jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (23 posts)

Why Can't the Fed Regulate State Taxation

  1. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    Property taxation on the state and local levels varies in incredible amounts , Property taxes  primarily can vary from  a few hundred to  Twenty thousand dollars for a half acre home ?   Major  Tax reform needs to happen now !

  2. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    There is after all, no reason why  tens of thousands of dollars  difference  between a home and an acre of land in  Az. for instance and the same in  NY. exists .  Why should the quarter acre lot with a decent home in NJ tax at  $17,000 dollars and the same home in  texas go at $1,300 ?    Many here detest anything federal in regulations and yet let there states and cities  tax at police state ,third world country rates .

    Is this just voter , ideological apathy ?

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is your folks that complain about interference from the Federal Government all of the time. Why can't we let the voters of the respective states solve their own problems in the regard to taxes imposed upon them by their respective states?

      1. ahorseback profile image79
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Wrong , it isn't the right  that constantly begs for more  federal intervention ,  it is the left =  for entitlements .  The right wants common sense federal regulatory intervention, Both want tax reform , the left for said entiltement the right for less taxation .
        The left   = more intervention
        The right =less

        How come you're always wrong in your political interpretations?

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          You're the one looking into the funhouse mirror all the time, Ahorseback, you can hardly afford to talk.

          Your people want no federal regulation, reasonable or not, unless it  applies to what goes on our bedrooms, otherwise it has always been states rights for you folks?

          The less taxation is never that, it is just that the money goes to line the pockets of the plutocrats and feed the military industrial complex, which has the stench of the Right all over it.

          1. ahorseback profile image79
            ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Now there you go again  Credence ..........The arguments of of the right ,when it comes to federal  taxation or  regulatory intervention  can never be broken ! Do you wanna guess why ?   As long as they are always for LESS  federal interventions.  No matter how you or the left's political immaturity tries to color them ,-- It's always for less federal government , less cost , less regulation .

            One look at the DNC right now and it's painfully obvious who's looking into the funny mirror .   Credence , keep on digging that hole even though you will never hit water.

    2. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Ask yourself why municipalities and localities charge property taxes ahorseback, and you will answer your own question, (states don't generally levy property taxes - it is the below-state-level entities, cities, counties, etc. that levy property taxes). You will also understand why the Federal government has no involvement with property taxes.

      In short. property taxes are for the support of locality operations costs. Obviously some have more expenses than  others, like perhaps your New Jersey vs. Texas example. There may also be an intangible consideration of voter resistance to increasing taxes, and again your NJ vs. TX example might illustrate that too.

      Like Credence2 noted, I am also surprised to see you advocating for more government involvement in your life. Cost-of-living expenses should always be a consideration when deciding where to live. You can't own a Cadillac on a Volkswagon budget.

      GA

      1. ahorseback profile image79
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        GA , it's not all or nothing  government as to many here seem to qualify every thing government related ,  Its the right amount of government meaning generally as little as required at least according to conservatives , And believe me I know who levies the local taxes ,   It's mostly our failed and continually failing  education systems that are the majority of all local taxes . 

        In my experiences of attending , general apathy dictates that the only people who show up for school budget meetings are the teachers and system related revenue hogs.  All our local spending is 75 -80 -90 percent education system . Tax over-hall , the correct amount of tax over-hall , would be federally regulated to standards and locally funded .  Although everyone  knows that elitist liberals tend towards the dictation of expensive costs and standards for them paid for by others while sending their own to private schools.

  3. wilderness profile image99
    wildernessposted 2 weeks ago

    Average property tax rate in New Jersey (highest in the nation) is 1.89%  To achieve that $17,000 bill, the house will have to be worth $900,000.  That's not a "decent home on a quarter acre" anywhere!
    http://www.tax-rates.org/new_jersey/property-tax

    Of course, the average family in NJ pays only $718 in income taxes - on the low side.  The two kind of balance out, don't they?
    http://www.tax-rates.org/new_jersey/income-tax

    But in any case are you seriously suggesting that the federal government regulate what localities, from cities to counties to states, can vote to tax themselves?  Without regard to needs, population or people?

    1. ahorseback profile image79
      ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes I do ,  towns where I am from , varying very little in size of home or town population vary as much on the average from  $2,000  to $  8,000  on the average. My house was  about $2,200 .yr.......a friends , same size house and land  $4,600 yr..  Property taxes in New England  vary to the extreme .   Town administrative  taxes are very similar in comparison while the major differences are school taxes.  One regularity in New England are elderly people  who have paid their way in life no longer able to afford the taxes alone ,  Guess what ? Their kids are grown and gone .

      States , cities , towns vary considerably and shouldn't , If we are going to have major tax overhauls , let's have them !    Standardize them , flat taxes etc.......

      1. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Who will pay for that new sewer system that has been needed for years and finally failed completely?  The taxpayers using it or the feds?  Or will the town just be deserted.

        Most small locales (cities, counties) do a fairly good job of managing their money.  If taxes are raised, or just high already, there is probably a reason.

        1. ahorseback profile image79
          ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          What are you a tax  assessor ,  that was one overly simplified and too easy  an answer. That new sewer system is generally covered to a degree already by the Feds , 80 -90 percent and much like a bridge or a new fire dept . bldng. towns generally cover minor percentages.    Simplified tax reform is a must .    Flat taxes etc. are less complicated and harder to" hide " excess revenue raising .

