Strained statistics

In his letter "Socialized welfare states" on Dec. 5, James Sickles proves the old adage attributed to Mark Twain that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics" when he discusses "donor" states and "welfare" states. As with many statistics, it's the details of what the underlying measures are that are important.

On one side of the comparison, we have the taxes paid to the federal government by a state, while on the other, we have the federal dollars flowing back to that state. Assuming fixed, progressive federal tax rates applying equally to all states, the state's tax outflow is approximately a multiplication of the tax rates, the state's median income and the state's population. The state's federal dollar inflow for the most part ignores median income and is allotted to the states primarily based on population.

Hence, as noted on the worldpopulation.com web site, "There are currently eight U.S. states that are considered donor states. The main reason that these states see a negative balance is because they have some of the highest household incomes in the country, paying more to federal taxes. This, however, does not guarantee that they would receive more federal funding for things such as Medicaid and education." (Note that they reference the same eight states in the same order as Mr. Sickles.)

In order for the welfare states to pay their "fair share" as the writer suggests, you must either vary the federal tax rates by state, artificially raise the "welfare" states' median income or reduce the "donor' states' median income. Given that, I assume the writer is in favor of the House proposed budget reconcilliation bill which raises the SALT cap from $10K to $80K, thereby reducing the effective income of the richest citizens of the donor states and the federal taxes they pay.

David Swanson

Elgin