The states that voted for George W. Bush, the "red" states, receive more federal subsidies and pay less in federal taxes than do states that voted for John Kerry, the "blue" states.

This issue came up in 2000 as well.  The situation has been accentuated by deeper reddening of the country in 2004 and bigtime federal subisidy recipient New Mexico going red.

It's not that I have such a problem with federal subisidies, more that red staters love to swagger about their independence, their boot-strapping philosophy, their contempt for the federal government, and their disgust with tax-and-spend liberals.  States such as Oklahoma, Montana, and Texas rely far more on federal subsidies than blues such as New Jersey, California, and New York.

The Tax Foundation has once again published a report showing how the blue states have been carrying the red states' sorry @sses for a long time.  If you look at the data and do the math you will see that the average red state receives $1.33 in federal spending for every dollar it contributes in taxes.  The average blue state gets back just $0.97.  The blues used to get less but the budget deficit created by the Republican controlled federal government -- the largest in American history -- has driven the numbers up.

More info:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Woah woah woah, yes we collect more welfare than the blue states.  It makes sense, the red states are POORER, I thought the left had compassion for that?  But be advised, it is the red states, the republicans, who want to do away with welfare.  The blue states can keep their money.  What this thread is about is a complete 180 degree turn from what you preach Maxwell.

Woah woah woah, yes we collect more welfare than the blue states.  It makes sense, the red states are POORER, I thought the left had compassion for that?  But be advised, it is the red states, the republicans, who want to do away with welfare.  The blue states can keep their money.  What this thread is about is a complete 180 degree turn from what you preach Maxwell.


Max was responding to the hypocracy of accepting to largess of the fed gov while bemoaning itsexsistance, like biting the hand that feeds you.  It also, I think, reflects the general ignorance of the  red states population over all as compared with the blue.

Max was responding to the hypocracy of accepting to largess of the fed gov while bemoaning itsexsistance, like biting the hand that feeds you.  It also, I think, reflects the general ignorance of the  red states population over all as compared with the blue.


I say keep your money, I've never asked for it, or take it, or spend it.  Sorry we don't pull out weight like you want by electing democrats, again keep your dirty money.

Also, once I find the study (I will post it,) but according to it red states give more money, in dollars, to charity even though we make much less in money than the average blue state person.  Makes you think doesn't it?

I say keep your money, I've never asked for it, or take it, or spend it.  Sorry we don't pull out weight like you want by electing democrats, again keep your dirty money.

Also, once I find the study (I will post it,) but according to it red states give more money, in dollars, to charity even though we make much less in money than the average blue state person.  Makes you think doesn't it?


So I hope we can all count on you to pressure your congressmen to stop filling the budget with pork for your states.  That MIGHT lead to so real tax cuts for we in the sending states, although Lil' Georgie would probably give them to his rich "base" anyway, so I guess I'd rather a poor, unwed mother in Georgia get the benefit.

Tell me, what does giving to charity have to do with anything?  And what charities?

The underlines in the quote indicate errors, which you have taken me to task for committing.  I don't mind yours or those of others if the meaning is clear, as yours is, but what's good for the goose...

Woah woah woah, yes we collect more welfare than the blue states.  It makes sense, the red states are POORER, I thought the left had compassion for that?  But be advised, it is the red states, the republicans, who want to do away with welfare.  The blue states can keep their money.  What this thread is about is a complete 180 degree turn from what you preach Maxwell.

The red states are poorer.  That's exactly what I've been saying all along.  The red states continue to vote Republican, and they continue to get poorer.  The Republican party supports a tax policy that shifts the burden of taxation from rich people to middle class and poor people.  The Republicans support tax policy that shifts the burden of taxation from large corporations to small business.  The disappearence of family farms is decimating the economy of agricultural states.  The huge corporate agribusiness farms are not self-sustaining, they suck down agri-subsidies like there's no tomorrow. 
The Republican party has no problem with subsidizing the biggest corporation in America, Wal-Mart, to open a new store, which in turn undercuts the local economies of small communities.  Wal-Mart doesn't pay most of their employees enough money to get by, and any wealth created by Wal-Mart gets sucked right back out to Bentonville, Ark.  Same goes with the other big box stores. 
The Republican ideals of free trade, globalization, and union-smashing destroyed the blue collar manufacturing sector and left low-wage service sector jobs.  Now we find Republicans encouraging businesses to outsource as many service jobs as possible to India.  Barring that, invite Indians here to work for less.  H#ll, even the helplines for departments of transitional assistance (formerly welfare) are being outsourced to India!
It flabbergasts a thinking man to see red staters get kicked by Republican priorities, get up, vote Republican, and get kicked again. 
Oh, it's all about "family values" is it? 
Poverty is not a family value, community abandonment is not a family value, rising infant mortality is not a family value, hunger is not a family value, chronic unemployment is not a family value, homelessness is not a family value, rising alcohol abuse is not a family value, schools too broke to buy textbooks is not a family value, increasing suicides is not a family value, meth labs in derelict neighborhood homes is not a family value.  Yet these terrible phenomena are becoming ever more common under the party of "family values" in the red states.
The fifteen most unhealthy states are ALL RED, from Texas at 35 to Louisiana at 50.
http://www.wftv.com/health/3899738/detail.html