          Let's vote to keep it complicated right ?

          1. wilderness profile image99
            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            OK - the new school, the put off remodel of the courthouse and the street repairs to fill potholes the severe winter brought this year.  Along with the extra sand needed for snow plows and replacement of old parking meters.  A new fire truck is desperately needed, as is 2 new police cars.

            Point is that different communities have different needs, and different people demand different amenities.  You're trying to say that all communities everywhere have identical needs, and that plainly is not true.  I guess we could just put all the burden on the feds, but I would fight that tooth and toenail - it's a sure fire method of over-spending as every community fights to get what it is "owed" from the free money from the feds.

            1. ahorseback profile image79
              ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              "Free money " and there lies the problem .   It's all free  isn't it .. All our tax dollars ,
              - federal 
              - state
              - local
              - mine
              - yours
              It all comes free for the taking ,  where though  does it say in the constitution that we are obligated to be taxed before life ,during life and after death too?   Must we all think like you and say "Oh well , I got the tax bill , I'd better run and pay it now ? Are we all to act accepting , as easily  as sheep ?

              1. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                You think taxes are too high, run for office.  Or help someone else that agrees with you do it.

                But please don't put the swamp in control of deciding what my local government needs to spend - they haven't a clue what our needs are and don't care.

                1. ahorseback profile image79
                  ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Trump  COULD actually be the first real chance of that swamp draining AND  awakening the people to that cause  and actually he or his people or us followers - probably invented the term  but somehow some  think the states, cities and towns  are doing a great job  ?      Somehow some  think the incredible array and variation of mixed bag taxation from town to town , state to state is fine ?

                  WE need major tax overall , our economy demands it , our future demands it.

  4. paradigmsearch profile image94
    paradigmsearchposted 2 weeks ago

    "Why Can't the Fed Regulate State Taxation?"

    Good question, actually.

    On the one hand, the 10th Amendment gives a flat out "NO!": "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    But on the other hand, the federal government ignores the 10th Amendment all the time. So they might as well ignore it this time, too.

    My opinion? Resignation, as in We the People Are Powerless.

  5. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    Both parties defend the constitution when it serves their cause  and vow to change or amend it when it doesn't serve their cause . It has been amended , bent , twisted , folded  and contorted  to serve one sides or the other's points in court  for hundreds of years .    Bottom line ,   WE in America have voluntarily  suspended our own demands  about taxation by tyranical government bodies . As far as taxation goes in America , The King is once again at our door demanding taxes or they will burn us out .

    IMHO,  the American public is standing in a pool of apathy .

  6. VanessaJanes profile image80
    VanessaJanesposted 2 weeks ago

    Hey, Mr. Constitution, if the feds could regulate state taxes, they could raise taxes as well as lower them.

    1. ahorseback profile image79
      ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Oh you mean they don't already Ms. Constitution , why are liberals so blind to positive federal regulatory ability and so attuned and  addicted to federal  entitlement regulatory programming  ?

      Answer that one please.

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        I will answer that, you righties are against regulatory responsibility of the Feds in principle. Why are you cherry picking where you welcome an abtrusive federal presence verses your gripes about government overreach?

        Doesn't the Constitution have a provision allowing the States certain autonomy. But, of course, you will flush all of this down the toilet now because there is a burr in your saddle? If residents of a state have problems with taxation, there is alwaysthe ballot box as remedy for people's general perception of a excess tax problem. You, as a Constitutional scholar should know all of this isnot going change merely because you say that it should.

        1. ahorseback profile image79
          ahorsebackposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Open up the mind now Credence ,  Conservatives , just as in the name , are for only
          limited and necessary regulatory controls from central government , Yet liberals  ,as always , look at things in black and white . The usual all or nothing mentality .
          -Constitutional border controls
          -Worker safety
          -Airline controls
          -Transportation
          -Banking ..........of course we need regulatory controls  , the states have become  part of the government tyranny problem with taxes levied against it's citizens .  Instead of the feds controlling the states they support each other . Federal controls are always better for the masses = equalization.

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Open up the mind now Credence ,  Conservatives , just as in the name , are for only
            limited and necessary regulatory controls from central government

            What the rightwinger finds as limited and necessary is not shared by many of us. So, what your definition of limited and necessary is is not my definition.
            --------------------------------------
            Yet liberals  ,as always , look at things in black and white . The usual all or nothing mentality .
            -Constitutional border controls
            -Worker safety
            -Airline controls
            -Transportation
            -Banking ..........of course we need regulatory controls  , the states have become  part of the government tyranny problem with taxes levied against it's citizens .  Instead of the feds controlling the states they support each other . Federal controls are always better for the masses = equalization.

            lets add some more: EPA, FDA, SEC, USDA unless you want another "The Jungle" type scenario when you go to buy your meat? CFPB which the GOP has been trying to destroy, don't want to give consumers too much of  a level playing field? That is soooo Republican.

            So when you look at all the things in American life that are safe, but can just as easily not be, would that give you reason to pause? The kinds of things that you conservative rightwinger types take for granted but not give due credit toward? The problem with conservatives is that their breath and depth of wisdom extends from A to B......

            You say, for example, that banking should be regulated, the people pushing to give the bankers and Wall Street a blank check are the conservatives and Republicans. So are you still speaking from both sides of your mouth?

 
working