What the Republicans should have done was get rid of the federal income tax, have all taxes apportioned, and leave it to the states to decide how they wish to collect the revenue needed to pay the federal government.
How much revenue would you levy from each state? What would be a fair way to decide that?
The point of income taxes is, that we (the society) consider them fair - the high-income-earners don't only pay more taxes in absolute terms, but also in relative terms, because of progressive taxation (personally, I think that tax rates should be based on wealth, not income, and that capital gains should be taxed equally as income, but I'm clearly in the minority with that opinion).
(Personally I think wealth should be taxed somehow too. What's fair? Another conversation. I too think capital gains should be taxed at the same rate or higher than income.)
Republicans would never do this. Republican states are net recipients of federal money. Wealthy democratic states are net givers of federal money. Poor states like Mississipi are funded in large part by the wealth democratic states that their politicians like to attack.
That's certainly an interesting proposal that seems reasonable to me. But I think we both know it's way too radical to be remotely politically feasible. I'd vote for it if I could though.
I would've liked to seen them completely eliminate the mortgage and property tax deduction. Those two aren't taxed at the local level, unlike income which is.
It might be a good idea to do it this way, but it is a very radical change with high chances of errors. What if 10 states enact some abhorrent legislation and makes them broke, or collect no taxes? I'd think this kind of change requires constitution ammendment level coordination.
> have all taxes apportioned, and leave it to the states to decide how they wish to collect the revenue needed to pay the federal government.
Let them crash and burn and serve as an example of the kind of policy you shouldn't enact. There's 50 states and interstate migration is not restricted. At a national level people do very much have the ability to pick one of the 49 other ships if the one they are on is sinking. Sure it would suck for the people who don't see the writing on the wall when their state is going down but I think it would be less damaging in the long term than the status quo.
Well you will need plenty of states to vote this change, and I think they would vote against it, even if on paper it gives them more economic power and independence.
