nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (06/26/85)
State Policy Research, Inc. has released figures on how the US government spends its money between states. The numbers listed below are the amounts of money spent in that state per person more (or less) than what that state pays into the gov't in taxes for Fiscal Year 1984. Interesting to note that the chairman of the Senate budget committee is from New Mexico... From biggest losers to biggest gainers 1. Illinois -1161 2. New Jersey -1013 3. Texas -703 4. Wyoming -626 5. Michigan -619 6. Delaware -593 7. Iowa -500 8. Wisconsin -485 9. Ohio -484 10. Oklahoma -377 11. Minnesota -353 12. Louisiana -353 13. Indiana -336 14. Colorado -325 15. New York -232 16. Oregon -207 17. Pennsylvania -201 18. Nevada -96 19. Nebraska -96 20. North Carolina -25 21. Connecticut +13 22. New Hampshire +80 23. West Virginia +177 24. Washington +205 25. Alaska +233 26. Rhode Island +234 27. Kansas +265 28. Florida +277 29. Vermont +290 30. Kentucky +295 31. Georgia +353 32. Idaho +360 33. Montana +376 34. California +395 35. Massachusetts +438 36. Arizona +522 37. Tennessee +577 38. Arkansas +597 39. North Dakota +605 40. South Carolina +623 41. South Dakota +667 42. Maine +684 43. Alabama +726 44. Utah +802 45. Maryland +1023 46. Hawaii +1221 47. Mississippi +1276 48. Virginia +1368 49. Missouri +1377 50. New Mexico +1983 Biggest gainers in Fiscal year 1984: Wyoming +73% North Dakota +43% Alaska +38% Biggest Loser: West Virginia (they can really afford cuts in federal aide!) -13% I do not object to using the nation's tax dollars to improve the life of people in other places. Mississippi, from what I understand, is the poorest state in the nation, so people do not get as good a chance at life as I have. What I strongly object to is Mr. Reagan character- izing me as a free loader because I can deduct my (high) state income tax from my income for federal tax purposes, by claiming that low tax states (like New Mexico) subsidize programs for high tax states (like New Jersey, Illinois, etc.). A large part of the tax burden in these states comes from the states having to raise the funds for federally mandated programs. New York City has been a city where people ran to when they were poor, home- less, etc, they are also one of the main places for immigration. Therefore, they have a large burden of social programs. Who pays for these people who couldn't make their lives in their states? Earlier I said that eliminating the local tax deductions were a cover for some of the less palatable aspects of the Reagan tax plan, there is now more evidence for that. The figures released by the government did not even consider two earner families! Apparently, they will suffer as well, (or not benefit as much as single earner families) particularly if they have children in day care facilities. (Of course, isn't that what this administration really wants; the more traditional family: the man works and the woman stays home to care for the children?) Perhaps the solution to the inequities in distribution would be for people to add the numbers above to their tax paid (multiplied by the number of dependants) for the 1985 tax year, so: Joe Slobotnik, living in New Mexico with his wife and two children, owes the gov't $3000 based on the present tax laws. Under the new laws, to make up for unequal distribution of wealth, he must add $7932 to his taxes, so he really owes the gov't $10932. If he lived in Illinois, however, he would be owed $1644 by the government, because of how little Washington did for Illinois. Admittedly, these are extreme cases, however, look at your 1984 tax returns, and see how you really faired under the 1984 budget. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa "I know a computer when I talk to one." -The Doctor. (Anybody know which episode???)