A "national divorce" between red (Republican-leaning, Trump-voting in 2024) and blue (Democratic-leaning, Harris-voting in 2024) states would involve separating into two independent entities, potentially disrupting federal tax flows, spending, trade, and shared resources. Based on 2024 data, red states are generally net recipients of federal funds (receiving more in spending than they pay in taxes), while blue states are net contributors. This dynamic suggests red states could face significant economic challenges post-separation, potentially leading to relative poverty compared to their current status. However, outcomes depend on post-divorce policies, trade agreements, and resource management—red states' lower costs and natural resources could mitigate some losses over time.

Key assumptions:

Red States (2024 Trump Wins): AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NV, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WI, WY (30 states, ~312 electoral votes).

Blue States (2024 Harris Wins): CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, VA, WA (20 states + DC, ~226 electoral votes).

Data uses 2023-2024 fiscal years (latest available); totals approximate ~$750B-$1T annual net transfer from blue to red states.

Would Red States Become Poor?

Yes, in the short-to-medium term (5-10 years), red states would likely experience economic contraction and increased poverty without blue subsidies. Analysts like Steve Rattner estimate "huge economic deficits" for red states, leading to crumbling infrastructure, higher food prices, and lost healthcare access. Here's why:

Loss of Federal Transfers: Red states receive $1.50-$3+ per $1 paid in taxes (e.g., WV: $2.91, AK: $2.65), while blue average ~$0.80-$1.00. Separation could create ~$500B+ annual shortfall for red states, forcing tax hikes (up 20-30%) or cuts to services (e.g., no new bridges, reduced welfare).

GDP and Productivity Gap: Blue states generate ~70% of U.S. GDP (~$20T of $29T total). Red states' lower GDP per capita ($60k-$70k avg vs. blue $80k+) relies on blue-driven innovation (tech, finance). Post-divorce, red GDP growth could slow 1-2% annually due to trade barriers.

Resource and Trade Dependencies: Red states produce food/energy (e.g., TX oil), but blue states provide markets and capital. Tariffs or borders could raise costs 10-15%, hitting rural economies hard. Blue states might thrive with surpluses for investments.

Poverty and Inequality: Red states already have higher poverty (15% avg vs. blue 12%) and lower median incomes ($63k vs. $74k). Without aid, poverty could rise 5-10%, per Brookings models.

In summary, red states wouldn't necessarily become "third-world" poor but would face austerity and slower growth, widening the wealth gap. Experts call it a "terrible idea" due to interdependence. For X opinions, many agree red states would suffer (e.g., "collapse in economic ruin").

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5708610&forum_id=2).#49316506)