Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bucolic_frolic

(43,044 posts)
5. True, but there are instances which would clearly be discriminatory
Thu Jan 4, 2018, 09:32 AM
Jan 2018

though how one sorts them out is another matter.

If Congress voted to place a 30% income tax surcharge on one state, or the west coast, for example.

It would generally be recognized as discriminatory, but would it be illegal? One man, one vote? No taxation without representation? Equal protection of the laws?

Putting a specific dollar amount on the exclusion is rather unequal, because there are rich and poor states, rich and poor neighborhoods, rich and poor taxpayers.

If they had limited the exclusion to say, 80% of property taxes, that would be more equal for everyone, it would apply to every homeowner who pays property taxes. It would not effect only people with large homes in wealthy neighborhoods.

Penalizing one group while giving others a free pass is not a method of equal taxation.

If you're going to honor states' rights, you have to support the idea that states have equal rights.

Some states have fought federal legislation over outdoor billboards. They have the right to do that.

And "without apportionment"? That would be a huge court case. What does apportionment mean? Aggregate state dollar amounts? Tax rates? Types of taxation? So if every state is taxed $15 Billion all is fine? Even poor little Delaware and Rhode Island?

You gotta hand it to Trump. If a loophole can be found to screw everyone, he has the best people.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Cuomo Plans to Sue U.S. G...»Reply #5