Does Ron Paul's policies actually mean higher taxes for individuals on the state level?

Question

Ron Paul advocates smaller federal government. Great!

And Ron Paul's policies will reduce the federal tax burden on American families. Great!

Yet Ron Paul's policies are usually to give the State more control. Such as Education.

Now obviously if the state is left to provide the resources for Education then local taxes will go up. Which may not be a big deal for heavily populated areas or states because the amount they are taxed may simply make up for the fewer taxes they are paying federally.

YET, in smaller population states/areas either the tax burden will be much greater or the quality of education will be at a different level.

Music, Technology, Libraries, Vocational Programs, will all be vastly cut in order to keep taxes reasonable for the less popluated states/areas.

So back to my question, based on this, doesn't Ron Paul's policies actually translate to more taxes?

P.S. Also many of these less populated states/areas are also in worse finacial shape. Meaning a good percentage of the population may not be able to afford the Education costs and will need some sort of government assitance. Creating even more burden on the local level just to get the Children in school.

Answer 1

No, not necessarily. Some states which are getting subsidies from the federal 'nanny' govt. may have to raise rates OR cut spending. If they can cut spending in areas that don't produce results, they can keep the tax rates steady or even lower them.

But, if these states have incompetent governers who want to keep the status quo, and keep the bloated bureaucracies as they did before under the federal govt. hand outs, then it is up to the constitutents to deal with their own state governments. If the constitutents elect those who want to keep the status quo, then they will be in for a tax sticker shock.

For some states, like New Jersey, we give the federal government more in tax revenues than we get back from the government. For states like these, we may even get tax cuts.

Answer 2

I would have to say no. Between the 11% income tax, plus FICA, Medicaid and Medicare, there's approximately 20% of individual tax monies to be worked with. If it should happen that a particular state needed the full amount paid to them instead, it would end up even. Remember that the further your tax dollar gets away from your local taxing body, the less representative it is of your needs.

Answer 3

No. The taxes in a state are determined by the policies and wishes of the people of the state. If New York wants big expensive government, that's their right. If New Hampshire want very limited inexpensive government, they can have it.

This way, people can move to wherever they want and have the type of government they want. It's called FREEDOM.

Answer 4

NO!
Each state has the responsibility of balancing their own budget already.
Schools, roads, libraries, local fire departments & police etc. are already funded by local taxes. Many parents in my area already do homeschooling {Which Ron Paul supports} @ their own expense.....look for rural area parents to derive an income for charging other peoples kids for home schooling, up to grade 12, in a Ron Paul presidency.

His goal is to make Americans more responsible in their own lives, and LESS dependant on government.
*******************************************************

Answer 5

No it doesn't translate into higher taxes. Ron Paul is about the Fair Tax also, which is based on usage. (purchases). It is a better system than what we have now.

Even if state taxes went up under his plan, I wouldn't mind higher taxes to support my community schools.