What about the 16th amendment? Is that not part of the constitution in your world? Unlike South Dakota, whose capital is actually in Tennessee, ever since some frat boys captured it after a football game. And county governments are even closer. And neighborhood associations are even closer than that. Why don't we just have neighborhood associations levy taxes? And then the cities can tax them, and the counties can tax the cities, and the states can tax the counties, and the feds can tax the states. That sounds like a real utopia of non-bureaucracy, all right. By having lots more layers of government, we can reduce government. barfo
Cities do charge sales tax. The 16th is a bad idea. Like Prohibition, it should be repealed. Doesn't have to be, since the Feds don't have to direct tax the people.
I'm not really seeing the compelling benefits to your idea of moving tax authority down to the states. I will stipulate that state capitals are generally physically closer to citizens than Washington DC, but that should matter a whole lot less today, when we have airplanes and email, than it did back when it took days for either a person or a message to reach Washington. Some state governments are more corrupt than the federal government. Some states will enact much more regressive tax plans than the current federal scheme. As a result, we'll have more poverty and more differentiation between the states, leading to more disruption as people and companies move from state to state. The tax benefit of being in a low tax state will be magnified, so to the extent companies move to minimize their taxes, there will be more of that. That might all sound good to you, but it doesn't sound good to me. barfo
Think of the travel expense for a Hawaiian to go to D.C. vs a $45 round trip ferry boat ride to Oahu. Now think of it as a TAX. You don't seem to want to tax the little guy.
Why would a Hawaiian want to go to DC? What would that accomplish that an email or a visit to his congressman's local office wouldn't? barfo
And what are you jabbering about companies moving, poverty, etc? No company is going to make a decision to move for any different reason than now.
Occupy White House. One representative's time is not enough, and those reps are more interested in their northern Virginia condo lifestyle than the folks back home.
The motivation to move will be stronger, because there will be more money at stake. Suppose, for instance, one state (let's call it "Texas") decides that corporations don't have to pay the amount they currently pay in US income taxes. That will provide an extra motivation that doesn't currently exist for companies of a certain sort to move to Texas. Similarly, let's say that one state (let's call it "Texas") decides that instead of having corporate income taxes, they'll have a whopping big sales tax. That will make the poor people in Texas poorer. Now do you get it? barfo
So you want to change the way we levy taxes, simply in order to make the Occupy protests easier on the protesters? You know we have these tools nowadays called "TV" and "the Internet". You can protest close to home and still make a difference. Tons of people are doing so right now, a few blocks from my office (3000 miles from DC). barfo
Texas won't be around very long if all their people move away because they're poor and overpaying taxes. You don't seem to get it. Nevada has a $35 per head state business tax. Where are all the companies clamoring to move there? They have no personal income tax as well. Florida has no personal income tax, yet people still live in California where the tax is among the highest in the nation.
Yes, I want to change the way we levy taxes, in part, to make it easier for We the People to affect what our government does. TV and Internet doesn't cut it. (I also think the feds have no business knowing what I make or how I made it)
No, I get that. And in general, I'm quite skeptical when people (BP, I'm looking at you) claim that businesses are moving out of Oregon because of the tax structure. Nevertheless, currently Federal taxes are applied evenly. Applying them unevenly will increase incentives to chose a low-tax venue. That's all. How big the effect will be, I'm not entirely sure. But clearly it will be bigger than it is now. barfo
You really think standing around on the Capital Mall cuts it? Good luck with that. Also, the distance thing works both ways. The jackbooted thugs in your state capital will be able to march to your house a lot easier than the jackbooted thugs in DC. barfo
The taxes are not applied evenly. I already pointed out how California gets back $.80 for every dollar of tax applied, etc.
