federal spending that goes to these states is direct expenditure (salaries, rents, purchasing) for goods and services, while for WV it's much more biased towards entitlement spending (social security, disability, Medicaid, Medicare).

Yeah, 100% agree, and I wish they'd do it for everything.

My state is in the same boat, and I don't mind the taxes, but if the states getting it are going to whine about it, I don't want to force them to take it...

Are you saying that its unfair that money is being taken from you(r state) and being spent on people you don't believe deserve it?

I'm saying that I think there are programs that are good and beneficial, and others call them "evil, wealth redistribution." Well, if that's the majority view in a state, and that state also takes in more Federal dollars than its residents puts in, then maybe for Defense spending they shouldn't be able to take money from another state. They can self-fund it. And if they can't maybe it makes more sense that the jobs that come from Defense spending should go to a state whose residents are willing and able to pay for it.

Yeah but you don't get a say. Only all of us as a collective gets a say. That's in the fundamental nature of taxation.

My alcoholic racist uncle who beats his family receives welfare check for his disability. I am clearly paying into the system and he hates me extra for being an in interracial marriage. I don't like to have my money go towards him, but guess what?

Same here. You don't like that your money is being spent on people against your wishes? You just discovered the true nature of taxation.

> You don't like that your money is being spent on people against your wishes?

No, I'm fine with it. But there are entire states run by dinks who HATE IT, and yet they take it, cursing me and people like me all the while.

I think it's possible we could trick them into agreeing to laws or even a Constitutional Amendment which would prevent them from benefiting from a system they say they hate.

I honestly think that in principle it would be easy.

"Should wealth be redistributed from one state to another?" "No!" "Wow, that was way easier than I thought."