"We"--and, err, California and New York are still amongst the highest federal payers, as is Massachusetts where I live--subsidize our social services and community investments because they actually have them to counterbalance the federal government's general indifference towards the ideas thereof (unless you're old and thus a reliable voter).

"You" can, too, do the same.

Or we, rather than "we", can do it at a federal level. Economies of scale exist, of course, and there's an efficiency argument to doing it (which is generally thwarted by spittle-flecking about federalism and states' rights, which, fine, but you don't get to have it both ways!). To a nontrivial degree this already happens; low-tax states generally rely on the particularly-bad implementations of many programs, including social safety nets, provided by the federal government. This is one reason why, to use the terms of art often favored by...certain populations, the taker states are low-tax and generally hew center-right to right-wing in policy, while the maker states are often more high-tax and generally more center-left in policy: because they will be backstopped by the systems that exists federally even as they campaign to gut it in their "little laboratory" of a state.

There exist approaches that don't penalize places that actually act as a more-or-less civic society for spending money to make that happen. Assuming one actually wants civic society to exist. Which I do. But I recognize that there are rather large forces in America who are upset by the idea.