Bunny Trails

[Ken]

You and I both know a great deal of those state and local positions are funded by and controlled by federal grants.

Some like Medicaid are, some like police, fire, and most schools, aren't.

In any event, that just means the state and local taxpayers are off the hook for paying for those services. Either way, it is exactly what you say you want. Which is to have states and localities running government. You keep coming up here and asking "why can't the states do this or that thing." Mostly they are.

[Josh]

You and I both know a great deal of those state and local positions are funded by and controlled by federal grants.

Some like Medicaid are, some like police, fire, and most schools, aren't.

In any event, that just means the state and local taxpayers are off the hook for paying for those services. Either way, it is exactly what you say you want. Which is to have states and localities running government. You keep coming up here and asking "why can't the states do this or that thing." Mostly they are.

In my own state’s education budget a great deal of money comes from federal grants (often in the form of buildings). Along with that money comes federal control.

It would be better to simply:

- Not tax or go into so much federal debt in the first place
- States or local governments could decide to raise taxes, or go into debt, for things like building schools, Medicaid, and so on.
- Then different states and cities would have different mixes of programs, and people could choose what they like best. Maybe one city or state wants universal healthcare. Another state decides to not spend so much in building school buildings and instead focuses on, say, providing more support to homeschoolers (Belgium does this; if a home isn’t bilingual they will send out a French teacher to help.)

[Ken]

You and I both know a great deal of those state and local positions are funded by and controlled by federal grants.

Some like Medicaid are, some like police, fire, and most schools, aren't.

In any event, that just means the state and local taxpayers are off the hook for paying for those services. Either way, it is exactly what you say you want. Which is to have states and localities running government. You keep coming up here and asking "why can't the states do this or that thing." Mostly they are.

In my own state’s education budget a great deal of money comes from federal grants (often in the form of buildings). Along with that money comes federal control.

It would be better to simply:

- Not tax or go into so much federal debt in the first place
- States or local governments could decide to raise taxes, or go into debt, for things like building schools, Medicaid, and so on.
- Then different states and cities would have different mixes of programs, and people could choose what they like best. Maybe one city or state wants universal healthcare. Another state decides to not spend so much in building school buildings and instead focuses on, say, providing more support to homeschoolers (Belgium does this; if a home isn’t bilingual they will send out a French teacher to help.)

I don't know what buildings you are talking about. In K-12 education, most Federal education funding is Title 1 funding which goes to poor schools and school districts, and Special Ed funding which goes towards what are often very expensive 1 on 1 types of special education services for extremely disabled children.

This type of Federal education funding is one way that this country redistributes wealth and opportunity. The redistribution of federal dollars in this manner means that wealthy cities and suburbs are helping fund education in poor states and poor communities. The wealthy elites in places like suburban Boston and Silicon Valley are helping fund education of poor children in poor communities in places like Appalachia and the Rio Grande Valley. Most people think this is a good thing and because it helps reduce the enormous gaps between rich and poor in this country that are growing ever wider. If only a little bit.

Take away that sort of Federal funding for education all all that happens is that schools in wealthy communities get even wealthier and schools in poorer communities face even greater financial problems.

There was a time when the idea of the wealthier regions and segments of society helping lift up the struggling parts of the country was not a controversial idea. I guess times have changed.

[ohio jones]

In my own state’s education budget a great deal of money comes from federal grants (often in the form of buildings). Along with that money comes federal control.

It would be better to simply:

- Not tax or go into so much federal debt in the first place
- States or local governments could decide to raise taxes, or go into debt, for things like building schools, Medicaid, and so on.
- Then different states and cities would have different mixes of programs, and people could choose what they like best. Maybe one city or state wants universal healthcare. Another state decides to not spend so much in building school buildings and instead focuses on, say, providing more support to homeschoolers

In my years of experience, I've never seen federal money for an entire school building, only for specific and relatively minor projects like security upgrades, and only within the last year or two.

In Ohio, local school districts can't raise taxes or go into debt without voter approval. Even when there's state money offered for a building, there's a local match that has to be voted on if it can't be covered by existing funding.

And yes, people do choose what they like best. One district near me has relatively new buildings; the voters approved bond issues for them. An adjoining district has a high school that's over 50 years old and not in great shape; the state has offered to fund well over half the cost of a new one, but the property owners have decided at least three times that they prefer lower taxes.

So whatever the problems are with federal spending, and there are many, school buildings in Ohio aren't part of it. Try another bunny trail.

[Judas Maccabeus]

It seems like a “clause” one can drive a truck through, where every single thing ends up subject to federal jurisdiction, which is very much the opposite of what we know the intent of the framers was.

There was considerable debate there. Jefferson’s ideas largely lost out.

Yes, and now we have a gargantuan federal government with a gargantuan national debt, with a completely unsustainable future.

Actually we do not have an unsustainable future. Just raise taxes.

Social security is an example. Removing the $168,000 cap on income for the social security tax would make it sustainable forever. All income taxed equally.

The problem is that many really do not pay their fair share, many do pay at all.

I would love to see how much each presidential candidate paid…..

[Josh]

There was considerable debate there. Jefferson’s ideas largely lost out.

Yes, and now we have a gargantuan federal government with a gargantuan national debt, with a completely unsustainable future.

Actually we do not have an unsustainable future. Just raise taxes.

Social security is an example. Removing the $168,000 cap on income for the social security tax would make it sustainable forever. All income taxed equally.

The problem is that many really do not pay their fair share, many do pay at all.

I would love to see how much each presidential candidate paid…..

Removing the cap amounts to raising marginal rates 15%; the net effect is the tiny fraction of people who make that much would find other ways to arrange their compensation or business affairs.

[Thomas_muntzer]

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

Today is worst the government takes 40% of your income in taxes and give welfare to the illegal alliens

[Ken]

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

Today is worst the government takes 40% of your income in taxes and give welfare to the illegal alliens

Uh huh......RIIIIGHT.

All those illegal aliens have gotten so rich off the government dime that they are now....[checks notes] living in homeless encampments on the street.

Oh, and by the way, the highest tax bracket is 37% not 40%. But can you tell us what the income threshold is to move into the 37% tax bracket? And the median household income in the US is $74,580. Can you tell us what the effective income tax rate would be on the average family earning $74,580?

[ken_sylvania]

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

Today is worst the government takes 40% of your income in taxes and give welfare to the illegal alliens

Oh, and by the way, the highest tax bracket is 37% not 40%.

Federal income tax is only a portion of what the government takes in taxes.
If I lived in California and made only $168,000, income taxes could easily be more than $58,800, which is 35%.
Then add sales tax, real estate tax, per capita tax, and whatever other type of taxes the government decides to collect and 40% isn't too far off.

[Josh]

California’s top marginal rate plus federal tax and Medicare surtax is 53.1%.

40% is a very typical tax burden. In America people pay 15.3% of their first dollar, plus around 3% unemployment tax and 2% or so workers comp, so that’s already 21%. A marginal federal tax rate of 20% is not uncommon at all. So now that’s 41%.

And then the taxpayer needs to pay sales tax (6-7%) and property tax. Now they’re hitting 50%…