why wouldn't this work?

[TrophyHusband 0]

i'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell me. what would happen if we got rid of federal income taxes and increased state income tax instead? the federal government would get their revenue from the states instead of the people. states would pay for all of their own shit instead of us paying the feds and the feds giving the money back to the states. this would create competition between states for businesses and residents. think about how much money would be saved just in how votes are "bought" by promising money to the states via riders to bills. it seems to me it would be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

That would probably work and the politicians would at first love the idea at the state level, until they get caught stealing as usual.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

think about ... how votes are "bought" by promising money to the states via riders to bills.

There's a reason. Who would give up that power?

Quote

it seems to me it would be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars.

Empire building. You don't have a huge staff and budget unless you can waste some.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

i'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell me. what would happen if we got rid of federal income taxes and increased state income tax instead? the federal government would get their revenue from the states instead of the people. states would pay for all of their own shit instead of us paying the feds and the feds giving the money back to the states. this would create competition between states for businesses and residents. think about how much money would be saved just in how votes are "bought" by promising money to the states via riders to bills. it seems to me it would be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars.

I wonder how states like Iowa and Montana would take to paying the feds for military bases that are overwhelmingly clustered in places like CA, FL and TX?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>the federal government would get their revenue from the states instead of
>the people.

OK. Let's say this happens, and all states adopt a "we're not giving the US government jack shit" policy to attract people. The US military collapses for want of funding.

Then northern Alaska is invaded by a Chinese mining company. Which states supply the troops to defend Alaska? Or do we just let China have it?

[TrophyHusband 0]

i don't have an answer to that. this isn't a real thought out plan, just trying to spark some discussion.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[TrophyHusband 0]

to keep states from doing this, there would have to be some incentive to pay. my first thought was that the state would lose their representation for not paying, but that would likely cause more problems than it would solve, you got any ideas?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[billvon 3,120]

> to keep states from doing this, there would have to be some incentive to pay.

Well, you could require them to each pay X percent of the budget based on population, since the people of the US benefit equally from the protection afforded by the military. The total budget would still be voted on by our representatives, which represent each of the states.

That would have the effect of allowing each state to choose its method of taxation. Total tax burden would stay about the same, though. So if the idea was to pay less taxes, this wouldn't accomplish anything.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>the federal government would get their revenue from the states instead of
>the people.

OK. Let's say this happens, and all states adopt a "we're not giving the US government jack shit" policy to attract people.

Let's say it doesn't happen, but all people adopt a "we're not giving the US government jack shit" policy to lead richer lives...

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

That would have the effect of allowing each state to choose its method of taxation. Total tax burden would stay about the same, though. So if the idea was to pay less taxes, this wouldn't accomplish anything.

Not necessarily. Another component of his proposal was that each state "pays for their own shit", so not as many pork barrel projects would be traded back & forth as riders, and social services could be reduced in those states that chose to do so.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>Let's say it doesn't happen, but all people adopt a "we're not giving
>the US government jack shit" policy to lead richer lives... "

I'm pretty sure that most people would not consider prison a "richer life!"

Now, if people were smart enough to decide "we're not spending money on Iraq, Exxon and presidential 747's" THEN you'd start making a difference. Until then, "tax cuts" are just another way to buy another credit card so you never have to pay your bills.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>Let's say it doesn't happen, but all people adopt a "we're not giving
>the US government jack shit" policy to lead richer lives... "

I'm pretty sure that most people would not consider prison a "richer life!"

Like you, I said *all*, in which case who would pay for those prisons? In a more reasonable scenario, a small percentage of states might try to skip out on their debt, in which case the Republic would take punitive measures just like it does now to the small percentage of people who try to skip out on their taxes. And yes, I am in absolute agreement with you that spending must be cut to make tax cuts feasible. Otherwise we're just running up debt to pass on to future generations. As in any budget, be it personal, corporate, or government, at some point, constant borrowing will lead to an amount of debt that is unmanageable with attainable income. At that point, bills start getting skipped with more and more frequency, and eventually finances lay in ruin. I don't think we're far from such a situation. Should our government start kissing ass now to hopefully garner some forgiveness for our debts later? I'd rather we not go down that route. I'd prefer we quit spending so much fucking money and try reducing our mountain of debt rather than increasing it.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>I'd prefer we quit spending so much fucking money and try reducing
>our mountain of debt rather than increasing it.

I agree. But until then, tax cuts are as dumb as getting an ARM that you can't afford in hopes that a rapidly rising market will "save" you.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

i'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell me. what would happen if we got rid of federal income taxes and increased state income tax instead? the federal government would get their revenue from the states instead of the people. states would pay for all of their own shit instead of us paying the feds and the feds giving the money back to the states. this would create competition between states for businesses and residents. think about how much money would be saved just in how votes are "bought" by promising money to the states via riders to bills. it seems to me it would be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars.

But...but....then we couldn't afford to start any more cool wars!!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I wonder how states like Iowa and Montana would take to paying the feds for military bases that are overwhelmingly clustered in places like CA, FL and TX?

What cluster of bases are you speaking of? This isn't the 80s anymore.

[ExAFO 0]

What you propose is almost exactly the scenario that the Articles of Confederation brought into being. It did not work, so the Constitution was written.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[TrophyHusband 0]

why didn't that work? is it a hurdle that could be overcome?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com