What's wrong with replacing all current Federal taxes with a state-rate tax?

[Anarchist420]

That's what I'd like to know.

It would make appropriate use of the Census.

Combined with a repeal of the 17th Amendment, it would greatly reduce the power of the Federal Government. The State legislatures wouldn't vote for Senators who vote for deficits. The IRS would be abolished which isn't possible with the so-called FairTax.

How is a FairTax or a FlatTax better Tax Reform than a State-Rate Tax?

28th Amendment:
Sec. 1. The 17th Amendment is hereby Repealed.
Sec. 2. Congress shall make no law affecting how the States elect their Senators.

29th Amendment:
Section 1. The 16th Amendment is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Congress shall collect taxes from the states, in proportion to their population at the time of the most recent census.
Section 3. Federal powers of taxation shall be strictly limited to what is specifically enumerated in the second section of this article.

 

[techs]

Yeah, we don't need roads, or infrastructure. Or to elect our representives.

God save the King!

 

[herm0016]

techs: feds are still getting money. reading the posts is sometimes important

 

[fskimospy]

That's what I'd like to know.

It would make appropriate use of the Census.

Combined with a repeal of the 17th Amendment, it would greatly reduce the power of the Federal Government. The State legislatures wouldn't vote for Senators who vote for deficits. The IRS would be abolished which isn't possible with the so-called FairTax.

How is a FairTax or a FlatTax better Tax Reform than a State-Rate Tax?

28th Amendment:
Sec. 1. The 17th Amendment is hereby Repealed.
Sec. 2. Congress shall make no law affecting how the States elect their Senators.

29th Amendment:
Section 1. The 16th Amendment is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Congress shall collect taxes from the states, in proportion to their population at the time of the most recent census.
Section 3. Federal powers of taxation shall be strictly limited to what is specifically enumerated in the second section of this article.

Oh don't worry, the flat tax isn't really better than a state rate tax. They are both awful ideas.

I'm a bit impressed by the sheer quantity of horrible ideas you're able to come up with, but your continuing attempts to return to the articles of confederation are really horrible. I mean I guess it doesn't really matter as your ideas enjoy almost no support, but just for your own sake you should really make a better effort to understand how government works before trying to change it.

 

[techs]

techs: feds are still getting money. reading the posts is sometimes important

I read it fully. It's ridiculous. Just another way to transfer the cost of government away from the super rich to everyone else.

 

[bmaverick]

We have no state income tax in TN. I like it that way a whole bunch.

 

[techs]

We have no state income tax in TN. I like it that way a whole bunch.

Probably not for long, if the tea baggers have anything to say about it.
Once they cut huge amounts from the Federal budget Tn. will no longer receive the subsidies it does from the wealthy states. IIRC Tn. is a big recipient state. So, now you'll have to pay for those things yourself, instead of having it subsidized.
btw funny how a state built by the Tennessee Valley Authority would not have an income tax.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Other than the country transitioning into about 12 states and a bunch of wasteland in between them.....nothing.

Most of the states are unable to support themselves and don't generate enough revenue to be solvent, especially all of the farming states and the entire "Bible belt". Their products (food (corn & wheat) primarily) would be taxed through the roof at the state level which would cause a massive spike in prices at the national level.

But other than that, it's a great idea.

 

[EagleKeeper]

We hear of CA whining now abouty the unfair taxation transfers.

Now under this, they would have to pay their FAIR SHARE.

Interesting on how they would really react to this.

Over tax the rich can produce interesting backlash.

 

[Linflas]

Other than the country transitioning into about 12 states and a bunch of wasteland in between them.....nothing.

Most of the states are unable to support themselves and don't generate enough revenue to be solvent, especially all of the farming states and the entire "Bible belt". Their products (food (corn & wheat) primarily) would be taxed through the roof at the state level which would cause a massive spike in prices at the national level.

But other than that, it's a great idea.

Every state in the Union is capable of supporting itself absent the huge list funded and unfunded Federal mandates. They managed to do this just fine from 1776 to 1932.

 

[Tom]

We have no state income tax in TN. I like it that way a whole bunch.

Yea, the 9.25% sales tax rate here is just great !

 

[rudder]

Yeah, we don't need roads, or infrastructure. Or to elect our representives.

God save the King!

That is how the Federal government used to collect taxes. The states would do the collecting and send the money to the Federal Government. This allowed states to have more individual power.

 

[Linflas]

Yea, the 9.25% sales tax rate here is just great !

Do you really think you would be better off with a state income tax in exchange for a lower sales tax rate? If given the choice I would much prefer that Virginia abolish the income tax and the remaining remnant of the car tax and raise the sales tax to replace it.

 

[rudder]

Probably not for long, if the tea baggers have anything to say about it.
Once they cut huge amounts from the Federal budget Tn. will no longer receive the subsidies it does from the wealthy states. IIRC Tn. is a big recipient state. So, now you'll have to pay for those things yourself, instead of having it subsidized.
btw funny how a state built by the Tennessee Valley Authority would not have an income tax.

Do you just pull stuff out of your ass for the sake of argument? Tennesseans pay a state tax along with a Federal tax.

