Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid?

[boutons_deux]

Though taxes are the most common and recognizable source of state government revenues, it's important to remember that they're not the only source. In fact, state governments received 31.5 percent of their total general revenues from transfers from the federal government in the 2012 fiscal year.

That number varies pretty widely for specific states, however. For example, Mississippi obtains 45.3 percent of its total state general revenues from the federal government (the largest share in the country). Also on the high end are Louisiana (44.0 percent), Tennessee (41.0 percent), South Dakota (40.8 percent), and Missouri (39.4 percent).

On the other end of the spectrum are those states who receive a much smaller share of general revenues from the federal government. The lowest federal share occurs in Alaska at 20.0 percent, followed by North Dakota (20.5 percent), Virginia (23.5 percent), Hawaii (23.5 percent), and Connecticut (23.6 percent).

For all fifty states, see the map below. Note that this measure of general revenue includes tax collections but excludes utility revenue, liquor store revenue, and insurance trust revenue.




http://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-...st-federal-aid

TX's number is BIGGER than CA's, so that proves TX is better than CA, right, rednecks?

[TeyshaBlue]

Vapid analysis raising the rabble again. Not surprised.

What makes up Federal aid? Not important to the mouthbreathers that lap this up.
Are these factual or estimates from 2012 and older data?
Again, not important to the facile rabble.

[TeyshaBlue]

Reminds me of this equally ridiculous thread.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192004

[CosmicCowboy]

More sp...sp...sp...spittle

[z0sa]

boutons

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

So many variables Shazbot...

LOL...

LOL...

[boutons_deux]

Vapid analysis raising the rabble again.

there's NO ANALYSIS, just NUMERICAL FACTS, which you red-state mofos, govt-haters simply HATE to see.

[TeyshaBlue]

Exactly. Facts (Estimates, moron) with zero analysis. Perfect for the rabble.

[TeyshaBlue]

Now runaway again and see what your masters tell you to think.

boutons

[SupremeGuy]

Holy , boutons is getting his pushed in.

[boutons_deux]

Holy , boutons is getting his pushed in.

you wish.

TB ignores the numerical facts, and says the absence of analysis means the facts are meaningless, while, as per usual with TB , has no analysis of his own, just TB sniping from the safety of his silence.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol coward.
You post another ty hit piece then beg others to provide the analysis it needs. Pathetic as always. Got can't even answer simple questions about your own ty OP.
The article doesn't specify what federal aid is which is beyond stupid. These are not facts...they're estimates (and ty unsupported ones at that).
Why is analysis and context needed? Only rabble like you could bypass FACTS like MO in 2012 had a major city wiped out by a tornado at the same time KC agreed to a trolley that the Feds kicked in millions. So in 2012 Mo’s real Fed support would be around 29%.

But you weren't trying to post anything honest or meaningful....just the same old, tired bull you always post that is ignored.
meet slap.....again.
Now, runaway and go see what your masters tell you to think again.

[boutons_deux]

TB you really, really HATE The Tax Foundation

[TeyshaBlue]

Deflect! Boutons really got slapped.

[boutons_deux]

Deflect! Boutons really got slapped.

TB you really, really HATE The Tax Foundation

[TeyshaBlue]

Deflect! You can't even answer questions about the article. I don't give a rat's ass about the Tax Foundation.
simpleton

[boutons_deux]

2015’s States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most...00/#barry-rabe

of course TB will trash the methodology, but that's TB

[TeyshaBlue]

Since you dont even bother to read the takes you post, and cant/wont subject this to any analysis, it's not surprising you cant critically examine a ed up hit piece like this. As usual, you post pure bull which cant stand the light of day. This asinine "analysis" makes most of the same mistakes the tax foundation did. Nothing new from the "progressive" rss feed.

Distribution of > 65? Not considered.
Again, the comment section utterly destroys this vapid blog.

meet slap...again.

[TeyshaBlue]

Only one of the many comments that destroy that bull :

It's hard to believe people are still dredging up, let alone paying attention to, this idiotic propaganda.

First, STATES don't pay taxes to the federal government, individuals and businesses do. Delaware is the state that's least "dependent" because 60% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, but that's not where the revenue is generated. A couple of billion dollars in federal tax revenues sent in from New Jersey come from Exxon/Mobil, but it's not just the people of New Jersey paying all those fuel taxes. In other words, if the union were to dissolve tomorrow, and each of the 50 states became a separate country and each taxed these corporations on the income generated within their own borders, you'd have a completely different picture.

Second, it's downright asinine to describe states as being "dependent" on the federal government because federal dollars are spent there. Who benefits from highway spending on I-70 through Kansas, the people of Kansas, or the shoppers at a New Jersey Wal-mart whose Chinese goods were trucked THROUGH Kansas? Are the people of Texas the only ones who benefit from the tanks at Fort Hood? And how about farm subsidies - think only the Iowa farmers benefit from those? When you start paying $15/gallon for milk, come back and we'll talk.

Third, why on earth would anyone pay attention to someone whose degree is in journalism (with a "sport commerce and culture" minor) on issues related to either the economy or politics?… less

[TeyshaBlue]

Now go see what your masters tell you to think...again.

Facile coward.