Because they currently pay less than they would under your scheme. Obviously. Appalachia doesn't have electricity? Also, what does that have to do with anything? barfo
Obviously they would pay a tiny fraction of the massive amount of money the government spends. The Appalachia concept is taking money from California and spending it outside California. You seem to think that wouldn't be permitted without an income tax.
Denny, Denny, Denny. You were talking about taxation. I was talking about taxation. I didn't say anything about spending, but now you are claiming I did? You advocated for the feds taxing states based on their population. You don't seem to realize that states don't currently all contribute the same amount per capita, so your plan not only changes the way the tax is collected within a state, but also the total amount the state pays. Poor states currently pay less tax per capita. If every state pays the same amount of tax per capita, then poor states are going to have to pay more than they do right now. Where will that money come from? barfo
You did talk about how the poorer states would suffer. They would not. The states can collect taxes how they see fit. Property tax would hit the so called rich proportionally. All the Feds should do is collect 10% of its budget needs from California, and < 1% from Wyoming.
There aren't a whole lot of rich people in West Virginia. Some, but not a lot. There are a lot of poor people. As a result, they pay an average of $4k per person to the federal government. The national average is $10k/person, so under your plan the state would need to start paying two and half times what they do now. Where does WV get that money? I get that it is up to the state to decide that, but I'm not sure they are going to be excited about making that choice. barfo
Not at all. I'm asking you, where does the money come from, from WV? I'm not saying it has to be income tax. Whose turnip do you want to squeeze? barfo
There are roughly 27,000 millionaires in W Va, if you insist on taxing the rich. W Va's state budget is $4.3B. Their fair share (1.8M population out of ~330M nationwide) of the federal $4T budget is .5%, or ~$2B. Their state tax could go up by ~50% across the board. So something like 4% -> 6% for the people in the income level you mentioned. But they'd pay no federal income tax rate of 15% on their income above $9,275 and up to $37,650, 25% above that, etc. Their property tax would go up 50%, as would their sales tax and business tax, and so on. That's just one scenario, but it sure looks like the people do much better this way than you claim. Links: http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires_household.htm http://www.budget.wv.gov/executivebudget/Documents/Volume I - Budget Report 2018.pdf http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-west-virginia.aspx And barfo:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax Massachusetts, in ratifying the 1787 Constitution, recommended the following: “That Congress do not lay direct taxes but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess, levy, and pay, their respective proportions of such requisition, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislatures of the States shall think best.” Statesmen from Massachusetts sought to save their fellow citizens from the pestilence and manipulation of federal tax collectors, and even suggested that this be part of a constitutional amendment. Other founding-era leaders across the nation expressed the same hope that the states would be given an opportunity to pay direct federal taxes and avoid federal tax collectors, something that happened with most direct taxes imposed before the Civil War. Direct taxes are taxes imposed on people or property, whereas indirect taxes are taxes on conditional events such as retail sales. The U.S. Constitution granted Congress the power to impose direct or indirect taxes, except a tax on exports, so long as the indirect taxes were “uniform” and direct taxes were imposed within states in proportion to population. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2 stipulates: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers.” (Goes on to explain that the feds used sales taxes to raise money, though the people rebelled - see Whiskey Rebellion.")
It is their share, based on population. However, as I pointed out before, it's a whole lot more than the ~$8B they are paying now. Might not be easy to get buy-in on that plan from WV and other states like it. Let me say that I personally have no problem sticking it to Trump voters in the way you have proposed. Urban America subsidizes Rural America to a huge degree, and Rural America responds by whining about taxes and electing orange idiots. So if you want to raise their taxes tremendously, go for it! I'm guessing that it won't happen, however. barfo
https://apnews.com/5474c6046670472a...:-Rand-Paul-to-vote-"yes"-on-health-care-vote The Latest: Rand Paul to vote yes on health care vote http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccain-return-washington-crucial-health-care-vote-n786121 McCain to Return to Washington for Crucial Health Care Vote
McCain, with the best health care in the world paid for by taxpayers, returns to Washington to take health care away from millions of Americans. What happens when you sell your honor.
