There is no federal support for disadvantaged states in the sense we are talking about with the EU. You’re referring to the fact that federal taxation is progressive, so states with more rich people carry a larger share of the federal tax burden than states with fewer rich people. You can think of that as a form of subsidy, but it’s really just how progressive taxation works. The alternative would be a system where the federal tax burden is apportioned based on population, which is what the constitution required before the 16th amendment.

The EU system is totally different. About a third of the EU budget is allocated to reducing economic disparities between member states. The U.S. doesn’t have anything like that.

▲

skissane 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Most other federations have formal mechanisms for ensuring fiscal equity between their federal constituents – Australia has the Commonwealth Grants Commission, Canada has its Equalization Program, Germany has the Länderfinanzausgleich, Switzerland has Nationaler Finanzausgleich, Brazil has the Fundo de Participação dos Estados, Mexico has Participaciones Federales, Argentina has the Régimen de Coparticipación Federal de Impuestos; the UK is a devolved unitary state not a federation, but it has the Barnett formula – the United States is unusual in being a federation without formal fiscal equity mechanisms, although its informal mechanisms (progressive taxation, social security, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Congressional earmarks and pork-barrelling, etc) end up achieving much the same end with less transparency in the process.

And I don't know why people keep on comparing the US and the EU. One is a federal nation, the other is a supranational entity. Other nations with federal systems–Canada, Mexico, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil–are better comparators–comparing an apple with (smaller) apples instead of with an orange.

▲

rayiner 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Progressive taxation and welfare don’t achieve the same end, because they’re directed to individuals rather than the government. Mississippi can’t use social security payments to build infrastructure.

Also, programs like Medicaid aren’t as redistributive as you might think. For example, Mississippi gets less federal medicaid spending per capita than Massachusetts, New York, or California, despite being the poorest state: https://ffis.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SA23-01.pdf (p. 4). In terms of federal K-12 education funding, Mississippi receives about $3,000 per student, but California receives almost as much, $2,750 per student: https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti.... Utah meanwhile receives only $1,300 per student, while Alabama receives about the same as New York, at $2,400 per student.

	▲	skissane 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Mississippi can’t use social security payments to build infrastructure. Indirectly, it can, because social security recipients spend the payments they receive, and then some of those payments incur state sales taxes, and contribute to revenue of businesses which pay further state taxes (such as income tax for employees). And direct federal grants can't always be spent on infrastructure either – you can't use Medicaid funding to build highways. > Also, programs like Medicaid aren’t as redistributive as you might think. If you zoom out from individual programs and look at the overall fiscal balance: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo... In FY2024, Mississippi residents received (per capita) $11K more in federal spending than they paid in federal taxes; only West Virginia, Alaska and New Mexico received more. Meanwhile, Texas residents paid $2K more per capita in federal taxes than they received in federal spending; New York residents $4K more per capita; Massachusetts residents $5K more per capita; California, New Jersey and Washington state residents $7K more. Nebraska got the worst fiscal deal of any US state, with its residents paying $10K more in federal taxes than they received in federal spending