I don't point this out just to be cute or contentious.  I believe this is indicative of serious social pathology going on in interior America. 

http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/bimgdata/FC0805073396.JPG

Also, once I find the study (I will post it,) but according to it red states give more money, in dollars, to charity even though we make much less in money than the average blue state person.  Makes you think doesn't it?


Like who? According to this study, the red states are the charities! Putting money in the church plate isn't entirely charity.

Tanya

Also, once I find the study (I will post it,) but according to it red states give more money, in dollars, to charity even though we make much less in money than the average blue state person.  Makes you think doesn't it?


They take the statistics for charitable giving from tax returns but,  if you check my tax return you won't see it.  Many of my friends are the same way, dollars here dollars there donations of clothes, food. and I don't consider taking tax credits for it, for me that is just bragging, and it is not in the spirit of charity.  It is the norm
amongst people I know. 

Hubby and I DO take the deduction, but for nowhere near the amount that we actually contribute.  I contribute because I like helping the less fortunate, not because it helps my taxes (which it really doesn't).  I guess it never occurred to me that people would look at it as "bragging" or that some think tank somewhere is compiling charitable contribution data ???

"Bragging" or not, giving is good.  However, charity cannot pick up the slack for failed economic policy.  For decades conservatives have been trying to foist the failures of "trickle down" economics onto churches and philanthropic organizations.  We need an economic system that makes charity as unnecessary as possible, not one that says, "We don't want to be accountable for our economic casualites, you handle it."

  I guess it never occurred to me that people would look at it as "bragging" or that some think tank somewhere is compiling charitable contribution data ???


It was the way I was raised.  If you gave to charity you did it quietly, and"without consideration".
I always felt that claiming it on my taxes would cancel out the "without consideration" part. I now others
who feel the same.  There was actually a guy from Cambridge(Max, I'm sure knows of this) who hit the
lottery real real big.  Before he picked up the check he set up a charitable foundation, then put something
like 90% of the money in it.  When asked why he said it was because that was how his mother had raised him.

Cat and I also give both time and $$$ to local  charities, but I  must say, I take every legit deduction I can, and why not?  I'm sure the fat cats do, and then some!

It was the way I was raised.  If you gave to charity you did it quietly, and"without consideration".
I always felt that claiming it on my taxes would cancel out the "without consideration" part. I now others
who feel the same.  There was actually a guy from Cambridge(Max, I'm sure knows of this) who hit the
lottery real real big.  Before he picked up the check he set up a charitable foundation, then put something
like 90% of the money in it.  When asked why he said it was because that was how his mother had raised him.

Sounds familiar.  I can't quite remember the story.  Anyway, I hope he knew what he was doing.  Philanthropy is tougher work than it looks. When you've got money there are plenty of chiseling accountants and bloodsucking lawyers who want nothing more than to take it away from you.  Conversely, it might be bloodsucking accountants and chiseling lawyers, but either way...

Cat and I also give both time and $$$ to local  charities, but I  must say, I take every legit deduction I can, and why not?  I'm sure the fat cats do, and then some!



And you know I would donate more of my time if it wasn't for...well...you know.




Cat

I can understand, but like DC said, I'll take every deduction I can.  However, we do not claim everything we donate, just what we can (I think $500 in cash and $500 in property).


I give the numbers to my accountant and he takes care of the legalities, but I think your numbers are quite a bit off.  As I understand it you can give a gift of up to $10,000 and the recipiant doesnt have to pay taxes on it (like to a relative).  To a charity it would be deductable, I think.  When I retire at the end of this academic year I plan to give most of my books to the college library, and I expect it will all be a deduction, which I will take.

What I was referring to was the undocumented deductions.  Anything over $500 in value (be it cash or property) must have a receipt or, in the case of a "gift" to a relative, some other type of documentation in order to be "legit" in the case of an audit.  We recently found this out when hubby's parents made a "gift" to us from money they found in a bank account that his grandmother set up (thank goodness I hadn't actually cashed the check yet ;).  And, actually, I believe the amount is now around $13K that you can "gift" in a given year to an individual.



Depending on how much the check is written out for, it may be fine if the check is written out in BOTH your names. If it was written out to just one of you, then you would may have to pay taxes on it. You just may want to check how much is ok before cashing it.



Cat