@menantol ,
My apologies for the long delay.
After losing my previous work it was hard to get motivated to recreate my thoughts.
Better get out your reading glasses.
It is an interesting concept and I am trying to remember if during the Constitutional Convention whether this subject (or something similar) was looked at.
I'm surprised...U.S. Constitution, Section two, paragraph three.
In any case, the use of any form of tax assessment defined by citizens or residents is clearly a way to make it fair (oh, how I dislike that word fair). However, I suggest that such a methodology is not fair. What I mean is, different States create wealth in different ways and a, by the State, calculated average (by citizen or resident) can vary greatly from State to State. This could mean that the tax would be greatly different from State to State in terms of generated wealth of the State and the resulting aggregate of a State (relative to other States).
To be quite honest with you, I don't understand why what you say about the differences between the states is relevant.
Of course the portion of support would vary from state to state and that is exactly what is intended.
Should each state pay the same toward the defense of the union regardless of the number of individuals being defended?
I would say that this is unfair for less populated states regardless of the wealth generative abilities of those state.
Should the amount that states pay for federal protections be based on their wealth generative ability or success?
Not only do I think it is not appropriate for the federal government to determine the wealth generative abilities of the states, but I think that it is not possible and would be prone to massive corruption and politicalization in addition to giving the wrong incentives to state governments as they would opt to be victims rather than victors.
The incentives for states with high populations and low wealth generation would be to work towards reducing the federal budget through their state representatives, to reduce government dependency within the state and to increase the wealth generative abilities of the state.
I will not buy that the wealth generative ability of states is calculable and limited.
Japan is an island nation approximately the size of California with few natural resources and has been for years one of the strongest economies in the world.
Let’s use an example with the monetary system. We can (and do) define it many different ways, but one way not talked about is that our national monetary system is a way to subsidize States with lower wealth producing capability. Particularly if the produced wealth is averaged across citizens within each State. They are quite different in each State and (I suspect) even more different if we used residents of the State.
I'm still not understanding the relevance.
I don't think the federal government should be in the business of taxing one state in order to prop up another.
The federal government should have three essential duties that I believe are consistent with the views of the Founders, the Constitution and the early patriots that supported a federation of constitutional republics.
1. Defend Sovereignty
The federal government should defend the sovereignty of the union, the sovereignty of the member states and the sovereignty of the individual citizen.
2. Prevent and settle conflicts between the states.
3. Represent the United States to the world community.
The federal government should not be in the business of picking or defining winners and losers among the states, among businesses or among the governed.
My point is that if those differences (State to State) for the monetary system are (in reality) different, then it is a pretty safe assumption a tax system defined in a somewhat similar system would also have a wide variance of results. Where this would have immediate challenges is in something like private sector capital investment decisions being made on State to State comparisons of the reality of federal taxes done in that manner. Those States with low (averaged by citizen) wealth creation, would be at the losing end of such decisions. Obviously this is a factor in any such decision for capital investment, but that decision should be driven by the reality of individual State Wealth production and not by federal taxes programs (re: Jane Jacobs and the book, ‘Cities and the Wealth of Nations’ for a basic look at this perspective).
I disagree.
Under my proposal, states can devise whatever method they would like to pay their portion of supporting the Union.
Populations and enterprise are not stagnant or inflexible.
Certain industries gravitate toward large labor pools, others gravitate toward educated populations, others must rely on resources or open space, while others are drawn by friendlier regulatory environments.
A form of economic osmosis would take place, a process which has been stymied by decades of government intrusion into the private lives of individuals, and states with lower wealth producing abilities and fewer opportunities would be properly populated as people leave the state for higher wealth producing states that offer greater opportunities.
Within my proposal there is no federal tax program except for portions of the support that states are delinquent in remitting and that would likely fall back on the current system of taxing individuals based on their income.
In fact, there is nothing that prevents states from continuing their own income tax systems, though I personally would oppose it.
At the extremes...
A state with a low population but high wealth creation would attract new residents because the tax to wealth ratio would be low, state benefits would be more generous and the ability to acquire wealth would be high.
The new residents would increase the percentage of the tax burden allocated to the state but the amount of tax attributable to each resident would not increase and competition among businesses would increase.
A state with a high population but low wealth creation would lose residents as they moved to states with greater wealth opportunity.
The loss of residents would lower the burden allocated to the state.
The state would, through its representatives in Washington, push for a lower federal budget in successive years.
States would be required to develop economic strategies to attract businesses and to lower dependency on government.
In all scenarios the burden per capita is equal.
The incentive for all states is to promote a productive citizenry, reduce the number of illegal residents and lower federal expenditures while thus narrowing the focus of the federal government to its appropriate constitutional responsibilities.
State dependency on the confiscating abilities of federal agencies would begin to be reversed.
A productive citizenry, less dependency on government and lower federal expenditures is beneficial to the country and will lead to prosperity.
The near elimination of the IRS would save many dollars, reduce stress on businesses and individuals and the real economic strain created by its burdensome tax code.
It would also decrease the invasiveness of the federal government into the lives of Americans who today have to disclose so much of their private affairs and personal information, as well has the personal information of others, in a way that is directly tied to them as individuals.
Personally, I believe that the best way to alter and improve the federal taxation systems is to begin by making sure that the federal budget items are within the Constitution Delegated Powers. For example, have the House of Representatives fund only projects which are directly derived from the Constitutionally Delegated Powers. Start by taking the Federal Budget and then compare each budget request to the Constitutionally Delegated Powers. If the budget request is not specifically derived from the Delegated Powers, drop it out of the budget. This would immediately defund things like the The Department of Education and all of the moneys associated with it.
