On the surface argument alone, that is all fine and good -- but to go further with it, the amount of money paid to the Federal government in taxes just depends on your income really. If you make $250,000 in New York City, you are doing average, whereas if you make $250,000 in Hope, Arkansas, then you are making a killing.
But, you don't need to make $250,000 in Hope to have the same, or better, standard of living as in New York City. And Hope has nowhere the infrastructure needs that a NYC would have either.
Absolutely! As a person who has lived in VERY different cost of living areas, both in the US and abroad, I can assure you that I understand what you are saying!
I get all this, I just don't see that it tells us much other than just that. It doesn't go further into the cost of living, standard of living, infrastructure needs etc.
If you go back to the post that trigger this conversation (Dr Who's I believe, where he said that the RED STATES were the ones carrying the Blue States), you may be able to understand that this conversation has nothing to do with cost of living or anything else. . .just the fact that the BLUE STATES GIVE more to the "common purse" and that the RED STATES TAKE more than they give to the "common purse."
It's a little like what is happening in Europe between, let's say Germany (yes, the cost of living is higher there, and infrastructure better, but they give in MORE to the EU community than they take out, while GREECE does the opposite. . .they need constant "bail outs" to keep them from falling into the aegian sea!)
Maybe I am making this point very poorly -- but it seems like different places have different needs -- and I'd like to see a study quantify that somehow -- not quite sure how to do that however.
Again I totally agree! But precisely, this argument makes my point even more striking! Why do you think that States, who do not have good infrastructure, where education is poorer, and where the cost of living is so much lower, NEED to get more "subsidies" from the Feds than states who take care of their infrastructure, have more decent education, and where the cost of living (especially the cost of housing) is so much greater?
Wouldn't you think that, if everything was equal, the higher cost of living would need MORE HELP from the Government (i.e., in terms of subsidized housing, infrastructure maintenance, etc. . .) than a State who has really cheap housing, and very few infrastructure maintenance needs? Don't you think that a city like NY for example, with its two MAJOR INTERNATIONAL airports, would need more transportation subsidies than South Carolina where you have one regional airport and a couple of small airport AND no need for PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION?
So my all point is that, if the Red States wanted to secede, it would be to the ADVANTAGE of the Blue States, who would no longer have to give South Carolina 39 c. for every dollars, and without that 39c for every dollars. . .how would South Carolina improve or even MAINTAIN their falling infrastructure, their third grade education system, their non-existent international airport? And without those things, HOW WOULD South Carolina attract new businesses to help them get a proper tax base and climb out of the ditch they are in?
By the way, I retired in South Carolina. I live in a beautiful area, with golf course, equestrian center, tennis, pool, walking trails, surrounded by forest. . .very pleasant indeed. . .for RETIRED people. But, how do you keep a State alive and thriving with a DYING population of fixed income people? What does that do to attract a vibrant industry to keep the youths from living this state? How do you even continue to subsidize the MANY Churches who are benefiting from this invasion of elderly couples who want nothing more than to golf, to take naps, and to assure their "life after death" by attending and giving generously to the Churches?
And. . . just to take the example of South Carolina, but also of many Red States, generally, one of their biggest "industry" are MILITARY or GOVERNMENTAL facilities (like Fort Gordon at the border of Georgia and South Carolina, and the Savannah River site. . .where basically the nuclear waste has been stored for 25 years! Oh. . .one more BIG employer, right across the Savannah River into Georgia: huge medical facilities. . .which basically are running MOSTLY on the money they get from caring for all the elderly population that retires in South Carolina. . .which means MEDICARE MONEY. What would South Carolina be without those FEDERALLY FUNDED employers?
A waste land. . .perfect for retired people to go fishing, go walking around a golf course, go take naps. . .and not much more. . . except waiting to die!
