PDA

View Full Version : Free Market Federalism



AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 04:34 PM
I would like to float an idea that may seem radical, it will probably seem radical mainly because we have detached ourselves so far from it. Essentially the idea is to outsource a large portion of the cost of running the Federal Government back to the states, maintaining only a Federal Government in charge of the responsibilities outlined in Article 1 Section 8.

Afterwards, eliminate all Federal taxes to the individual. Federal Government revenues would be a derivative of that which each individual state taxes out of its citizens, in a sense, rather than paying a state and a federal tax, the individual would be required to pay just a state tax, that is essentially both taxes combined going to one source. The percentage of contribution coming from each state would be based on how many congressmen/women it contributes to the House of Representatives, therefore a state with 8 Representatives statewide would contribute 8/435 x 100% or 1.8% of the total Federal tax burden, which should be decisively less than it is presently because the Federal Government would essentially only be required to sustain the postal service, transportation, international treaties, and national defense, all things known as "entitlements" now become the prerogative of the individual state. The state itself would then be able to decide through its state system of government which entitlements are managed and how.

The end state here is now the individual state's success or failure will be based on how effectively it can manage to do everything it sets out to do while maintaining the balance of taxes, operational costs, and entitlements as desired by the voting constituent. If you like California and its breadth of entitlements, you can move there quite easily. If you prefer another state for its income tax rates, you can move there instead. The state's revenues will be based on the independent ability to effectively manage its taxpayers' resources. As people move there, its revenues will increase as well as its sustainability.

A decisive advantage is Federal Budgeting will be quite easy, other than making war and overseas funding, there would be no controversy over what gets funded by our Federal government and what does not.

Just throwing out the hypothetical to see what people feel about the issue...

Bunch
10-04-2013, 05:15 PM
I would like to float an idea that may seem radical, it will probably seem radical mainly because we have detached ourselves so far from it. Essentially the idea is to outsource a large portion of the cost of running the Federal Government back to the states, maintaining only a Federal Government in charge of the responsibilities outlined in Article 1 Section 8.

Afterwards, eliminate all Federal taxes to the individual. Federal Government revenues would be a derivative of that which each individual state taxes out of its citizens, in a sense, rather than paying a state and a federal tax, the individual would be required to pay just a state tax, that is essentially both taxes combined going to one source. The percentage of contribution coming from each state would be based on how many congressmen/women it contributes to the House of Representatives, therefore a state with 8 Representatives statewide would contribute 8/435 x 100% or 1.8% of the total Federal tax burden, which should be decisively less than it is presently because the Federal Government would essentially only be required to sustain the postal service, transportation, international treaties, and national defense, all things known as "entitlements" now become the prerogative of the individual state. The state itself would then be able to decide through its state system of government which entitlements are managed and how.

The end state here is now the individual state's success or failure will be based on how effectively it can manage to do everything it sets out to do while maintaining the balance of taxes, operational costs, and entitlements as desired by the voting constituent. If you like California and its breadth of entitlements, you can move there quite easily. If you prefer another state for its income tax rates, you can move there instead. The state's revenues will be based on the independent ability to effectively manage its taxpayers' resources. As people move there, its revenues will increase as well as its sustainability.

A decisive advantage is Federal Budgeting will be quite easy, other than making war and overseas funding, there would be no controversy over what gets funded by our Federal government and what does not.

Just throwing out the hypothetical to see what people feel about the issue...

Basically it will lead to the collapse of the union. People from the poorest states will leave for those states that have bigger economies, better growth propsects, better quality of life.

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 07:00 PM
Basically it will lead to the collapse of the union. People from the poorest states will leave for those states that have bigger economies, better growth propsects, better quality of life.

Collapse of the Union, no, not so much. This was intended not affect the Constitutional powers provided to the Federal government whatsoever, there will still be three co-equal branches. It will however, put the burden on states to figure out how to manage their independent budgets more effectively, or find someone who can. If their neighbor state has something more effective, it may behoove them to take that on board. So you're right in that failure of that state is an option.

