If there weren’t any blue states around to sign the red state welfare checks, they’d be in a pretty poor position.
https://www.mercatus.org/publications/urban-economics/state-...
Good read on the matter:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...
The Federalist has done an analysis of federal aid per resident:
>Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red or purple.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-b...
Never lived there myself, but I know for a fact they're consistently in the top 5 of contributors to the federal kitty of all states both nominally, and per-capita. They get almost nothing back compared to what they put in. They are, arguably, the largest contributor to the nation if we're considering individual burdens. And a top 5 contributor by outright total aggregate tax contribution.
Illinois and New Jersey, by total outright tax contribution, are also consistently in the top 5 of states that contribute to the federal government. (And I'm from Wisconsin. I hate Illinois. But facts are facts man.)
Hate to tell you, but your source is bogus as far as analyzing the biggest contributors to the national kitty.
Paying out a lot more to the federal government than they receive back does not mean these states are doing well and others poorly. It really just a natural consequence of having a lot of high earners in a progressive tax system. The states in question have been racking up huge amounts of debt and/or have underfunded pensions funds, which is why they are consistently ranked lowly in terms of fiscal health. I am a little surprised you had you not heard of the financial problems coming out of Illinois, New Jersey and the like? There's even a dedicated Wikipedia article:
Sigh.
Even if we look at a list of states by GDP, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts would still be perennial top 10 states. Even a list of states by GDP per capita, they all still are perennial top 10s. Per capita, I would bet that Massachusetts is number 1? (Maybe NY might edge them out? But I'd definitely bet they're number 1 or 2.)
Listen man, I don't even like Illinois. I hate Chicago. But facts are facts. They make a $#!t ton of money. And not the easy way doing financial engineering like New York. They do it the hard way with a huge diversified economy. Few states are like that. It's just a fact man.
Are you going to say that GDP is not a good indication of what a state produces?
Do they? I'll grant you that nobody wants to live in Kansas. It had a net migration of −4.32% between 2017-2018. But California doesn't fair much better at −3.95%. People are also fleeing Illinois, Connecticut and Massachusetts (all in the bottom 5 as give by Mercatus) in record numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
As people leave these state, it certainly does impact their ability to raise revenue, and this is compounded by how many blue states rely on progressive taxation.
>I mean, the fact that Kansas is so high on this list should tell you all you need to know.
But Kansas is a special case. Their pension funds were crippled by particularly bad mismanagement and corruption. The question you should be asking is why are the other bottom 5 blue states?