JamesMorrison
Senior Member
- Oct 23, 2010
- 149
- 30
- 46
Why not just pass legislation prohibiting any state from receiving more federal funds than it contributes?
Conservatives are opposed in principle to taxing the rich to help the poor, so why should the richer "blue" states have their taxes used to help the poorer "red" ones?
You are in luck, there already is a law, generally known, as the U.S. Constitution but specifically referenced as Article 1 Sec. 8 (Powers of Congress) that reads, in part:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ( The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net )
You will be happy to know that the term 'general welfare' in the constitution meant that all were to benefit equally from the central government's few, enumerated, and constitutional efforts. So federal tax and spend legislation that produced this:
and made you wonder this:FY 2005 RANKINGS: THE RATIO OF FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED AS COMPARED TO FEDERAL FUNDS SENT
Ranking - State - Outlay to Tax Ratio
*******************************
1. New Mexico - $2.03
2. Mississippi - $2.02
3, Alaska - $1.84
4. Louisiana - $1.78
5. West Virginia - $1.76
6. North Dakota - $1.68
7. Alabama - $1.66
8. South Dakota - $1.53
9. Kentucky - $1.51
10. Virginia - $1.51
11. Montana - $1.47
12. Hawaii - $1.44
13. Maine - $1.41
14. Arkansas - $1.41
15. Oklahoma - $1.36
16. South Carolina - $1.35
17. Missouri - $1.32
18.Maryland - $1.30
19. Tennessee - $1.27
20. Idaho - $1.21
21. Arizona - $1.19
22. Kansas - $1.12
23.Wyoming - $1.11
24. Iowa - $1.10
24. Nebraska - $1.10
26. Vermont - $1.08
26. North Carolina - $1.08
28. Pennsylvania - $1.07
28. Utah - $1.07
30. Indiana - $1.05
30. Ohio - $1.05
32.Georgia - $1.01
states receiving more federal funds than they contribute
33. Rhode Island - $1.00
states contributing more federal funds than they receive
34. Florida - $0.97
35. Texas - $0.94
36. Oregon - $0.93
37. Michigan - $0.92
38. Washington - $0.88
39. Wisconsin - $0.86
40. Massachusetts - $0.82
41. Colorado - $0.81
42. New York - $0.79
43. California - $0.78
44. Delaware - $0.77
45. Illinois - $0.75
46. Minnesota - $0.72
47. New Hampshire - $0.71
48. Connecticut - $0.69
49. Nevada - $0.65
50. New Jersey - $0.61
The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill
is simply unconstitutional. As is the present progressive tax system that taxes wealthy Americans on an unequal basis. Indeed, Little Jimmie Madison in, Federalist 10 I believe, called the above scheme "wicked". So, if we followed the Constittution as Amended your question would have been avoided in the first place." Conservatives are opposed in principle to taxing the rich to help the poor, so why should the richer "blue" states have their taxes used to help the poorer "red" ones?"
It would not be irrelevant to mention here that taxes were, constitutionally, to be applied equally to all involved. This means the progressive income tax system is also unconstitutional. Further, a reading of the 16th Amendment:
Does not attempt or adjust in any way the understanding that taxes were to be applied equally to all Americans."The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
JM