Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But does the fed do it currently? The answer is yes.
Do they have the Constitutional authority to do so? No. The federal government has overstepped its bounds. Many more people are recognizing that, and refused to elect yet another politician as POTUS. Maybe we can finally get back to abiding by the Constitution, as was intended when this country was formed.
Feel differently about it? Work to Amend the Constitution.
Do they have the Constitutional authority to do so? No. The federal government has overstepped its bounds. Many more people are recognizing that, and refused to elect yet another politician as POTUS. Maybe we can finally get back to abiding by the Constitution, as was intended when this country was formed.
Feel differently about it? Work to Amend the Constitution.
That's all I was trying to say. That while the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do it, the fed is indeed funneling money to states for these programs using carrot on a stick measures to do so.
That's all I was trying to say. That while the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do it, the fed is indeed funneling money to states for these programs using carrot on a stick measures to do so.
Why shouldn't the federal government have to abide by the Constitution? For example, does that mean forget the 1st Amendment? No one has Free Speech, etc., rights anymore because the federal government has "decided" to abrogate its responsibility to abide by the Constitution?
Why shouldn't the federal government have to abide by the Constitution? For example, does that mean forget the 1st Amendment? No one has Free Speech, etc., rights anymore because the federal government has "decided" to abrogate its responsibility to abide by the Constitution?
Be careful what you wish for...
That's a great question. I'd have to do more research before I answer or provide an opinion on it. I honestly don't know enough about spending power of the federal government in regards to states to debate it intelligently.
I have a solution to our politicized tax system that unfairly taxes the moderately successful:
Consider all corporations to be the same as individual citizens
Add up all income from all sources including retained corporate funds
Create a list sorted by income and select the 95th percentile value
Use that as a basic deduction to be subtracted from total income
Tax the remain income on a progressive basis from 10 to 90+ percent sufficient to pay for governing the country
I believe it is about time the people and corporations that own the country pay for it.
How very odd that you claim to wish the U.S. would emulate European and Scandinavian countries in regards to plentiful social program and safety net program benefits, but you want to do exactly the OPPOSITE of what actually provides adequate tax revenue to fund them. SO many Americans are so very seriously deficient in both historical and economic knowledge.
Let's read and learn:
Quote:
"The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country. Scandinavian social democracies like Denmark, Sweden and Norway have quite regressive direct taxes, as do the Netherlands and Switzerland...
The disparity is even starker when you bring sales taxes into the mix, as VATs are an extremely important source of revenue for most European countries...
Prasad and Deng found that the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do. In English: The less progressive the [tax] code, the more progressive the system."
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart tells us... Note that the highest levels of government benefits and services are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund progressivisms' societal goals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
