Rand vs. Christie | NJ vs. Kentucky | Federal Taxes

[beaven]

Somewhere in the mud being slung, some Christie supporters noted NJ gets back only $0.60 for every dollar taxed to the federal government while Kentucky receives well over $1. I think those numbers are not accurate in projecting what is going on.

Tell me, is this an accurate, reasonable argument:

New Jersey has a large number of corporate headquarters, especially when counted per-capita. While these corporations earn their income across the nation, when they pay federal taxes, it is largely identified as coming from New Jersey. Therefore the amount of federal taxes being identified as coming from NJ is artificially high and if it were counted not by where the corporate headquarters was but where the revenue/expenses actually took place, NJ would pay much less and other states, including Kentucky would be identified as greater contributors in federal taxes.

Is this a reasonable analysis?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I for one dont look forward to these head to head statistical matchups with other states. Kentucky is a fiscal mess.

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

chris christie isn't counting all the untaxed mob, union, corrupt deals.

 

[phill4paul]

Somewhere in the mud being slung, some Christie supporters noted NJ gets back only $0.60 for every dollar taxed to the federal government while Kentucky receives well over $1.

If either were asked if we should end the federal income tax what do you think their answers would be?

 

[Keith and stuff]

Here is some ino on that. http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state

 

[Henry Rogue]

Easily remedied. End federal taxation and redistribution.

 

[beaven]

Here is some ino on that. http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state

Yes, but that doesn't take into account my argument. Is my argument valid?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Somewhere in the mud being slung, some Christie supporters noted NJ gets back only $0.60 for every dollar taxed to the federal government while Kentucky receives well over $1. I think those numbers are not accurate in projecting what is going on.

Tell me, is this an accurate, reasonable argument:

New Jersey has a large number of corporate headquarters, especially when counted per-capita. While these corporations earn their income across the nation, when they pay federal taxes, it is largely identified as coming from New Jersey. Therefore the amount of federal taxes being identified as coming from NJ is artificially high and if it were counted not by where the corporate headquarters was but where the revenue/expenses actually took place, NJ would pay much less and other states, including Kentucky would be identified as greater contributors in federal taxes.

Is this a reasonable analysis?

It's not nearly that complex. Median income in New Jersey is 68k, in Kentucky it's 41k. Rich people move to NJ because it's on the coast and a suburb of New York City. So they have a much higher tax base and we all pay the same federal taxes. They also have far less poor people, so less people getting federal assistance.

Obviously those things have nothing to do with Christie, Rand, or pork. It's a horrible fallacy. If anything, you would need to look at marginal impact since each of them has started representing their state. Is more or less federal money coming to Kentucky since Rand took office? How about Christie? That still wouldn't tell us much though.

The only thing that would really validate the argument would be pointing to specific examples of pork Rand brought home. The problem is that there are none. But there are plenty for Christie. So yeah...

 

[jtstellar]

why not just mention paul voted for the 9 billion a year clean bill + oversight, although against christie's 60 billion now now now bill with no oversight

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Isn't a big chunk of federal spending going to:
1. Military bases.
2. Soldiers salaries
3. Veterans benefits.
3. Federal lands such as national parks.

Apart from the reasoning in the OP here these could be some reasons why there is a difference between KY and NJ. But really, Christie is making an argument here against federal taxes... He just needs to understand it himself.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Isn't a big chunk of federal spending going to:
1. Military bases.
2. Soldiers salaries
3. Veterans benefits.
3. Federal lands such as national parks.

Apart from the reasoning in the OP here these could be some reasons why there is a difference between KY and NJ. But really, Christie is making an argument here against federal taxes... He just needs to understand it himself.

New Jersey has military bases as well. I believe it's 9, if you count Coast Guard installations.