pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined 30 Jan \ parent \ on: William McKinley: Prostitute of Protectionism Politics_And_Law
What additional taxing authority do you see here?
This is just an obligation for them to turn over a certain amount of money to the feds, based on their populations. The states already have very broad taxing authority,
Also, I think people should leave those terrible states for their superior neighbors.
This is just an obligation for them to turn over a certain amount of money to the feds, based on their populations. The states already have very broad taxing authority,
Do they have enough auditing power to make sure the money gets to where it is supposed to go? This just doesn’t meet the smell test for those places.
Also, I think people should leave those terrible states for their superior neighbors.
I guess there are those amongst us that just don’t mind being sheered every year. The persist in living in those states because they think the weather is good or there are plenty of jobs or something.
reply
Whose auditing are you worried about?
The feds will know if a large enough transfer was made to them. Anything else raised through state taxes would just go to the state government, like it does now.
reply
The feds will know if a large enough transfer was made to them. Anything else raised through state taxes would just go to the state government, like it does now.
Are you sure about that? I don’t think it is all going to the state government. I think a there is a big slip between the cup and the lip.
reply
I'm saying there's no point in lying about anything. The feds send a bill for some multiple of the state population and it's either paid or it isn't.
Everything else that's gathered is just state tax revenue.
reply
Are you talking a capitation tax? I am not sure a capitation tax would pass muster. Haven’t they been whacked by SCOTUS in the past?
BTW, I think they would save the lies for the sheeple in those states. No lying to the Feds but lying to the people. They are doing it now with spending and moneys being brought into the state.
reply
I'm not sure, but I'm talking about levelling it on the states not on individuals.
Basically, "Here's your bill. We don't care how you pay it." That allows states like Alaska to just raise it on natural resources and tourism, while states with big wealthy cities could do more traditional taxes. The burden can be optimized by location.
reply
How do you propose to apportion the total tax bill? By population, by wealth, by acreage? The apportionment style becomes the sticking point. The constitution has something to say about that if I remember correctly.
reply
By population.
The constitution says that taxes have to be levied uniformly. Nothing's more uniform than x amount per person.