Which States Pay More in Federal Taxes Than They Receive?
In FY 2024, 19 states paid more in federal taxes than they received in federal spending. California led with a $275.6 billion net contribution, while Nebraska topped the per-capita list at $9,531 per person. On the other side, 31 states received more than they paid — with Virginia taking the largest share at $89.0 billion net.
Complete List — All 19 Donor States (2026)
In fiscal year 2024, exactly 19 states operated as “donor states,” meaning their residents and businesses paid more in total federal taxes than they received back in federal funding. According to federal revenue and spending data compiled by USAFacts, California, New York, and Texas generated the highest absolute net contributions to the federal treasury.
| State | Total Paid | Total Received | Net Contribution | Per Capita Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | $803.9B | $528.3B | +$275.6B | +$7,073 |
| New York | $385.0B | $308.5B | +$76.5B | +$3,912 |
| Texas | $418.0B | $349.9B | +$68.1B | +$2,246 |
| Massachusetts | $153.1B | $105.2B | +$47.9B | +$6,841 |
| New Jersey | $151.4B | $111.0B | +$40.4B | +$4,348 |
| Illinois | $176.8B | $140.2B | +$36.6B | +$2,916 |
| Washington | $124.9B | $91.3B | +$33.6B | +$4,300 |
| Minnesota | $121.1B | $69.8B | +$51.3B | +$8,702 |
| Pennsylvania | $170.2B | $145.1B | +$25.1B | +$1,936 |
| Georgia | $122.5B | $101.4B | +$21.1B | +$1,913 |
| Colorado | $84.2B | $63.5B | +$20.7B | +$3,524 |
| Nebraska | $43.2B | $24.4B | +$18.8B | +$9,531 |
| North Carolina | $121.7B | $112.5B | +$9.2B | +$849 |
| Connecticut | $64.8B | $55.9B | +$8.9B | +$2,459 |
| Ohio | $145.4B | $138.8B | +$6.6B | +$560 |
| Utah | $40.1B | $34.2B | +$5.9B | +$1,727 |
| New Hampshire | $21.5B | $17.3B | +$4.2B | +$2,994 |
| Delaware | $18.4B | $14.5B | +$3.9B | +$3,757 |
| Oregon | $51.2B | $49.8B | +$1.4B | +$331 |
California
Total Paid$803.9B
Total Received$528.3B
Net Contribution+$275.6B
Per Capita+$7,073
New York
Total Paid$385.0B
Total Received$308.5B
Net Contribution+$76.5B
Per Capita+$3,912
Texas
Total Paid$418.0B
Total Received$349.9B
Net Contribution+$68.1B
Per Capita+$2,246
Massachusetts
Total Paid$153.1B
Total Received$105.2B
Net Contribution+$47.9B
Per Capita+$6,841
New Jersey
Total Paid$151.4B
Total Received$111.0B
Net Contribution+$40.4B
Per Capita+$4,348
Illinois
Total Paid$176.8B
Total Received$140.2B
Net Contribution+$36.6B
Per Capita+$2,246
Washington
Total Paid$124.9B
Total Received$91.3B
Net Contribution+$33.6B
Per Capita+$4,300
Minnesota
Total Paid$121.1B
Total Received$69.8B
Net Contribution+$51.3B
Per Capita+$8,702
Pennsylvania
Total Paid$170.2B
Total Received$145.1B
Net Contribution+$25.1B
Per Capita+$1,936
Georgia
Total Paid$122.5B
Total Received$101.4B
Net Contribution+$21.1B
Per Capita+$1,913
Colorado
Total Paid$84.2B
Total Received$63.5B
Net Contribution+$20.7B
Per Capita+$3,524
Nebraska
Total Paid$43.2B
Total Received$24.4B
Net Contribution+$18.8B
Per Capita+$9,531
North Carolina
Total Paid$121.7B
Total Received$112.5B
Net Contribution+$9.2B
Per Capita+$849
Connecticut
Total Paid$64.8B
Total Received$55.9B
Net Contribution+$8.9B
Per Capita+$2,459
Ohio
Total Paid$145.4B
Total Received$138.8B
Net Contribution+$6.6B
Per Capita+$560
Utah
Total Paid$40.1B
Total Received$34.2B
Net Contribution+$5.9B
Per Capita+$1,727
New Hampshire
Total Paid$21.5B
Total Received$17.3B
Net Contribution+$4.2B
Per Capita+$2,994
Delaware
Total Paid$18.4B
Total Received$14.5B
Net Contribution+$3.9B
Per Capita+$3,757
Oregon
Total Paid$51.2B
Total Received$49.8B
Net Contribution+$1.4B
Per Capita+$331
Note: Total net dollar contributions and per-capita metrics tell two different stories. Populous giants like California lead in total volume due to sheer economic scale, whereas smaller states like Nebraska and Minnesota rank highest per resident because of elevated corporate tax collections or higher average individual income brackets.
