States like Montana receive far more in federal tax dollars than states like California. If you think Montanans are going to be subsidized Californians and not the way around, I have a bridge in Montana I've got to sell you.
This will need a number to back that up. I've seen claims in both directions here on HN. It's also a number that's easy to distort to say whatever you want. Are people employed by the IRS being "subsidized"? Civilian logistics coordinators working for the DOD? Are you talking per capita, per square mile, or gross?
The numbers are actually pretty straightforward. "Expenditures is a broad category and covers a variety of things, including direct payments to people like Social Security, contracts for local governments, wages for federal workers and sub-contracting work."
From an accounting standpoint, gross money in be money out is what matters. Per capita makes sense to compare relative benefit, but realistically Montana is small potatoes on the Federal Balance sheet. Measuring per sq mile seems like some ludicrous ploy by Alaska’s senator to screw over New Jersey.
Not for rural sates. Farm subsidies, military spending, and rural healthcare initiatives etc, move a lot of money to such areas. Social Security disability is also used by poor states to get people off their welfare rolls.
Infrastructure costs are U shaped where extreme density is expensive, but so very low density. Mail delivery is a clear example where ultra low density just makes things more expensive.
