6 ms·

The whole point of a federal government is to decentralize authority. If the taxation power rests with a single authority in the United States, then federalism

The whole point of a federal government is to decentralize authority. If the taxation power rests with a single authority in the United States, then federalism would be dead and the central government would have all the power. It's not necessarily wrong (though I believe it would be a bad idea), but this is one of those questions where the answer to "Why can't the world be simple?" is "Because the world is complex."

cylinder 8y ago
Works pretty well in Australia.
- meddlepal 8y ago
  Just because it works in Australia doesn't mean it would work in the US. Different people, different culture.
- labster 8y ago
  OK, I'll bite. Australia has a population of ~25 million, similar to Texas. So let's work with something of a similar scale to the U.S.: Would you be okay with having all of Australia's taxes being collected by the Commonwealth, and then getting your portion that way?
  - tzs 8y ago
    The population is pretty much irrelevant to scaling for this problem. The relevant parameter is the number of political subdivisions that the national entity would be distributing taxes to, which would be ~50 in the US and ~6 in Australia.
    - tzs 8y ago
      ...to elaborate, population is irrelevant because the national government is going to collect taxes nationwide for itself regardless of whether or not collecting taxes for the states is added to its duties. The "this problem" that we are talking about here is the problem of the national government handling state taxes in addition to national taxes. For this problem the national government is dealing with states, not individuals, and so it is the number of states that it has to deal with that is the main factor affecting complexity and scaling.
- cmroanirgo 8y ago
  Yes, but only because states can't actually collect taxes. [0][1] Hence, each state collects levies, fines, rates, stamp duties, privatise public services and various other money grubbing exercises in order to raise capital for themselves so that they can waste/embezzle it according to their whims. Then there's the problem of disproportionate tax distribution, which most states, particularly WA, seem to raise constantly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxation_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxati... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_90_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_90_of_the_Constitution...
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    Australian states can collect income tax, and did so. But the High Court found that the Commonwealth could collect tax under the Defence power and that it could essentially crowd out any state collection by being first in line. The states gave up on the practicalities, but they still have the theoretical power to collect income tax.
- cletus 8y ago
  Oh it does not. Take GST division. WA is now getting back about 38 cents in every dollar it collects leaving a massive state budget deficit. States like South Australia get back $1.20 or more. Why? Because when the GST was introduced WA'S resource income was counted... During an unprecedented resources boom that has since collapsed. You know what doesn't get counted? Poker machine income, which is substantial in the three Eastern states. Can it be changed? Technically, yes. Practically is incredibly difficult because no one wants to give up revenue and politicians are worried it'll be electoral suicide, which it may well be. The fact that the government has proposed anything at all, however anemic, is kinda amazing.
skgoa 8y ago
And yet this works fine outside the US.
- WorkLifeBalance 8y ago
  Exceptionalism makes it really difficult to engage with conversations about US politics where you try to say, "It doens't have to be this way!" but get told that the US is somehow different to every other developed nation and couldn't possibly apply what works elsewhere. This happens across the US political specturm, whether about their tax system, banking system, gun reform, electoral reform, and many other issues; it's a frequent refrain that the US is so different it can't learn from others. As a US citizen who is resident elsewhere it is infuriating to watch.
  - Swizec 8y ago
    As the popular Onion headline says: “No way to prevent this says only nation where this regularly happens”
  - zeveb 8y ago
    > This happens across the US political specturm, whether about their tax system, banking system, gun reform, electoral reform, and many other issues; it's a frequent refrain that the US is so different it can't learn from others. Alternatively, it's a frequent refrain that the U.S. _should_ learn from others, which is e.g. why we should preserve our federal system, electoral system and rights. I think it's a _good_ thing that the several states are separate sovereigns from the United States, and I think it's a good thing that the states are entirely reliant on the United States for their budgets (and in fact, those places where they are reliant, e.g. the highway budget, have led to anti-federal things like a uniform drinking age, something which is 100% not the business of the United States government).
    - taejo 8y ago
      States learning from each other is good, but there's no reason to restrict that learning to other states within the same Union (which for cultural and numerical reasons are more homogenous than the total population of all states). If the United States looks only inwards, however, there's nobody left to learn from in terms of how to run a Union, since there is only one United States, and its powers and responsibilities are (because of federalism) quite different from those of the states.
