6 ms·

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.

Just because it works in Australia doesn't mean it would work in the US. Different people, different culture.

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.