Statistics like these often overlay with demographic maps. In all of these states, there are swaths of geography that fall along color and income lines. If we want to change the numbers, taxing prosperous states to benefit these poorer ones would be beneficial.
So red states don't want state income tax in their states. Yet when it comes to taxing somebody else for the benefit of the red states, the red states are all for it. It is just such typical conservative position that wealth redistribution is a bad thing, until the conservatives are the beneficiaries, and then they are all for it.
In this specific case what would be the point of additional money given that the state is actively suppressing reproductive healthcare?
The numbers show a deficiency in the social net of the red states. We know they have large minority populations.
Shouldn’t the progressive position be to offer help from the states with higher incomes?
that is exactly what blue states have been doing by pushing for better social net, for medicaid expansion (all these things are de-facto financed by the blue states (net "givers") not the red states (net "takers")), yet the red states governments have been either blocking directly or obstructing that help to the poor and minorities by various things like onerous "work requirements", by suppressing reproductive care, etc.
>Arkansas has a state income tax.
4% :)