bumholio 8y ago
> "Why can't the world be simple?" is "Because the world is complex." "Because the world is political, and any change will be bitterly fought by those who are impacted to the point of inventing whole national mythologies." Really now, centralized collection of taxes, even in the face of different local rates, is a standard feature of the civilized world. It works in countries with gun rights, it works in socialist countries, in advanced and poor countries, it's not a cultural aspect.
xg15 8y ago
"The world is complex" is too often used as an excuse to stop thinking. Yes, it's complex, but then show me the complexity.
- zazen 8y ago
  Perhaps it is used to stop thinking in some other circumstances, but I don't think that's what's happening here. When people make three-sentence internet comments featuring the phrase "Why don't we just", they often appear to have not yet _started_ thinking about the answer to their own question. I think it's fair to prompt them not to outsource all their thinking to the forum.
  - xg15 8y ago
    You can discuss whether or not it's "fair", but it probably won't motivate anyone to start thinking. I think it comes over as the opposite: Obviously I can't grasp the complexity of the whole world, so if that is the prerequisite to proposing any kind of solution to a problem, I might as well give up. A more useful response would be to give reasons why the "why can't we just" solution wouldn't work. (The GP indeed gave reasons) What is the purpose of a forum if not discussion and getting (positive or negative) feedback on your views so you can improve them?
    - zazen 8y ago
      I think we have similar hopes for quality discussion in forums. And I certainly agree that a thoughtful response giving reasons why it's not as simple as "why can't we just" is more useful - assuming anyone feels inclined to write that response. The problem I see is the following. The person who wrote the "why can't we just" has done next to no thinking of his own as to why the situation might be more complicated than his first thought suggests, but it goes beyond that. Someone who writes "why don't we just" is sending the signal that they're emotionally committed to the position that the solution _should_ be simple. If I take a deep breath and write a long, careful reply in response to the short, lazy "why don't we just" post, I'm not only taking on all the burden of thinking about the topic at hand, but there's every risk this will just be thrown back in my face by the poster who wants a shortcut to a simple answer. A "why don't we just" post has a poor chance of leading to a good discussion, and I think there will be overall more beneficial discussion on a forum if they are discouraged. Some people are intellectually lazy. I think this is because it's easier to feel smarter when you think less. If there's a solution that seems obvious to Mr. A and he assumes everyone who missed it is a bozo, then Mr. A feels like a smart guy. If someone else comes along and starts telling Mr. A that actually it's not so simple, and there are reasons why the "obvious" solution isn't actually a full applicable solution, then Mr. A has to think harder, only to feel less smart as a result. A lot of people resist that. I don't know the full solution of how to inspire such people to start thinking more, but I think some push-back some of the time is part of the answer. A bit like when people come to stack overflow and ask for their homework to be done for them: it's good if they're prodded to try _something_ for themselves. Being "nice" and just doing their homework for them wouldn't be optimal. Yes, "the world is complex" might not be ideal phrasing if you think it implies someone needs to grasp the entirety of that complexity. But I'm sure the poster who wrote that only meant to encourage Mr "why don't we just" to _start_ considering the complexity of the world.
civilitty 8y ago
May I introduce you to the 16th amendment: > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration The power of taxation has rested with the federal government since the early 20th century.
- function_seven 8y ago
  This doesn't contradict the parent comment. The Federal Government isn't the single authority on taxes. The 16th amendment grants them the power to lay and collect, but it does not reserve that power exclusively to the Feds.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Congress has non-exclusive power to tax under Article I; the 16th Amendment shifted the parameters of that power but did not make it exclusive.
- swebs 8y ago
  Yes, that is why everyone pays federal income tax. State income tax is an additional right given to state governments.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Or, in the American tradition, it is a right not forbidden to state governments.
- pm24601 8y ago
  Read the 10th amendment: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
mywittyname 8y ago
Getting one itemized tax bill and a having a uniform tax code across the US would be so nice. Taxes don't stop at states, there are county, city, and municipality taxes as well. These may apply concurrently with several others depending on where you work and live. This makes filing taxes a nightmare on top of being horribly inefficient for local governments. The federal government could handle tax collection and refunds for everyone, and come up with a standard set of rules that apply across the US. It makes life easier and more efficient for everyone involved.

