pull down to refresh
31 sats \ 6 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 30 Jan \ parent \ on: William McKinley: Prostitute of Protectionism Politics_And_Law
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.
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.
reply
In other words, a capitation tax. As long as it is not a variable tax, I guess that meets the qualifications, but if they decide to make it progressive, legitimacy may change.
reply
The states could collect it in a progressive or regressive fashion. I'm not aware of any restrictions on how states gather taxes other than not being allowed to specifically target protected classes.
reply
Hmm……. I still have trepidations about the states doing this. I just happen to live in one of those crazier states and wouldn’t trust the government or the governor further than I can telekinetically move him out of the governor’s mansion!
reply