[censored]
07-15-2005, 04:13 PM
let's assume that the average person pays 35% of their income in the form of state and federal taxes. let's also assume that under the current structure this is comprised of 25% federal and 10% state. I don't think this is that far off from what we have now and I propose that this is completely ridiculous. the federal government many times collects money from citizens of states only send it right back to the states, costing its citizens do to unneeded admisitration and inefficiency.
instead, even if we left the overall rate where it is, we should reverse to proportions. 25% should be State and 10% should be federal. The Federal Government would be left in charge of the functions that the states are not capable of doing , like National Defense, Enforcement of Federal Law (FBI etc), setting trade policy and a few others. The main point is that the Federal Government would only have enough money to do those things that cannot be done by States.
States would assume all responsibity for programs like education and entitlements. The citizens of California want government supplied healthcare, it can increase taxes,do so and reap the rewards of consequences. Vermont wants to offer vouchers it is free to do so and deal with the consequences.
The people then would have more freedom in choosing to live in a state which was most representitive of his or her values. States would compete against each other to offer the best programs or save the most money. More ideas would come to the proverbial table, the good ones would stay and be improved upon and the bad ones would be shown for the failures they are (through comparison) and be dismissed. The lives of the people would be enriched.
instead, even if we left the overall rate where it is, we should reverse to proportions. 25% should be State and 10% should be federal. The Federal Government would be left in charge of the functions that the states are not capable of doing , like National Defense, Enforcement of Federal Law (FBI etc), setting trade policy and a few others. The main point is that the Federal Government would only have enough money to do those things that cannot be done by States.
States would assume all responsibity for programs like education and entitlements. The citizens of California want government supplied healthcare, it can increase taxes,do so and reap the rewards of consequences. Vermont wants to offer vouchers it is free to do so and deal with the consequences.
The people then would have more freedom in choosing to live in a state which was most representitive of his or her values. States would compete against each other to offer the best programs or save the most money. More ideas would come to the proverbial table, the good ones would stay and be improved upon and the bad ones would be shown for the failures they are (through comparison) and be dismissed. The lives of the people would be enriched.