All 31 States That Receive More Than They Pay
A total of 31 states received more in federal expenditures than their residents and corporations paid in federal taxes during fiscal year 2024. Data from USASpending.gov and USAFacts indicates these states rely heavily on federal funding for defense contracts, military bases, or low-income entitlement programs.
| State | Net Amount Received | Per Capita Benefit | Main Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | +$89.0B | +$10,188 | High concentration of military bases and federal defense contractors |
| Alabama | +$44.7B | +$8,744 | Elevated federal funding for defense installations and aerospace infrastructure |
| South Carolina | +$38.9B | +$7,241 | Large volume of federal procurement contracts and retirement benefits |
| Florida | +$38.4B | +$1,672 | High influx of federal Social Security and Medicare disbursements for retirees |
| Kentucky | +$37.2B | +$8,230 | Significant reliance on federal Medicaid funding and social safety net programs |
| Indiana | +$31.3B | +$4,561 | Higher levels of federal highway funding and social program assistance |
| Missouri | +$28.2B | +$4,534 | Substantial federal procurement spending and defense infrastructure |
| Maryland | +$27.1B | +$4,411 | Heavy volume of federal salaries and research grants for national agencies |
| New Mexico | +$32.6B | +$15,448 | Vast federal funding for national laboratories and military installations |
| Tennessee | +$25.7B | +$3,614 | Extensive federal allocation for infrastructure grants and social programs |
| Arizona | +$24.8B | +$3,338 | Elevated federal spending on healthcare programs and tribal funding |
| Louisiana | +$24.2B | +$5,294 | High volume of federal disaster relief and Medicaid assistance |
| Oklahoma | +$22.7B | +$5,605 | Large presence of federal military installations and agricultural subsidies |
| Mississippi | +$21.4B | +$7,276 | Heavy reliance on federal safety net programs and low local tax revenue |
| Michigan | +$18.4B | +$1,834 | Significant levels of federal funding for healthcare and public infrastructure |
| West Virginia | +$22.4B | +$12,660 | High volume of federal disability assistance and retirement benefits per capita |
| Arkansas | +$14.8B | +$4,821 | Substantial federal spending on nutritional assistance and rural development |
| Wisconsin | +$14.2B | +$2,398 | Elevated federal outlays for agricultural programs and health grants |
| Iowa | +$11.6B | +$3,614 | Heavy federal safety net allocations and agricultural price-support programs |
| Kansas | +$11.3B | +$3,844 | Significant federal aerospace procurement and military base funding |
| Alaska | +$11.0B | +$14,965 | Massive federal land management spending and defense outlays per resident |
| South Dakota | +$6.8B | +$7,391 | High per-person federal funding for tribal lands and agricultural programs |
| Idaho | +$6.1B | +$3,096 | Substantial federal spending on public lands and atomic energy research |
| Maine | +$5.9B | +$4,214 | Aging demographic drawing high per-person Social Security and Medicare |
| Hawaii | +$5.6B | +$3,916 | Major concentration of strategic federal military bases and naval yards |
| North Dakota | +$5.2B | +$6,667 | Extensive federal energy development grants and military installation outlays |
| Montana | +$5.1B | +$4,474 | High federal spending per resident on national parks and highway infrastructure |
| Rhode Island | +$4.8B | +$4,364 | Elevated federal healthcare disbursements relative to state population |
| Vermont | +$3.5B | +$5,410 | High per capita federal grant funding for education and social services |
| Wyoming | +$2.9B | +$4,915 | Heavy federal outlays for public mineral lands and rural infrastructure |
Virginia
Net Amount:+$89.0B
Per Capita:+$10,188
Main Reason:High concentration of military bases and federal defense contractors
Alabama
Net Amount:+$44.7B
Per Capita:+$8,744
Main Reason:Elevated federal funding for defense installations and aerospace infrastructure
South Carolina
Net Amount:+$38.9B
Per Capita:+$7,241
Main Reason:Large volume of federal procurement contracts and retirement benefits
Florida
Net Amount:+$38.4B
Per Capita:+$1,672
Main Reason:High influx of federal Social Security and Medicare disbursements for retirees
Kentucky
Net Amount:+$37.2B
Per Capita:+$8,230
Main Reason:Significant reliance on federal Medicaid funding and social safety net programs
Indiana
Net Amount:+$31.3B
Per Capita:+$4,561
Main Reason:Higher levels of federal highway funding and social program assistance
Missouri
Net Amount:+$28.2B
Per Capita:+$4,534
Main Reason:Substantial federal procurement spending and defense infrastructure
Maryland
Net Amount:+$27.1B
Per Capita:+$4,411
Main Reason:Heavy volume of federal salaries and research grants for national agencies
New Mexico
Net Amount:+$32.6B
Per Capita:+$15,448
Main Reason:Vast federal funding for national laboratories and military installations
