Indy's comment had to do with Income Taxes. There are many ways to collect taxes other than through income - Nick is well aware of VAT taxes. The bigger issue is once a government discovers (or is allowed by its citizens) another source of income through taxing methods, the "revenue neutral" mantra of those who support a new method of tax collection either forget their promise to eliminate the original method or new members of government are elected and all the old promises no longer supported.
The federal government should be an equalizer - not a decider of who gets what. What is wrong about setting minimum levels of support to be provided by states so all US citizens are treated fairly? Health care - why not outline minimum support and care to be provided for by whatever means a state decides?
Before 1913, the US lived within its means (somewhat) through taxation methods other than income taxes. The Constitution outlines those taxation methods which may be used to support the government. It also does not outline any social safety net. There is good reason for this - Hamilton and Jefferson both supported the states rights to provide or not provide these services. If the federal government never stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution, we would not need a split into several countries. You could choose to move to a state which chose to support and fund the services they wanted to provide to their citizens. Want to live somewhere any service you want is provided by the government? Move to a state which does so - and vice-versa.
This is not harsh, this is practical and puts the control of services exactly where it should be - where the founders thought it should be - controlled by local authorities . Why should the federal government have any say in elementary education other than to outline general standards of achievement? This would allow people to move among the states without fear of unequal education levels. Want police protection? Local and state law enforcement should be controlled and funded at that level. The federal law enforcement control should only be exercised at that level. Each state should have the right to build or not build infrastructure as the state's citizens see fit. Return to the proper power balance structure and these issues are no longer issues.
But of course this will not happen. Everyone will cry Social Security, old people being abandoned, the poor, oh the poor. We have enshrined these social programs over 60+ years of existence. No politician would dare discuss the real ways of getting our countries out of debt and why this country was founded on the principal of self-reliance and charity - they would get shouted down just as Indy and JoeD.
I live just above the poverty line. I live in a state which values a good library system (paid through local taxes and controlled by a locally elected board) so I can access the web through its connection. I'm learning a new trade (at age 52) to support myself after my former job was eliminated due to computers and the internet - my trade allows me to earn while going to school - sort of an apprenticeship. It can be done; you just have to want to.
There were old, poor, and disabled people before 1913. Families, friends, and churches were support structures - there is no reason for the federal government to provide services not listed in our founding documents. Our state can make those decisions through local elections and votes.
The federal government should be an equalizer - not a decider of who gets what. What is wrong about setting minimum levels of support to be provided by states so all US citizens are treated fairly? Health care - why not outline minimum support and care to be provided for by whatever means a state decides?
Before 1913, the US lived within its means (somewhat) through taxation methods other than income taxes. The Constitution outlines those taxation methods which may be used to support the government. It also does not outline any social safety net. There is good reason for this - Hamilton and Jefferson both supported the states rights to provide or not provide these services. If the federal government never stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution, we would not need a split into several countries. You could choose to move to a state which chose to support and fund the services they wanted to provide to their citizens. Want to live somewhere any service you want is provided by the government? Move to a state which does so - and vice-versa.
This is not harsh, this is practical and puts the control of services exactly where it should be - where the founders thought it should be - controlled by local authorities . Why should the federal government have any say in elementary education other than to outline general standards of achievement? This would allow people to move among the states without fear of unequal education levels. Want police protection? Local and state law enforcement should be controlled and funded at that level. The federal law enforcement control should only be exercised at that level. Each state should have the right to build or not build infrastructure as the state's citizens see fit. Return to the proper power balance structure and these issues are no longer issues.
But of course this will not happen. Everyone will cry Social Security, old people being abandoned, the poor, oh the poor. We have enshrined these social programs over 60+ years of existence. No politician would dare discuss the real ways of getting our countries out of debt and why this country was founded on the principal of self-reliance and charity - they would get shouted down just as Indy and JoeD.
I live just above the poverty line. I live in a state which values a good library system (paid through local taxes and controlled by a locally elected board) so I can access the web through its connection. I'm learning a new trade (at age 52) to support myself after my former job was eliminated due to computers and the internet - my trade allows me to earn while going to school - sort of an apprenticeship. It can be done; you just have to want to.
There were old, poor, and disabled people before 1913. Families, friends, and churches were support structures - there is no reason for the federal government to provide services not listed in our founding documents. Our state can make those decisions through local elections and votes.