Federal versus state government

[luke-gr]

If this has been discussed, feel free to point me to a thread or link. Thank you in advance for helping out someone who has recently pulled his head from the proverbial sand.

I am all for the limiting of federal government, reduction of taxes, less regulation, and downsizing in general. That seems to work well at a federal level and is exactly my idyllic vision for the country and one that I have had in my head for many years. In many ways, I tend to look at state/local governments a little differently. Taxes are required for infrastructure, schools, etc (Right?). I am curious how Ron Paul and/or this Revolution with the Libertarian leanings looks at state/local governing bodies?

I apologize for my ignorance.

Luke

 

[Ex Post Facto]

State government bodies will have full control of their state. The Federal government would be the check against an unconstitutional State. But, the Federal Government would not be there to impose any undue restrictions.

Ron Paul often says he would get rid of the Department of education. What he means is he would return that power to the states to decide how to best educate their young. Only the state would have the ability to set standards, and decide how to best spend the money.

 

[luke-gr]

Understood.

So, there isnt a substantial change at the state level with regards to taxation (state income tax)?

 

[Banana]

That'd be up to people of the state to change the laws.

Remember, the idea of federalism is that we would have "50 laboratories" doing their separate experiments on various issues such as healthcare, abortion, retirement savings, and so forth. Some will succeed, and other will copy the success, while failures will be avoided.

We'd progress much more faster through various experiments than if we just had one gigantic national experiment. Besides, it'd be much more easier to measure the success and we'd have none of that excuses "I'm sorry it doesn't work for your area, but rest assured, it works somewhere else!" and the like. But that's not the best part.

The best part is that a local government is much more accessible than a distant capitol, and will have more time for you to address issues, and is more transparent; it's hard to be corrupt when everyone knows the officials on a first name basis.

So, they're free to form a socialist government if they want to, but Federal government simply does not have that privileges.

 

[Cjays]

I would rather pay higher local income taxes for schools and such than have to pay federal. It's all about keeping the dollars close to home where an average citizen has more influence in how the money is spent.

 

[FreeTraveler]

That'd be up to people of the state to change the laws.

...

So, they're free to form a socialist government if they want to, but Federal government simply does not have that privileges.

Absolutely untrue! The states are still limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Article IV Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This was reiterated in Amendment XIV:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The level of theft practiced against occupants of these lands is out of control as it is, and must be DRASTICALLY scaled back. FedGov AND THE STATES MUST be held to the Constitution, PARTICULARLY the Bill of Rights, and FREEDOM returned to these lands.

 

[FreeTraveler]

I would rather pay higher local income taxes for schools and such than have to pay federal. It's all about keeping the dollars close to home where an average citizen has more influence in how the money is spent.

If you're going to be for Freedom, you have to think outside the box.

Why should anyone be paying taxes to support the government's idea of what children should know? What about all the people who choose to send their children to schools that support their philosophy, instead of the socialist nanny state? What about the parents who are responsible enough to educate their children themselves? What about the citizens who choose not to have children, or have no children currently in school?

I guess theft is OK if it's "for the children," is that it?

The problem with a lot of Americans is they want their cake, AND eat it too, AND they want someone else to pay for the cake, AND when the cake makes them fat, they want sue the baker.

I find this particularly amusing in contrast to your signature line. Population-wide taxes to pay for government indoctrination is a PERFECT example of people who "want someone else to pay for the cake."

 

[Banana]

Absolutely untrue!

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that they can do *anything*; you're correct that there are some limitation, and the rights of United States citizen takes precedence over any state laws.

However, IINM, a state still can choose to be socialistic, provided they are consistent with constitution, no?

 

[Gilby]

So, there isnt a substantial change at the state level with regards to taxation (state income tax)?

Accepting income taxation is accepting that you do not own your own body and the fruits produced by your use of your body. In essence it's slavery. I'm all for voluntary taxes, but totally against involuntary taxes like the income tax. Property taxes and other excise taxes are voluntary taxes that can provide the funds needed to pay for any services provided by the local government. When I buy a house, I make a contract with my city to be able to tax me in exchange for them to provide some services. Though, I'd prefer the property tax were fixed or provided stricter terms that did not allow them to change the property tax rate as easily, but that's a risk I could minimize by renting instead of owning. If I drive on the road, I agree to pay an excise tax to use that road, which currently is done through the gas tax. There are many other excises that the government can derive revenue to pay for government services.