Tennessee
Net Amount:+$25.7B
Per Capita:+$3,614
Main Reason:Extensive federal allocation for infrastructure grants and social programs
Arizona
Net Amount:+$24.8B
Per Capita:+$3,338
Main Reason:Elevated federal spending on healthcare programs and tribal funding
Louisiana
Net Amount:+$24.2B
Per Capita:+$5,294
Main Reason:High volume of federal disaster relief and Medicaid assistance
Oklahoma
Net Amount:+$22.7B
Per Capita:+$5,605
Main Reason:Large presence of federal military installations and agricultural subsidies
Mississippi
Net Amount:+$21.4B
Per Capita:+$7,276
Main Reason:Heavy reliance on federal safety net programs and low local tax revenue
Michigan
Net Amount:+$18.4B
Per Capita:+$1,834
Main Reason:Significant levels of federal funding for healthcare and public infrastructure
West Virginia
Net Amount:+$22.4B
Per Capita:+$12,660
Main Reason:High volume of federal disability assistance and retirement benefits per capita
Arkansas
Net Amount:+$14.8B
Per Capita:+$4,821
Main Reason:Substantial federal spending on nutritional assistance and rural development
Wisconsin
Net Amount:+$14.2B
Per Capita:+$2,398
Main Reason:Elevated federal outlays for agricultural programs and health grants
Iowa
Net Amount:+$11.6B
Per Capita:+$3,614
Main Reason:Heavy federal safety net allocations and agricultural price-support programs
Kansas
Net Amount:+$11.3B
Per Capita:+$3,844
Main Reason:Significant federal aerospace procurement and military base funding
Alaska
Net Amount:+$11.0B
Per Capita:+$14,965
Main Reason:Massive federal land management spending and defense outlays per resident
South Dakota
Net Amount:+$6.8B
Per Capita:+$7,391
Main Reason:High per-person federal funding for tribal lands and agricultural programs
Idaho
Net Amount:+$6.1B
Per Capita:+$3,096
Main Reason:Substantial federal spending on public lands and atomic energy research
Maine
Net Amount:+$5.9B
Per Capita:+$4,214
Main Reason:Aging demographic drawing high per-person Social Security and Medicare
Hawaii
Net Amount:+$5.6B
Per Capita:+$3,916
Main Reason:Major concentration of strategic federal military bases and naval yards
North Dakota
Net Amount:+$5.2B
Per Capita:+$6,667
Main Reason:Extensive federal energy development grants and military installation outlays
Montana
Net Amount:+$5.1B
Per Capita:+$4,474
Main Reason:High federal spending per resident on national parks and highway infrastructure
Rhode Island
Net Amount:+$4.8B
Per Capita:+$4,364
Main Reason:Elevated federal healthcare disbursements relative to state population
Vermont
Net Amount:+$3.5B
Per Capita:+$5,410
Main Reason:High per capita federal grant funding for education and social services
Wyoming
Net Amount:+$2.9B
Per Capita:+$4,915
Main Reason:Heavy federal outlays for public mineral lands and rural infrastructure
Why Do Some States Pay More? (4 Real Reasons)
States become donor states primarily due to structural economic differences, such as higher concentrations of high-earning individuals and major corporate headquarters. These factors automatically increase a state’s federal tax liability under the progressive U.S. tax code while keeping its federal funding baseline relatively flat.
1. High Incomes = High Income Tax
States like Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Connecticut host a disproportionate number of high-income households. Because the federal individual income tax system is progressive, these high-earning residents are taxed at higher marginal rates, generating significantly more revenue for the federal government per capita.
2. Corporate Headquarters Effect
Corporate tax liabilities are credited to the state where a company is legally or operationally headquartered. For example, federal corporate tax collections from tech giants like Apple, Google, and Meta are credited directly to California because their global headquarters are located there. Similarly, Delaware acts as a major incorporation hub for Fortune 500 companies, causing it to send an elevated $24,575 per person to the federal treasury.
3. Large Working-Age Population
States with a high ratio of working-age adults to retirees naturally generate more federal revenue through individual income and payroll taxes. Conversely, states with older demographics receive vastly more federal outlays relative to what they contribute. This imbalance occurs because the federal government automatically redirects billions in non-discretionary spending to older populations through Medicare and Social Security programs.
4. Low Federal Infrastructure in State
Donor states typically lack major federal installations, expansive public lands, or sprawling military infrastructure. Without these facilities, a state misses out on steady streams of federal payroll allocations, procurement spending, and maintenance budgets. Consequently, the tax revenue generated within its borders vastly outpaces the operational funding returned by Washington.
