5 ms·

The frequent and dangerous assumption here is that a federal sales tax means the end to state sales tax. Obviously that didn't work for income tax, and I would

The frequent and dangerous assumption here is that a federal sales tax means the end to state sales tax. Obviously that didn't work for income tax, and I would go even further to argue the feds should not be paid one bit of direct tax. When the feds collect money and disperse it to the states, the states become enslaved to the federal government and loose their sovereignty. More importantly, without this sovereignty there is no competition or experimentation amongst the states.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
drats 15y ago
I saw someone had downvoted you and went to upvote and gave you another downvote by accident, sorry.[1] I think you are entirely correct, state competition and experimentation is a good thing, as is decentralisation. Even if someone disagrees with your points, I don't see the need to downvote them. I like the idea elsewhere on the thread of standardizing a database to enable the calculation to be readily done by the seller (and those places with systems so complex that they can't be represented with a couple of fields - state, tax level, exceptions - can just lose out). [1] pg can we please have some more space between the up and down vote buttons for touch screens?
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  I downvoted because of the inflammatory language.
  - IanDrake 15y ago
    Sorry, sometimes my writing style just comes out that way. To make my point differently and maybe to make it more tech specific: I would rather pay individual companies for software I want to run on my PC than to pay Microsoft a lump sum and have them give me a bunch of software they think I need (and then distribute the funds to the creators how they see fit). It could be argued that it would be easier for consumers to pay only Microsoft, saving them the headache of creating relationships with multiple vendors. Or it could be argued that the chaos of the market is worth the competition that ultimately benefits the consumer. I like the bottom up approach because it creates competition and choice.
_delirium 15y ago
Even a very 18th-c conception of the federal government doesn't have it receiving no direct tax. In fact it was considered necessary that it have its own direct source of revenue, since its financial dependence on the states was one of the things crippling the Articles of Confederation government. Import tariffs were long the main tax. In that case, the Constitution does make sure that federal taxation means no state taxation, because states are prohibited from enacting tariffs. The other traditional main source of federal revenue was income from federal lands (mining, forestry, etc.).
- IanDrake 15y ago
  Yes, I should have been more clear. I don't think individuals should pay direct taxes to the Federal government. I prefer the pre-16th amendment scheme of apportioning amongst the states. Regardless of today's law, I am currently of the opinion that direct taxes should be collected at the most local level possible with each community paying it's parent an apportioned amount for the service, privileged, and protection it provides.
redthrowaway 15y ago
That's a very American attitude, one that, as a Canadian, I simply can't understand. It always strikes me as odd that Americans prefer a system in which each state has almost total control, up to and including its own constitution. You're left with things like California being insolvent and practically unsalvageable, Arizona mandating racial profiling and giving retarded cowboys like Arpaio free reign, Kansas banning science, most everywhere banning gay marriage... it's just a very strange and haphazard system. My best friend in high school was from San Francisco and his father hated our system, saying we had ceded all our freedom to the federal government, were socialists, and all manner of other invectives. Given how messed up everything is down there, I wouldn't really be complaining.
- IanDrake 15y ago
  >most everywhere banning gay marriage... And thus my point. I live in MA, where it's legal, and the world didn't end and God didn't smite us. This "experiment", if done at the federal level, wouldn't have happened for another decade because the country is still split. Now people can point to MA and say, see this works. Gay marriage laws are literally spreading from MA outward. So, if you're gay move to MA, if you're appalled by the idea move out. If you're of Hispanic decent move away from Arizona. If you don't like super irresponsible government spending, move out of California. Either way, you're still an American and you have choice.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

drats 15y ago

I saw someone had downvoted you and went to upvote and gave you another downvote by accident, sorry.[1] I think you are entirely correct, state competition and experimentation is a good thing, as is decentralisation. Even if someone disagrees with your points, I don't see the need to downvote them. I like the idea elsewhere on the thread of standardizing a database to enable the calculation to be readily done by the seller (and those places with systems so complex that they can't be represented with a couple of fields - state, tax level, exceptions - can just lose out). [1] pg can we please have some more space between the up and down vote buttons for touch screens?

mkr-hn 15y ago
I downvoted because of the inflammatory language.
- IanDrake 15y ago
  Sorry, sometimes my writing style just comes out that way. To make my point differently and maybe to make it more tech specific: I would rather pay individual companies for software I want to run on my PC than to pay Microsoft a lump sum and have them give me a bunch of software they think I need (and then distribute the funds to the creators how they see fit). It could be argued that it would be easier for consumers to pay only Microsoft, saving them the headache of creating relationships with multiple vendors. Or it could be argued that the chaos of the market is worth the competition that ultimately benefits the consumer. I like the bottom up approach because it creates competition and choice.

_delirium 15y ago

Even a very 18th-c conception of the federal government doesn't have it receiving no direct tax. In fact it was considered necessary that it have its own direct source of revenue, since its financial dependence on the states was one of the things crippling the Articles of Confederation government. Import tariffs were long the main tax. In that case, the Constitution does make sure that federal taxation means no state taxation, because states are prohibited from enacting tariffs. The other traditional main source of federal revenue was income from federal lands (mining, forestry, etc.).

IanDrake 15y ago
Yes, I should have been more clear. I don't think individuals should pay direct taxes to the Federal government. I prefer the pre-16th amendment scheme of apportioning amongst the states. Regardless of today's law, I am currently of the opinion that direct taxes should be collected at the most local level possible with each community paying it's parent an apportioned amount for the service, privileged, and protection it provides.

redthrowaway 15y ago

That's a very American attitude, one that, as a Canadian, I simply can't understand. It always strikes me as odd that Americans prefer a system in which each state has almost total control, up to and including its own constitution. You're left with things like California being insolvent and practically unsalvageable, Arizona mandating racial profiling and giving retarded cowboys like Arpaio free reign, Kansas banning science, most everywhere banning gay marriage... it's just a very strange and haphazard system. My best friend in high school was from San Francisco and his father hated our system, saying we had ceded all our freedom to the federal government, were socialists, and all manner of other invectives. Given how messed up everything is down there, I wouldn't really be complaining.

IanDrake 15y ago
>most everywhere banning gay marriage... And thus my point. I live in MA, where it's legal, and the world didn't end and God didn't smite us. This "experiment", if done at the federal level, wouldn't have happened for another decade because the country is still split. Now people can point to MA and say, see this works. Gay marriage laws are literally spreading from MA outward. So, if you're gay move to MA, if you're appalled by the idea move out. If you're of Hispanic decent move away from Arizona. If you don't like super irresponsible government spending, move out of California. Either way, you're still an American and you have choice.