Another new tax plan from a Hendrickson follower

[ashlynne39]

So here is another new tax plan I recently saw embraced by one of Hendrickson's minions.

First the minion made some editorial comments about the plan:

This is exactly what the Constitution allows in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4.

The electoral college is based upon and apportioned upon census data. Since the Constitution clearly allows for direct taxes subject to apportionment, there should be no problem here. We might prefer that the federal government go by the "actual numbers" recorded in the census such that some states would have 57 and a half votes while others with the same number of electorates might garner only 57 or maybe even 58, none-the-less, going by the apportioned vote of the electoral college seems to satisfy the apportionment rule of the Constitution. I would be very surprised at any differing opinion.

Then he went on to give the plan. Thoughts, ideas, rebuttals, agreements?

-Abolishment of taxation on the individual by the federal government.

-the federal government gets its revenue by taxing the state governments directly based on that states electoral vote count.

-the federal government can not tax the U.S.A. more than 15% of the U.S.A.s total GDP

For instance the U.S total GDP in 2010 was apporox. 14.5 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.o...)

15% of 14.5 trillion is 2.175 trillion.

There are 538 electoral votes

so therefore the gdp 2.175 trillion would be divided by 538 electoral votes which eqauls 4.05 billion per electoral vote

therefore what each state government owes the federal government breaks down as follows:

state electoral count state owes
(billions)

Alabama - 9 = 36.45
Alaska - 3 = 12.15
Arizona - 11 = 44.55
Arkansas - 6 = 24.3
California - 55 = 222.75
Colorado - 9 = 36.45
Connecticut - 7 = 28.35
Delaware - 3 = 12.15
District Of Columbia - 3 = 12.15
Florida - 29 = 117.45
Georgia - 16 = 64.8
Hawaii - 4 = 16.2
Idaho - 4 = 16.2
Illinois - 20 = 81
Indiana - 11 = 44.55
Iowa - 6 = 24.3
Kansas - 6 = 24.3
Kentucky - 8 = 32.4
Louisiana - 8 = 32.4
Maine - 4 = 16.2
Maryland - 10 = 40.5
Massachusetts - 11 = 44.55
Michigan - 16 = 64.8
Minnesota - 10 = 40.5
Mississippi - 6 = 24.3
Missouri - 10 = 40.5
Montana - 3 = 12.15
Nebraska - 5 = 20.25
Nevada - 6 = 24.3
New Hampshire - 4 = 16.2
New Jersey - 14 = 56.7
New Mexico - 5 = 20.25
New York - 29 = 117.45
North Carolina - 15 = 60.75
North Dakota - 3 = 12.15
Ohio - 18 = 72.9
Oklahoma - 7 = 28.35
Oregon - 7 = 28.35
Pennsylvania - 20 = 81
Rhode Island - 4 = 16.2
South Carolina - 9 = 36.45
South Dakota - 3 = 12.15
Tennessee - 11 = 44.55
Texas - 38 = 153.9
Utah - 6 = 24.3
Vermont - 3 = 12.15
Virginia - 13 = 52.65
Washington - 12 = 48.6
West Virginia - 5 = 20.25
Wisconsin - 10 = 40.5
Wyoming - 3 = 12.15

The benefits!

This tax plan would give each state the ability to decide how best to tax their citizens, businesses etc. This would facilitate enormous competition between states to come up with the best tax plan they can for their state. This would facilitate a situation where businesses and individuals could vote with their feet if they do not like a states tax policy, giving people the FREEDOM to choose a state that has a tax policy they like. Most likely states that have poor tax policy would reform their policy so businesses and individuals would not leave their state.

This plan would be revenue neutral.

States who rely heavily on wealth distributive policy would have to reform their policies to compete with states who don't have wealth distributive policies and are business friendly.

[darling]

Then he went on to give the plan. Thoughts, ideas, rebuttals, agreements?

Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that the electoral vote system is designed to give smaller states a disproportionate influence in Congress. This plan would, therefore, impose upon them a disproportionate tax burden.