And please stop with this donor/recipient state crap. I bet the majority of California's citizens are not donors by any means. California benefits from having a larger number of wealthy industries within their borders compared to other states. This does not mean that the average citizen sends more the the Federal government than they get back. Let's look at those EIC numbers. Tennesse receives $1.08 for every dollar it sends to Washington D.C. We do not have hollywood or silicon valley, yet we have citizens on Medicare and have an extensive interstate system to maintain.

Please list any and all subsidies that the State of Tennessee receives that California does not.

Anyway, Tennessee was handling providing health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions and people with the inability to afford insurance... although financially troubled, obamacare will put the final nail in the coffin of this program. Thanks to obamacare offloading $400 million/year in addition medicare expenses to the state.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you really think you would be better off with a state income tax in exchange for a lower sales tax rate? If given the choice I would much prefer that Virginia abolish the income tax and the remaining remnant of the car tax and raise the sales tax to replace it.

Yes it would probably be better. States have long shown that they have a revenue target that is established by what the citizens of the state want, and so they implement taxes of whatever sort in order to meet it. When people in California foolishly eviscerated their property taxes, other taxes replaced it. Texas has no income tax, but some of the highest property taxes in the nation. Etc, etc.

What would likely be best of all is to have low sales/income taxes and replace them with a property tax, it's one of the most stable sources of revenue. Sales taxes are a horrible way to raise state revenue because they fluctuate wildly between economic boom times and recessions, making decent financial planning extraordinarily difficult.

 

[Thump553]

If I understand it correctly, the gist of OP's argument is a federal flat rate tax per capita. Rather than the federal government tax each individual for that flat rate the OP imposes the taxes on the states and lets them sort it out.

My view: Perhaps the single most regressive tax system ever proposed. The same tax would be imposed on a blind quadriplegic who has never worked as a multibillionaire. Because a huge portion of the population (50%?) would have no chance of paying thier supposed share of this tax, OP imposes the obligaiton on the states.

Conclusion: A really, really dumb idea.

 

[Anarchist420]

No, you didn't get it exactly right. The States choose how they want to tax their citizens. A blind quadriplegic can't work, so he/she doesn't pay taxes.

What the fEderal government does is passes a budget, say it's 2.8T. Then the states are taxed based upon their population in the house of rep as indicated in the most recent decennial census.
For example:
VA has 8 representatives. VA owes (8/435*2.8T). Virginia can choose to pay the Federal Government by raising their user fees, fines, sales tax, their income tax, new taxes, or any combination of the 5.

Massachusetts could make their how they pay the federal government even more progressive than federal income tax if they wish.

 

[Thump553]

But the gist of your system is a flat tax per person, correct? The only twist is you impose the payment obligation upon the states rather than the individuals.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you didn't get it exactly right. The States choose how they want to tax their citizens. A blind quadriplegic can't work, so he/she doesn't pay taxes.

What the fEderal government does is passes a budget, say it's 2.8T. Then the states are taxed based upon their population in the house of rep as indicated in the most recent decennial census.
For example:
VA has 8 representatives. VA owes (8/435*2.8T). Virginia can choose to pay the Federal Government by raising their user fees, fines, sales tax, their income tax, new taxes, or any combination of the 5.

Massachusetts could make their how they pay the federal government even more progressive than federal income tax if they wish.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/incpovhlth/2009/statemhi3_09.xls (NOTE: it's an excel file to download)

This means that Connecticut, median household income $66,654, population ~3 million, will be levied half the taxes of Missouri, median income $36,650, population ~6 million.

Implementing taxes on a state level like this where one state's median income is nearly double that of another will create a situation where either Missouri's taxes are crushingly high, or Connecticut's hilariously low. Yes boys and girls, Anarchist420 wants to apply the exact same level of taxation to two different areas separated by almost 100% in income levels.

We know that you're poorly educated, but do you ever think these things through before posting them?

 

[piasabird]

What is a state-rate tax?

 

[QuantumPion]

The way we are taxed is secondary to the issue of curbing spending in the first place. We could have the most obtuse and terrible tax system imaginable, but if the amount was only 5% of GDP no one would mind it really. Similarly we could have the most fair and easy tax system imaginable (tax collected by hookers that give you free service for all it matters) but if federal spending is 33% of the GDP it will suck regardless.

 

[Anarchist420]

But the gist of your system is a flat tax per person, correct? The only twist is you impose the payment obligation upon the states rather than the individuals.

No, it's not. The states decide who they want to tax and how much they want to tax them, and how they want to tax them.

 

[her209]

No, you didn't get it exactly right. The States choose how they want to tax their citizens. A blind quadriplegic can't work, so he/she doesn't pay taxes.

What the fEderal government does is passes a budget, say it's 2.8T. Then the states are taxed based upon their population in the house of rep as indicated in the most recent decennial census.
For example:
VA has 8 representatives. VA owes (8/435*2.8T). Virginia can choose to pay the Federal Government by raising their user fees, fines, sales tax, their income tax, new taxes, or any combination of the 5.

Massachusetts could make their how they pay the federal government even more progressive than federal income tax if they wish.

If you believe that the federal government is a union of 50 states, then why not divide the 2.8T by the number of states?