cylinder 8y ago

Works pretty well in Australia.

meddlepal 8y ago
Just because it works in Australia doesn't mean it would work in the US. Different people, different culture.
labster 8y ago
OK, I'll bite. Australia has a population of ~25 million, similar to Texas. So let's work with something of a similar scale to the U.S.: Would you be okay with having all of Australia's taxes being collected by the Commonwealth, and then getting your portion that way?
- tzs 8y ago
  The population is pretty much irrelevant to scaling for this problem. The relevant parameter is the number of political subdivisions that the national entity would be distributing taxes to, which would be ~50 in the US and ~6 in Australia.
  - tzs 8y ago
    ...to elaborate, population is irrelevant because the national government is going to collect taxes nationwide for itself regardless of whether or not collecting taxes for the states is added to its duties. The "this problem" that we are talking about here is the problem of the national government handling state taxes in addition to national taxes. For this problem the national government is dealing with states, not individuals, and so it is the number of states that it has to deal with that is the main factor affecting complexity and scaling.
cmroanirgo 8y ago
Yes, but only because states can't actually collect taxes. [0][1] Hence, each state collects levies, fines, rates, stamp duties, privatise public services and various other money grubbing exercises in order to raise capital for themselves so that they can waste/embezzle it according to their whims. Then there's the problem of disproportionate tax distribution, which most states, particularly WA, seem to raise constantly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxation_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxati... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_90_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_90_of_the_Constitution...
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Australian states can collect income tax, and did so. But the High Court found that the Commonwealth could collect tax under the Defence power and that it could essentially crowd out any state collection by being first in line. The states gave up on the practicalities, but they still have the theoretical power to collect income tax.
cletus 8y ago
Oh it does not. Take GST division. WA is now getting back about 38 cents in every dollar it collects leaving a massive state budget deficit. States like South Australia get back $1.20 or more. Why? Because when the GST was introduced WA'S resource income was counted... During an unprecedented resources boom that has since collapsed. You know what doesn't get counted? Poker machine income, which is substantial in the three Eastern states. Can it be changed? Technically, yes. Practically is incredibly difficult because no one wants to give up revenue and politicians are worried it'll be electoral suicide, which it may well be. The fact that the government has proposed anything at all, however anemic, is kinda amazing.

skgoa 8y ago

And yet this works fine outside the US.

WorkLifeBalance 8y ago
Exceptionalism makes it really difficult to engage with conversations about US politics where you try to say, "It doens't have to be this way!" but get told that the US is somehow different to every other developed nation and couldn't possibly apply what works elsewhere. This happens across the US political specturm, whether about their tax system, banking system, gun reform, electoral reform, and many other issues; it's a frequent refrain that the US is so different it can't learn from others. As a US citizen who is resident elsewhere it is infuriating to watch.
- Swizec 8y ago
  As the popular Onion headline says: “No way to prevent this says only nation where this regularly happens”
- zeveb 8y ago
  > This happens across the US political specturm, whether about their tax system, banking system, gun reform, electoral reform, and many other issues; it's a frequent refrain that the US is so different it can't learn from others. Alternatively, it's a frequent refrain that the U.S. _should_ learn from others, which is e.g. why we should preserve our federal system, electoral system and rights. I think it's a _good_ thing that the several states are separate sovereigns from the United States, and I think it's a good thing that the states are entirely reliant on the United States for their budgets (and in fact, those places where they are reliant, e.g. the highway budget, have led to anti-federal things like a uniform drinking age, something which is 100% not the business of the United States government).
  - taejo 8y ago
    States learning from each other is good, but there's no reason to restrict that learning to other states within the same Union (which for cultural and numerical reasons are more homogenous than the total population of all states). If the United States looks only inwards, however, there's nobody left to learn from in terms of how to run a Union, since there is only one United States, and its powers and responsibilities are (because of federalism) quite different from those of the states.