Wyoming, for example, has 3 electoral votes for a population of approximately 500,000 and Texas has 34 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. That means Wyoming has an vote for every 165,000 people and Texas has an vote for every 600,000 people.

Which means that, under this proposed plan, Wyoming's tax burden per person would be about four times as much as Texas'. (You might want to check my math, and my figures!)

[LPC]

-the federal government gets its revenue by taxing the state governments directly based on that states electoral vote count.

We tried that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it worked so well that we abandoned that plan and adopted a new Constitution that gave Congress the power to impose taxes directly on persons, businesses, and transactions.

The problem that existed then, and would still exist now, is the problem of enforcing requisitions against the states. Suppose a state is required to pay $1 billion into the US treasury and the state doesn't have the money. What then?

And this is not just a theoretical possibility. After all, states have rebelled at "unfunded mandates" that required them to spend money to enforce laws enacted by Congress. States could easily rebel against an obligation to pay money to the federal government to pay for programs that the states do not want to support.

It would be a political and constitutional mess.

[Imalawman]

Then he went on to give the plan. Thoughts, ideas, rebuttals, agreements?

Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that the electoral vote system is designed to give smaller states a disproportionate influence in Congress. This plan would, therefore, impose upon them a disproportionate tax burden.

Wyoming, for example, has 3 electoral votes for a population of approximately 500,000 and Texas has 34 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. That means Wyoming has an vote for every 165,000 people and Texas has an vote for every 600,000 people.

Which means that, under this proposed plan, Wyoming's tax burden per person would be about four times as much as Texas'. (You might want to check my math, and my figures!)

Are you suggesting that Wyoming might have a hard time coming up with 12.75 billion dollars? Wyoming's revenue last year - 2.4 billion. But I'm sure they'll have no trouble coming up with another $10 billion - only to siphon it off to the Feds. How much would their compliance costs jump up?

Wyoming per person tax = $21,250
Texas Per Person tax = $6,375

[JamesVincent]

If you were going to do something like this why not have it based off of population or a population factor rather then something completely unrelated to population like the electoral college? Like x amount of smackers per y amount of population and work it out to a mean amount per person to collect?

[LPC]

Two other comments:

1. The electoral college is NOT based on the census. Representation in the House is based on the census, and the electoral college is based on the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators. As has already been explained above, apportioning taxes based on the electoral college would skew taxes in favor of more populous states and against less populous states. Given that the less populous states control the Senate, it's not going to happen.

2. The moron who proposed this doesn't seem to realize that allowing Congress to impose taxes against the states themselves would require a constitutional amendment, because the Constitution as written has been interpreted as a system of dual sovereignty under which the federal government can no more tax the states than the states can tax the federal government. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (states may not impose taxes on bank created by the federal government); Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870) (federal government may not impose taxes on the incomes of state officials). In Collector v. Day, the Supreme Court quoted from Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 547 (1869): "It may be admitted that the reserved rights of the States, such as the right to pass laws, to give effect to laws through executive action, to administer justice through the courts, and to employ all necessary agencies for legitimate purposes of State government, are not proper subjects of the taxing power of Congress." (Collector v. Day was later over-ruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939), on the issue of the taxation of salaries, but I believe that the principle that the federal government cannot impose a tax on a state itself remains intact.)

[notorial dissent]

It would also appear to me that the genius involved here doesn't really understand what apportionment means any better than they understand the figures they are generating.

I think comparing this "brilliant" plan to the AOC is several levels of magnitude off in generosity. I don't think workability even comes in to the discussion here.

The true comedy though is that if Hendrickson's heros are balking at paying their taxes now, what is it going to be like when their home state starts taking a truly MASSIVE bite out of their pockets since they will be taxing them not only for the state gov't's upkeep, but the Fed's as well. Not going to be a pretty sight.

[notorial dissent]

So apparently would be breathing by their definitions.

[grixit]

Ok, under this "constitutional" plan, are we back to fractionating "persons" in the count?