politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Other states should protest by withholding taxes, as well. United, yes?
That's not really how it works - there's no one big sack of cash that gets handed over by the state, individual businesses (and people) pay their taxes to the IRS directly, and then separately to the state tax agencies (obvs leaving out some of the draconian nuance here). States don't have a practical method of withholding taxes short of going to every business and demanding they stop paying the feds. While hypothetically possible at some point, it's not in the short term feasible.
There is a big sack of cash that gets handed over by the state: the federal payroll taxes for all the state government employees.
In comparison to all federal taxes payed out by people within a state, that's a pretty miniscule sack of cash. The government is among the largest employers in every state true, but their payroll contributions aren't anything compared to the whole and they're paltry compared to things like business-derived tax revenue. States could withhold them, yes, but it wouldn't do much if they did.
I'm not comparing to the whole. I'm comparing to states sitting on their hands and doing nothing in the face of a rogue government in D.C. that's pulling shit like withholding disaster relief to blue states.
Federal payroll taxes for California state government workers, just using the portion that the employer pays, total ~$22 billion a year. And let's say there's another ~$15 billion for New York. Now imagine every blue state withholds theirs. Seems like a good chunk of change.
It's not nothing, but it's really just not very much in context. Together those make up around the same amount trump is causally refusing to release from the SNAP emergency funds (~$33 billion) and that shortfall is being mitigated. Not trivially, it would be awesome to have that cash and people will feel it, but cutting those funds off for a full year would result in something like two weeks of reduced SNAP benefits or a couple days of federal furlough.
You're thinking of this from the perspective of the federal government. But also think about it from the perspective of the states. For instance, the amount that California could withhold is equal to like 10% of their yearly budget. That could pay for so many of their government programs that actually benefit people in their state. And in so doing it would make them that much less dependent on the whims of the Trump regime.
Alright, the scope of this discussion is creeping pretty drastically. There's still no one big sack of cash, and while yes california could save some money by not paying out their payroll taxes (btw where did you find the state payroll amount? I've been looking around and can't find it reported anywhere) it's still not very much money, especially as they would then be required to cover that portion of the budget that was once covered by the federal government ($600 Billion) who doubtlessly would stop funding California in response to blatant secession...
It's a SWAG based on number of state empoyees in a state times the median state employee salary in that state times the employer federal payroll tax rate.
(What does "swag" mean here?)
Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
I disagree. I think having everyone send their federal taxes to a state entity for leverage purposes would be an interesting development. The individual is protected, and the state holds the bag.
How would the individual be protected from the IRS if they are penalized by the IRS for non-payment of taxes. Just because you sent a check to some state entity doesn’t mean those federal taxes have been paid, and that state entity likely wouldn’t have the authority or resources to protect you from the IRS.
It would be kind of like sending your mortgage payment to your lawyer when you have a dispute with your bank. You still owe that money to the bank, and they can take action for non-payment.
Damn, looks like Trump shouldn't have slasher the IRS budget and fired all their auditors.
Some jurisdictions allow escrow payment when in a legal conflict, in which case you actually might be sending money to your lawyer instead
... Probably doesn't apply for US taxes, but it's a thing
Well, kinda. But in this example, you've put the money in escrow, which gives you protection while everything plays out in court
But you as an individual won’t be suing the IRS so escrow makes no sense in this case.
Yes, but you've also separated the money and put it under the care of a third party. And presumably, you'd do this as a matter of state law
When the IRS comes knocking, you can say "sure thing, your money is over there, as according to local laws". The IRS can then sue you, but you followed the law and set the money aside - clearly you weren't attempting to avoid paying
Which realistically means the federal government needs to sue the state, either to overturn the state law or collect all the money
I'm confused, sorry: what are you disagreeing with?
That seems like a trivial position to take.
Tbh one of my main takeaways from this presidency is that states send too much money to the federal gov and have to ask for it back. It feels like having more local control of how these dollars are spent would maybe even be bi partisan.
It is not bipartisan. The countries that take more than they send (primarily Republican states, I'm led to believe) would absolutely refuse.
In the past our federal government has always been more competent and less corrupt at the federal level than the state level. That only changed this year.
Can't hurt to ask nicely.
Aside from it not really working that way, that's what they want, they want states to start acting against the union. They are intentionally stressing the constitution and governmental system so they can then use that backlash as the justification to discard more of the constitution.
It's a bully teasing and poking and pulling your hair and being annoying until you finally swing at them, then they use that as the excuse to beat the shit out of you. It's aggression and hate and malice being implemented as political strategy.
They don't seem to need justification
Agreed, but GQP gaslights this general idea all the time at Fed level.
“Let’s leave abortion up to the states…” as they come up with a plan to do the exact opposite and parrot the same lies over and over again.