bumholio 8y ago

> "Why can't the world be simple?" is "Because the world is complex." "Because the world is political, and any change will be bitterly fought by those who are impacted to the point of inventing whole national mythologies." Really now, centralized collection of taxes, even in the face of different local rates, is a standard feature of the civilized world. It works in countries with gun rights, it works in socialist countries, in advanced and poor countries, it's not a cultural aspect.

xg15 8y ago

"The world is complex" is too often used as an excuse to stop thinking. Yes, it's complex, but then show me the complexity.

zazen 8y ago
Perhaps it is used to stop thinking in some other circumstances, but I don't think that's what's happening here. When people make three-sentence internet comments featuring the phrase "Why don't we just", they often appear to have not yet _started_ thinking about the answer to their own question. I think it's fair to prompt them not to outsource all their thinking to the forum.
- xg15 8y ago
  You can discuss whether or not it's "fair", but it probably won't motivate anyone to start thinking. I think it comes over as the opposite: Obviously I can't grasp the complexity of the whole world, so if that is the prerequisite to proposing any kind of solution to a problem, I might as well give up. A more useful response would be to give reasons why the "why can't we just" solution wouldn't work. (The GP indeed gave reasons) What is the purpose of a forum if not discussion and getting (positive or negative) feedback on your views so you can improve them?
  - zazen 8y ago
    I think we have similar hopes for quality discussion in forums. And I certainly agree that a thoughtful response giving reasons why it's not as simple as "why can't we just" is more useful - assuming anyone feels inclined to write that response. The problem I see is the following. The person who wrote the "why can't we just" has done next to no thinking of his own as to why the situation might be more complicated than his first thought suggests, but it goes beyond that. Someone who writes "why don't we just" is sending the signal that they're emotionally committed to the position that the solution _should_ be simple. If I take a deep breath and write a long, careful reply in response to the short, lazy "why don't we just" post, I'm not only taking on all the burden of thinking about the topic at hand, but there's every risk this will just be thrown back in my face by the poster who wants a shortcut to a simple answer. A "why don't we just" post has a poor chance of leading to a good discussion, and I think there will be overall more beneficial discussion on a forum if they are discouraged. Some people are intellectually lazy. I think this is because it's easier to feel smarter when you think less. If there's a solution that seems obvious to Mr. A and he assumes everyone who missed it is a bozo, then Mr. A feels like a smart guy. If someone else comes along and starts telling Mr. A that actually it's not so simple, and there are reasons why the "obvious" solution isn't actually a full applicable solution, then Mr. A has to think harder, only to feel less smart as a result. A lot of people resist that. I don't know the full solution of how to inspire such people to start thinking more, but I think some push-back some of the time is part of the answer. A bit like when people come to stack overflow and ask for their homework to be done for them: it's good if they're prodded to try _something_ for themselves. Being "nice" and just doing their homework for them wouldn't be optimal. Yes, "the world is complex" might not be ideal phrasing if you think it implies someone needs to grasp the entirety of that complexity. But I'm sure the poster who wrote that only meant to encourage Mr "why don't we just" to _start_ considering the complexity of the world.

civilitty 8y ago

May I introduce you to the 16th amendment: > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration The power of taxation has rested with the federal government since the early 20th century.

function_seven 8y ago
This doesn't contradict the parent comment. The Federal Government isn't the single authority on taxes. The 16th amendment grants them the power to lay and collect, but it does not reserve that power exclusively to the Feds.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Congress has non-exclusive power to tax under Article I; the 16th Amendment shifted the parameters of that power but did not make it exclusive.
swebs 8y ago
Yes, that is why everyone pays federal income tax. State income tax is an additional right given to state governments.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Or, in the American tradition, it is a right not forbidden to state governments.
pm24601 8y ago
Read the 10th amendment: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

mywittyname 8y ago

Getting one itemized tax bill and a having a uniform tax code across the US would be so nice. Taxes don't stop at states, there are county, city, and municipality taxes as well. These may apply concurrently with several others depending on where you work and live. This makes filing taxes a nightmare on top of being horribly inefficient for local governments. The federal government could handle tax collection and refunds for everyone, and come up with a standard set of rules that apply across the US. It makes life easier and more efficient for everyone involved.