Bunch
10-04-2013, 07:17 PM
Collapse of the Union, no, not so much. This was intended not affect the Constitutional powers provided to the Federal government whatsoever, there will still be three co-equal branches. It will however, put the burden on states to figure out how to manage their independent budgets more effectively, or find someone who can. If their neighbor state has something more effective, it may behoove them to take that on board. So you're right in that failure of that state is an option.

The reason why it will collapse is because the vast majority of the states in this country aren't economically self sufficient. Check this list of states and how they rank by GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

After Colorado which ranks 19th on the list, please tell me which state you will find that is economically self sufficient? The reason that many of the states in this nation are able to hold it together is because of the way that money that is redistributed from the wealthiest states in the country to the poorest in the way of subsidies and social welfare programs. You take that out of the equation and companies and people from the poorest states will start moving to the more bigger and vibrant economies of the other states.

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 07:34 PM
The reason why it will collapse is because the vast majority of the states in this country aren't economically self sufficient. Check this list of states and how they rank by GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

After Colorado which ranks 19th on the list, please tell me which state you will find that is economically self sufficient? The reason that many of the states in this nation are able to hold it together is because of the way that money that is redistributed from the wealthiest states in the country to the poorest in the way of subsidies and social welfare programs. You take that out of the equation and companies and people from the poorest states will start moving to the more bigger and vibrant economies of the other states.

That's not a collapse of the union, it's just a collapse of dependency towards the union.

I don't see a problem with that at all honestly. States that have been consistently non-sustainable would then be forced to become sustainable or turn into barren real estate. What you seem to be implying as a disadvantage is actually an advantage! States have all the powers to do whatever it takes to make themselves self-sufficient based on their ability to impose taxation, provide services, and operate their government. If they fail to operate effectively, most likely they will first find themselves under new management, or later be forced to rethink the way they do business to make themselves viable.

Bunch
10-04-2013, 07:41 PM
That's not a collapse of the union, it's just a collapse of dependency towards the union.

I don't see a problem with that at all honestly. States that have been consistently non-sustainable would then be forced to become sustainable or turn into barren real estate. What you seem to be implying as a disadvantage is actually an advantage! States have all the powers to do whatever it takes to make themselves self-sufficient based on their ability to impose taxation, provide services, and operate their government. If they fail to operate effectively, most likely they will first find themselves under new management, or later be forced to rethink the way they do business to make themselves viable.

Then you should have stated so in your OP. When I read your OP I kind of got the hint you had a hidden agenda it didn't took long to figure out what it was.

garhkal
10-04-2013, 07:46 PM
And cause of those freeloaders moving, they will drown the state they move to's economy down in to the gutter..

Bunch
10-04-2013, 08:04 PM
And cause of those freeloaders moving, they will drown the state they move to's economy down in to the gutter..

Exactly, and will eventually lead to the collapse of the union.

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 08:49 PM
And cause of those freeloaders moving, they will drown the state they move to's economy down in to the gutter..


Exactly, and will eventually lead to the collapse of the union.

Only if all the states they move into decide to try to prop them up as freeloaders. If they move to a state with the intention of freeloading, and the state refuses them, they will either be forced to become productive themselves, and make that state more successful, or move to another state that will encourage that dependency and pauperism, making that state less successful. I have a feeling the states that continue to remain successful will not be the ones that are giving freeloaders a free ride.

AFcynic
10-04-2013, 10:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

Yep, that pretty much sums that up...

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 10:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

Yep, that pretty much sums that up...

How so? Can you elaborate?

Bunch
10-04-2013, 10:18 PM
Only if all the states they move into decide to try to prop them up as freeloaders. If they move to a state with the intention of freeloading, and the state refuses them, they will either be forced to become productive themselves, and make that state more successful, or move to another state that will encourage that dependency and pauperism, making that state less successful. I have a feeling the states that continue to remain successful will not be the ones that are giving freeloaders a free ride.

