OK, one more

[lyman]

With a very, very broad brush. Another way of putting it is states with more people, or at least more population density, have a very strong tendency to produce more tax revenue and states with fewer people produce less.

add to that, some are more agricultural based, vs manufacturing, and also add the banking/investment/stock market type revenues,


interesting about NM,, wondering what the population percentage is for Native Americans (vs other states) and if that affects the Fed Monies received?
Montana had a high percentage as well, , both have large reservations on them

[Art]

interesting about NM,, wondering what the population percentage is for Native Americans....

It's 11.5%

[Roadkingtrax]

Native land is federal land, not the state in which it sits adjacent to geographically.

[lyman]

Native land is federal land, not the state in which it sits adjacent to geographically.

land yes, but benefits etc paid out counted as State?

[Art]

Native land is federal land, not the state in which it sits adjacent to geographically.

Two things:

Lyman asked about the population percentage of Native Americans, not the amount of land in the reserves.

The land in the reserve is not technically Federal land though it is administered in large part by the Federal Government which of course increases the amount of Federal expenditure in New Mexico.

[Roadkingtrax]

land yes, but benefits etc paid out counted as State?

No. The states do not provide funding, and are not a pathway for federal monies to Indian reservations.

- - - Updated - - -

Two things:

Lyman asked about the population percentage of Native Americans, not the amount of land in the reserves.

The land in the reserve is not technically Federal land though it is administered in large part by the Federal Government which of course increases the amount of Federal expenditure in New Mexico.

You've misunderstood.

The statement was about money as it pertained to the overall Native American population, it's not part of the state economy. So, higher populations of NA don't necessarily equate to more money for the state coffers. One already knows the reservations reside within the state or across boundaries of multiple states, and are therfore exempt from any state jurisdiction when recognized by the federal government as Indian land.

[lyman]

so wondering why both (Montana and NM) are so high

since the NA population are not big takers, not much else happening (production or revenue generation wise) in either state....

[Art]

so wondering why both (Montana and NM) are so high

since the NA population are not big takers, not much else happening (production or revenue generation wise) in either state....

Most of it, I assume, is Federally supported infrastructure, roads, highways, bridges, airports which undoubtedly take a lot more bucks per capita than in...say...California or Florida. Just a possibility.

[lyman]

googly

New Mexico's Economy

Tourism, military, and the oil and gas industry are the major industries in New Mexico. They provide most of the jobs and account for a large amount of the government spending in the state.

[rayg]

Always good to see which states pay and which states have their mitts out when it comes to Federal dollars.

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/sta...al-government/

"Democratic-voting blue states tend to be wealthier and pay more to the federal government than they get. In contrast, Republican-voting red states tend to have less wealth and receive more federal government funds than they pay. In the MoneyGeek rankings, 8 of the 10 most dependent states are considered red states."


Or to put it another way.. Generally more population equals more tax payers, and the more tax money received by the government and less needed to pay out.

[Johnny P]

Strawman meet scarecrow.

Just like an honest democrat. Mythical figures.