 

[brandon]

If this has been discussed, feel free to point me to a thread or link. Thank you in advance for helping out someone who has recently pulled his head from the proverbial sand.

I am all for the limiting of federal government, reduction of taxes, less regulation, and downsizing in general. That seems to work well at a federal level and is exactly my idyllic vision for the country and one that I have had in my head for many years. In many ways, I tend to look at state/local governments a little differently. Taxes are required for infrastructure, schools, etc (Right?). I am curious how Ron Paul and/or this Revolution with the Libertarian leanings looks at state/local governing bodies?

I apologize for my ignorance.

Luke

Taxes are not *required* for anything. Everything can be done privately, although different people have different opinions on which things are more effective as a public entity.

I personally believe we should have a local tax system to fund roads, sewers, law enforcement, fire department, and public parks. Not much else.

As far as public schools, I am adamantly opposed to all forms of public schools. Why do you think we are in such a mess? When do sheep become sheep? It all starts in the public schooling system. The root of all our problems can be traced back to the blind obediance people are taught in public schooling.

A good comparison is to look at the computer industry compared to public schools. The computer industry is a private, mostly unregulated entity. Every year for the past half century they have doubled computing power and cut the price in half. Now look at the public school system. Every year it gets more expensive. In some places it is up to 5 or 6 times more expensive then better performing private schools. Every year our students "scores" drop. The lack of competition causes this. Imagine if every household got to keep thier 6000$/year that they are forced to spend funding public school. They then could use that money to send thier children to a school of thier choice (and have some money left over).

 

[luke-gr]

Thank you all and some good points made. Certainly good points about the school system. My wife and I dont have children but still pay to keep up the schools. Gas tax makes sense to take care of the roads.

 

[mrsat_98]

Understood.

So, there isnt a substantial change at the state level with regards to taxation (state income tax)?

A tax on the peoples wages, salaries tips and commissions is NOT an income tax. City of New Orleans vs Scramuzza, Louisiana Supreme Court

 

[nobody's_hero]

A tax on the peoples wages, salaries tips and commissions is NOT an income tax. City of New Orleans vs Scramuzza, Louisiana Supreme Court

That's what Lousiana decided.

I don't know. Maybe they don't define wages collected as "income."

Crazy cajuns.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Thank you all and some good points made. Certainly good points about the school system. My wife and I dont have children but still pay to keep up the schools. Gas tax makes sense to take care of the roads.

I don't mind too much about my tax dollars going to support school systems (edit: at the local level) even though I don't have kids. I have thought about it quite a lot though.

What really peeves me is that some school systems have started offering cash rewards for students who work hard and get good grades. Uh, I don't want to be some kid's grandpa at report-card time.

 

[mrsat_98]

That's what Lousiana decided.

I don't know. Maybe they don't define wages collected as "income."

Crazy cajuns.

It has to do with the buck act. To get a grasp of it google buck act, " the story of the buck act" will make you think. Then read "Jurisdiction over federal areas within the states" it has a very informative section on the buck act. aroung page 240.

After reading the above one might come to the conclusion that the State is now a Federal State i.e. military reservation. Dig a little deeper on you will see that we are the same as the enemy under emergency war powers on a military reservation.

 

[Cjays]

If you're going to be for Freedom, you have to think outside the box.

Why should anyone be paying taxes to support the government's idea of what children should know? What about all the people who choose to send their children to schools that support their philosophy, instead of the socialist nanny state? What about the parents who are responsible enough to educate their children themselves? What about the citizens who choose not to have children, or have no children currently in school?

I guess theft is OK if it's "for the children," is that it?



I find this particularly amusing in contrast to your signature line. Population-wide taxes to pay for government indoctrination is a PERFECT example of people who "want someone else to pay for the cake."

You're taking what I wrote too far. The point is local issues are local issues and I'd rather pay taxes on the local level to take care of the issues. Schools were only an example.