I think the federal income tax should be cut by 50% and the states should get more income tax revenue...?

Question

dont you?

Here is my logic. If the federal gvt had 50% less money, than thats 50% less money they would have to waste and spend recklessly. If the states had more revenue, at least we would know the money would be spent more on the very tax payers from which it comes from...and here at home in the USA for american citizens.

I am not a big states rights advocate, for I believe that many policies in this country need to be uniform across the board, but I think federal govt wastes a lot of money.

Answer 1

seems like a good idea in theory!

Answer 2

Excuse me? Since taxes are levied down to around $20,000 and since the median income in the US is just a tad over $49,000, I'm thinking that a heck of a lot more than 50% pay in some taxes. Also, the top 1% of income earners have nothing to do with wages. This is the investor class - you know, the people who treat our economy like their own personal plaything. I agree with the Founders (see Madison's Notes on the Convention of 1787) that since the rich have more property to protect, they should pay more taxes. They also feared the development of an aristocracy of inherited wealth which was so corrupt in Europe. Either hit 'em with high taxes or hit 'em with a high inheritance tax but to do otherwise is to put our country on the road to ruin by the wealthy. Taxes used to be much higher but those were the days when American citizens formed a society inside the world's greatest country. Today, America is just the place to get natural resources, invest and make money and, oh, if some regular citizens happen to be employed along the way, that's OK, too.

Answer 3

And programs like Social Security, the schools districts, the Post Office and countless othe programs would completely collapse. You want better services..pay more taxes and force the government to use them better. What you see on the state levels is a trickle down of what we see on the federal. States get money for things like schools, road repairs, commuting options and medical care from the government. Skipping the middle man seems like a good idea, but it would create a great deal of disparity between the states as there would be no guidelines on how to use the money. They could use all of the education funds for one or two schools, while the federal government requires it dispersed according to student ratio. Putting it all on the states would not make it uniform..it would do the complete opposite as the mechanism to balance things out would be removed.

Answer 4

When pigs fly.

What you have figured out is that Congressional members earmark money for their own state, errraaah, VOTES.
Those with the most clout, who have been there the longest.

Sen Byrd, WVa, has earmarked more damn money than most any other. Several years ago, he proposed that the Pentagon be moved to Charleston, WVa.

He actually had the building constructed.
He was never able to accomplish the move, annnnnndd,
there was never money appropriated to operate the building.
It set vacant for many years, may still be.

You certainly know about the bridge to nowhere in Alaska?

At one time, all states as a total, took in more revenue than the federal government. That changed a long time ago.

There is no way in hell that Congress will cut their own revenue........or their income sources, ie, under the table.

Answer 5

If they would just quit wasting the money would be a step forward. I understand that where I live had a budget surplus last year but the governor wants to raise the sales tax which with the county sales tax equals about 10% and that's crazy.

Answer 6

whats much simpler is a flat tax. the problem with rates is there are always liberals and special interests who want to manipulate the system for their own benifit. politics, being what it is, is a popularity contest, and the more popular a politician is at home the more votes he gets. the system will always be played but if we had a simple flat tax, in my opinion its fairer and the problems would lessen. try to get that past the liberals though...fat chance.

Answer 7

I agree with you that it would be much better that way. I know one thing, there would be less money wasted on stupidity like the Iraq war too, and we probably would get better national direction from our national leaders.

Answer 8

i would simplify your statement question by stopping at cut federal income tax by 50%. i think everyone would then realize the absolute waste generated by this government. Let them provide the services required by the constitution and end all of the entitlement nonsense. Please point me to the language in the constitution that requires the government to feed me, cloth me, take care of the health care, pay for my prescriptions, etc.......

Answer 9

you and I have to live within our budget...Fed does not

abetter system would be the Fair Tax..it does away with the IRS, no more deductions from your paycheck for IRS, Medicare or Social Security and is revenue neutral for all branches of government.

Wouldn't you like the IRS agent to ask "want fries with that?"

Answer 10

But then how would Bush and his elite ruling class pals finance thier decadent lifestyles and private schools?