General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederal income taxes from the states should be apportioned like the electoral college
Half of it based on population, half paid in equal shares.
Discuss.
Cmon Wyoming, pay your fair share. California, New York, and Illinois are tired of carrying the burden for you.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)In 2019, total revenue was $3.46 trillion.
The values here for CA, NY, & IL add up to a bit over $440 billion. So, that's 13+% of the revenue.
Those 3 states have around 75 million people, or more than 20% of the population.
That would make these states pay LESS than their fair share.
That's hard to believe.
rgbecker
(4,806 posts)That way, the states could determine the distribution of the tax burden, taking into account the rates their citizens are paying on other taxes, like Sales, Property and state income. Each state, based on their population demographics, could much better determine the best way to allocate the cost of government.
Your idea though is beautiful, as it brings the tax burden in line with the peoples strength in the voting booth.
The Wyoming voter gets one elector for every 192,579 citizens, California gets one for every 719219 citizens. Wyoming should be paying 3.73 times more than California to equalize the burden per citizen.
Alternatively, we could move to a popular vote and abolish the electoral college. Oh, and do something about the Senate situation.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)They can act as a pass through to the IRS. If the Feds cause problems, they can be put into an escrow account.
Windy City Charlie
(1,178 posts)Why do you think the states that take more out than they put in vote red most of the time? It's absolutely sickening.
mopinko
(69,806 posts)chicago and the 6 collar counties are where the money is.
we support our red downstaters to boot.
and yup, we are tired. and about to have our state income tax raised. and we voted for that. cuz we arent cry babies. just tired babies.
RockRaven
(14,782 posts)I think this would not pass muster.
But what should be and what can be at this moment are not the same. I do think there is some state-to-state unfairness in who has input on taxes (and spending) versus who actually pays and gets paid.
If we're gonna change the Constitution, though, I have a different suggestion -- maybe the time has passed which once required the relative disenfranchisement of high-population states in the Senate and thereby also the Electoral College (states are much more interconnected and interdependent than they used to be, and people and goods are so much more mobile). How about: the largest 1/3 of states get 3 senators, and the smallest 1/3 get one, the middle 1/3 stays at 2?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)a very small population should be required to pay the same collective amount in taxes as a much larger state with a greater population size?
rgbecker
(4,806 posts)You know, Taxation with representation....sort of historic etc. It's a counter solution to the weird electoral college problem of some people's votes counting more than others.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Democracy?
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)What I'd really like to see are locality adjustments to the marginal rates and for any programs and deductions that are means-tested. The federal government already has a table they use to adjust federal worker pay based on locality, so that people in high cost areas get a top-up above the base salary for their position. No reason they couldn't use the same table to adjust the thresholds for marginal tax rates and for caps on means-tested deductions and rebates.