Those numbers would only be a fair comparison if they exclude military spending and entitlements. A air force base in Kansas or a submarine purchased from Misisippi is (in principle) defending the entire US.
Also, federal entitlements follow the person, not the state, and can't be counted against states. Simple example: a person works in CA (paying taxes) and then retires someplace cheaper like AZ (receiving taxes).
Maybe CA does subsidize the south. But the tax foundation numbers don't prove much, one way or the other.
I don't have statistics, but in "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" Jane Jacobs argued that what really happens in modern times is that cities end up subsidizing rural areas. So more urbanized areas would "subsidize" those less so.
Comments
Those numbers would only be a fair comparison if they exclude military spending and entitlements. A air force base in Kansas or a submarine purchased from Misisippi is (in principle) defending the entire US.
Also, federal entitlements follow the person, not the state, and can't be counted against states. Simple example: a person works in CA (paying taxes) and then retires someplace cheaper like AZ (receiving taxes).
Maybe CA does subsidize the south. But the tax foundation numbers don't prove much, one way or the other.
I don't have statistics, but in "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" Jane Jacobs argued that what really happens in modern times is that cities end up subsidizing rural areas. So more urbanized areas would "subsidize" those less so.
You don't think that military bases and big federal contracts aren't just another form of welfare subsidized by blue states like California?