Why Do Some States Receive More? (3 Real Reasons)
States receive more federal spending than they contribute due to concentrated geopolitical infrastructure, extensive federal land obligations, and lower localized tax bases. These conditions trigger statutory federal funding mechanisms that automatically inject capital into state economies.
1. Military Bases + Defense Contracts
Virginia receives $89.0B in net federal spending largely because it hosts the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and major naval shipyards. Alaska operates under a similar dynamic, housing over 46,000 military personnel within a small total population of approximately 740,000 residents. In New Mexico, federal funding is driven by critical national defense assets, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Kirtland Air Force Base.
2. Large Native American + Rural Populations
States with substantial tribal lands and vast rural areas receive specialized, non-discretionary federal funding allocations. The federal government fulfills statutory treaty obligations by financing the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in states like Alaska, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Additionally, the federal government covers the extensive maintenance costs required to manage millions of acres of federal public lands in these regions.
3. Lower Tax Base = Less Paid In
States like West Virginia and Mississippi have lower median household incomes and higher poverty rates compared to the national average. Due to the progressive structure of federal individual and corporate tax brackets, residents and businesses in these states pay very little into the federal treasury. Because their baseline tax contributions are low while their utilization of federal Medicaid and social safety net programs is high, they remain permanent net receivers.
Total Dollars vs Per-Capita — Why Both Matter
Evaluating federal tax contributions through a single metric often distorts the fiscal reality of how states interact with the federal treasury. Comparing total net dollar contributions against per-capita data highlights how heavily a state’s population scale influences its macroeconomic footprint versus its individual tax burden.
| State | Total Net | Per-Capita Net |
| California | #1 Donor ($275.6B) | Mid-range |
| Nebraska | Smaller total | #1 Per-Capita ($9,531) |
| Delaware | Small total | Very high per-capita |
Large-population states inevitably dominate total dollar categories because of their massive baseline aggregate economies. Conversely, smaller states frequently emerge as intense outliers on a per-capita basis due to localized spikes in corporate tax registration or concentrated individual wealth. Both analytical views are mathematically accurate; they simply evaluate economic output through entirely different demographic lenses.
Red States vs Blue States — What the Data Actually Shows
Public debates often oversimplify fiscal dependency by labeling “blue states” as donors and “red states” as dependent recipients. A systematic review of state tax burden analyses and federal obligation records reveals that federal spending flows along economic and geographical lines rather than partisan boundaries.
| Category | Donor States | Recipient States |
| Traditionally Blue | CA, NY, MN, WA, NJ | IL, OR, ME |
| Traditionally Red | TX, NE | VA, AL, MS, WV, SC |
| Mixed/Purple | CO, GA | AZ, NC |
The actual data indicates there is no clean, uniform political party pattern governing balance of payments. For instance, Texas is a reliably conservative state yet functions as one of the country’s largest absolute net donor states due to its massive energy and corporate sectors. Demographically, Virginia routinely shifts blue in federal elections but remains the single largest net recipient of federal dollars because of the heavy geographic concentration of military infrastructure, defense contracting, and federal intelligence headquarters. The core drivers of federal cash flow are localized income levels, structural corporate footprints, and defense infrastructure—not state-level political control.
What's Included in These Numbers — And What's Not
Balance-of-payments tracking relies on clear, standardized metrics from agencies like the IRS and USASpending.gov to trace the flow of tax dollars. However, standard state-by-state funding calculations do not encapsulate the entirety of the federal budget.
| ✅ Included | ❌ NOT Included |
| Individual income tax | Deficit spending |
| Payroll tax | Interest on the national debt |
| Business/corporate tax | Select, non-geographic Department of the Interior spending |
| Social Security payments received | |
| Medicaid/Medicare received | |
| Military contracts received | |
| Federal grants to states |
This distinct boundaries system explains why some people find balance-of-payments analyses incomplete; it is structurally comprehensive but cannot easily spatialize non-geographic national costs. Furthermore, modifying the framework—such as excluding major safety net outlays like Social Security and Medicare—would instantly shift the rankings, turning several current donor states into recipient states.
Frequently Asked Questions
California generates the highest absolute total, contributing a net positive $275.6B to the federal treasury in fiscal year 2024. Its large population and high concentration of high-earning individuals and corporations drive this volume.
Nebraska ranks as the highest per-capita donor state, contributing a net positive $9,531 per resident. This position is largely driven by localized spikes in corporate tax collections and high average individual income tax brackets.
Virginia receives the largest volume of net federal expenditures, taking in $89.0B more than its residents and businesses pay in taxes.
Yes, individuals and businesses across all 50 states are subject to the same structural U.S. tax code and contribute individual, payroll, and corporate taxes. The donor or recipient status simply reflects whether the aggregate money flowing out of a state is larger or smaller than the federal dollars flowing back in.
0 Comments