Having a vibrant, diversified and growing economy has little to do with social welfare programs and more to do with resources or access to them. Now a shitty state with no resources can still balance a budget but that has nothing to do with the quality of life it offers to the residents of that particular state.

AFcynic
10-04-2013, 10:19 PM
You use the term "entitlements" like it's a bad thing. What "entitlements" would you eliminate? You're basically advocating for people to move to states that have better accountants. Come on, man!

I'll let you eliminate food stamps, if you let me eliminate gun rights. I'll let you eliminate unemployment, if you're mandated to drive a Prius.

You said the idea was radical, and it was. It's a flawed plan, and you get an "A" for effort, but seriously...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq-nESEK0BY

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Having a vibrant, diversified and growing economy has little to do with social welfare programs and more to do with resources or access to them. Now a shitty state with no resources can still balance a budget but that has nothing to do with the quality of life it offers to the residents of that particular state.

I'm not saying this is true nor false, I imagine that would be figured out by which state became the most "Successful" because everyone had chosen to live there. If indeed the state managed to both become successful and have very comprehensive social welfare programs in place, I imagine quite a few states would choose to emulate the model. That was actually my original point.

If your point was that this model would fall apart because the aforementioned "freeloaders" mentioned by garkhal would flock to these states and they would fall apart under their own weight, it kind of contradicts your own point here, wouldn't it? If you believe that state could be sustainable and continue to be so after accepting new members, both productive and not-as-productive, it would only mean that is probably what is closest to the optimal model. The results would tell the tale.

Bunch
10-05-2013, 02:19 AM
I'm not saying this is true nor false, I imagine that would be figured out by which state became the most "Successful" because everyone had chosen to live there. If indeed the state managed to both become successful and have very comprehensive social welfare programs in place, I imagine quite a few states would choose to emulate the model. That was actually my original point.

If your point was that this model would fall apart because the aforementioned "freeloaders" mentioned by garkhal would flock to these states and they would fall apart under their own weight, it kind of contradicts your own point here, wouldn't it? If you believe that state could be sustainable and continue to be so after accepting new members, both productive and not-as-productive, it would only mean that is probably what is closest to the optimal model. The results would tell the tale.

Ok... Lets see if you follow me and then tell me where my logic falls apart.

You are theorizing about a change in how the federal and state relation should be. I commented saying that if you had it your way the union will fall apart, thats my main point. Then you argue that someway somehow that poorest states will have to manage how to survive. I said they wouldnt because the redistribution of wealth will be eliminated and many states that are dependent on this will fail. I also mentioned that this will cause a huge migration from those who live in the poorest states to the wealthy states. Another poster commented that these wealthy states will fail due to the influx of new residents to which I agree. In your hypothetical scenario the union will fail and thats my point, I'm not making any other point.

Where do you see the fault in my arguement?

AJBIGJ
10-05-2013, 01:16 PM
Where do you see the fault in my arguement?

First, the premise of the dissolution of the union. The strength or weakness of this union is not glued together simply based on the states being dependent on the Federal government to sustain them financially, that part should be pretty obvious.

Secondly, you implied that successful states with strong social welfare programs would fail when a large influx of freeloaders arrived and added burden to their system (not an illogical assertion). This would never be an issue for a state that chooses not to prop up freeloaders, which was my assertion. Then you stated essentially that having strong welfare were not necessarily stronger or weaker economically because of having those programs. But by your own logic opening their welfare programs to outsiders would make that system more economically vulnerable than a state that chooses not to do so, and possibly cause those states to fail. This implies a vulnerability that states that do not encourage pauperism significantly lack, meaning that in a static environment, you might be right, a state with strong welfare programs may be on par, with a state that does not have strong welfare programs. However, in a dynamic environment the risk for failure is greater for the state that would willingly encourage outsiders to join in sucking on their government teet.