You know from my past posts that I agree that the federal government needs to cede what it has usurped from the states and the people over the centuries.
Making the federal government more accountable is the key to getting that done and I believe that my proposal is one important step in doing that.
There currently is no incentive for politicians to do anything other than to bribe voters and entrench themselves.
Politicians are elected these days based on their ability to rob from Peter who is not a constituent in order to pay Paul who is.
Requiring the federal government to operate in a transparent and accountable manner rather than operating without the restraints of any budget whatsoever will go a long way toward curbing the excesses of the federal government and its usurping of more and more powers properly reserved by the states and not delegated to it.
If all the current programs stayed in place and the anticipated costs of those programs for the coming years was allocated quite publicly to the individual states then it would be a net positive because it would awaken the American people to what is going on.
If all the current programs stayed in place but the budgets of those programs was reduced it would be a positive development.
By having to abandon the fraud of baseline budgeting for zero-sum budgeting, appropriate competition would result among federal agencies and their supporters as to the allocation of tax payer funds and the federal legislators would be forced to work in favor of the people.
There is no way that Americans will ever be able to reverse the abuses of the federal government for any significant period of time through the election of representatives that vow to do so due to the corruptive influences of power.
I have many people that I have supported that have changed for the worse.
One example is John Kasich who, based on his strong convictions and tireless efforts during the Clinton years, I have solicited for President over the years and in fact sent a note of encouragement to in the past, but who I am no longer a supporter of.
Washington D.C. and business elites changed him from the man I supported.
The incentive for change has to be institutional.
Once this is accomplished, then each budgetary request remaining would be check to see if it should be funded through the Federal Budget or be subject to local (State and Municipality) funding. All of this together would drop the federal budget to far below the level of a balanced budget.
Once this is accomplished?
I agree with your obvious statement (to educated Americans) regarding the reduction of expenditures and the benefits to the budget.
No offense, but how long can you hold your breath?
How many decades have you and I and other decent Americans been waiting for responsible government?
There is no such thing as a responsible government.
Even when a balanced budget was accomplished by a determined group of outsiders it was reversed quickly and the burden compounded as they were demonized and converted by the anti-American dissidents that populate Washington D.C., business and the media.
Obviously, the functions of the federal government must be funded, but once the cost of the federal government is brought under Constitution legitimacy many options open up. First it should be obvious the federal budget can always run as a balanced budget. This could include a budget item of paying off the past federal indebtedness, with payments over a twenty year period. Secondly a rule could be instituted any mistakes in underestimating a new budget be fully paid off in the following year budget. In a new proposed budget cannot be larger than the prior year budget (inclusive of debt).
Contrary to the belief of many Americans, in order to remain viable the federal government must run with a balanced budget or a surplus.
There is no alternative for the longevity of any country even if we intend to be a deadbeat nation.
How
apropos it is that Cinco de Mayo is upon us.
Would we be able to defend ourselves from China as the Mexicans did Spain?
Would we be able to convince Britain and Japan and Brazil to forgive our loans?
What would they want in return?
Is it lost on Americans why Chinese is being taught school-wide in more and more school systems throughout America by Chinese who collect a stipend from the Chinese government or in schools that get a check directly from China?
Why would the Chinese government pay to have American children taught Chinese?
Is it simply for cultural understanding and enlightenment?
A method such as this would introduce stability in the budget and have a positive effect on private sector business, private sector banking, and the Stock Markets. This in and of itself should have a major impact on business and job growth within the United States.
You are speaking to the converted, but I believe it is wishful thinking and naive to think that elections of representatives, with an average constituency of over 600,000 a piece, will ever win over self and special interests for a long enough period to have any real and lasting result.
There is little or no accountability and what accountability there is with regard to the general population is aligned with the urban areas where people are necessarily more dependent and accepting of government benevolence.
The current tax system should be thrown out in its entirety including dismantling the Internal Revenue Service. A replacement system for funding the the federal government could anyone of several proposed systems, but it could be a combination of import/export taxes (strictly to raise money) and a flat tax on individuals of maybe around 10% (or less) and no more than 5% on business with a no tax on business being preferable.
Run this type of system with a sunset clause at 10 or 15 years and then if possible reduce it even more.
Why would you leave the federal government the power to access taxes against the individual?
Why are states incapable of implementing your proposals with regard to rates of taxation on individuals and businesses?
I am proposing the near elimination of the Internal Revenue Service.
I am proposing making the current tax code obsolete.
Though I would advocate for a period of transition.
My approach to this is that any tax on the individual direct or indirect is a break on the economy and the goal would be to eliminate such taxes.
My proposal would allow for the nature of taxation to be made primarily by the state and local governments rather than the federal government.
As an associated subject is the value of the4 dollar which is more detrimental on the public than any tax system. Here, there would be no national (federal banking system) approach to dollar value manipulation. Of course this means a different approach to the issuing of federal paper such as US Bonds and Treasury Notes.
Ut other than the preceding TruePatriot, I really don’t have much of an opinion, except maybe to raise the militia at the county level (something legal in my State by the way.)
As I've stated, I'm not an economist.
That said, after discovering the philosophies of Milton Friedman, knowing his name generally, I sometimes think I'm a reincarnation of him.
I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman and would rather see his face and words on walls in American schools rather than Oprah Winfrey's or Maya Angelou's or Nelson Mandela's.
I know that he saw value in having a system to control the money supply if it is used in an appropriate manner as a means of controlling extremes in the markets and I will defer to that economic strategy unless I learn that it is flawed.
To be clear, this does not mean that I do not recognize the corruption associated with the current federal reserve and international monetary system that needs to be addressed.