Your point about numbers suggests reading comprehension problems. Another factor you ignore is state income taxes. States like MN that have a sizable state tax pay for infrastructure and services some others depend on the federal govt for. We also have better educational systems and great economic productivity that result in a Population with a higher tax base.
Okay...
I guess I need to spell it out, because trying to coax you to read the studies isn't getting though...
The study I posted is based on 20 years of census
AND IRS data.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union - look at the bottom line on the map I posted earlier. Also
The study you keep referring to is based on one year of census data.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005 -- again ,read the bottom line.
You asked for more current data - what I provided you is more current data, the same data that the 2005 study is based on, with the added benefit of IRS tax data added into the formula, instead of simply dividing population against a surplus or deficit to come up with a base dollar figure.
-Also , as I am sure you are aware - The Economist is one of DU's approved media sources. Its Euro-centric (Its based in London), and stunningly liberal in its reporting. If The Economist can't paint a picture any worse to conservatives than the map above, then it can't be done without going straight into blatant dishonesty.
-Let me try to explain the problem with your data in a way I'm sure you'll understand....
I'm certain that like the rest of DU, you believe in man-made global warming/climate change, right ?
So, Let's say I come to you and say, "WOW ! this year is really really cold ! So much for global warming, eh ?"
What do you say? - Probably something like "One year of data is simply weather, it proves nothing."
Yet here you are trying to use one year of data to prove a point.