5 ms·

I don't like such financial circumvention of constitutional limits on the federal government. Especially since those funds are extracted from the states in the

I don't like such financial circumvention of constitutional limits on the federal government. Especially since those funds are extracted from the states in the first place. That said, this zoning bill seems constitutional, per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35875405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35875405

r00fus 3y ago
> Especially since those funds are extracted from the states in the first place. Explain this. Feds aren't taking money from states, the federal income tax for example is in addition to state tax (if any). There is no federal sales tax.
- Bran_son 3y ago
  The income that the feds tax is generated in the states. There is no meaningful distinction between a 15% federal and 15% state tax, and a 30% state tax that is then divided 50/50 between state and federal governments.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Except that states aren't 100% competent enough to produce all the legal framework and military support that the USG provides. Some states are essentially military bases + federal contractors to the government itself - they provide nothing of local value. Any serious consideration of the sovereign state died in the civil war (Texas constiution included).
    - Bran_son 3y ago
      > Except that states aren't 100% competent enough to produce all the legal framework and military support that the USG provides. So? That support is guaranteed to them by the constitution, and is the justification for federal taxes. Still taking the taxes, but discriminating how they distribute them based on constitutionally-protected state activity, is illegitimate and counter to the spirit (and I believe letter) of the constitution. It's like an employer withholding part of your wage because he doesn't like your conduct outside of work, despite your contract not placing any limits on that behavior. And when you complain, he replies with "well you couldn't earn this much money on your own". Or perhaps a better example is being denied Medicaid or police protection, because of some otherwise legal conduct.

r00fus 3y ago

> Especially since those funds are extracted from the states in the first place. Explain this. Feds aren't taking money from states, the federal income tax for example is in addition to state tax (if any). There is no federal sales tax.

Bran_son 3y ago
The income that the feds tax is generated in the states. There is no meaningful distinction between a 15% federal and 15% state tax, and a 30% state tax that is then divided 50/50 between state and federal governments.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Except that states aren't 100% competent enough to produce all the legal framework and military support that the USG provides. Some states are essentially military bases + federal contractors to the government itself - they provide nothing of local value. Any serious consideration of the sovereign state died in the civil war (Texas constiution included).
  - Bran_son 3y ago
    > Except that states aren't 100% competent enough to produce all the legal framework and military support that the USG provides. So? That support is guaranteed to them by the constitution, and is the justification for federal taxes. Still taking the taxes, but discriminating how they distribute them based on constitutionally-protected state activity, is illegitimate and counter to the spirit (and I believe letter) of the constitution. It's like an employer withholding part of your wage because he doesn't like your conduct outside of work, despite your contract not placing any limits on that behavior. And when you complain, he replies with "well you couldn't earn this much money on your own". Or perhaps a better example is being denied Medicaid or police protection, because of some otherwise legal conduct.