Tea Party Tax Code: Simple, Low, Fair, Honest, EQUAL!

[GreecePwns]

It was you who tried to bring about the argument that any adherence to Marx's 10-point plan was communist. Adam Smith is not a communist.

You want the full quote? For context? Here it is:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

C'mon man, no one who's read The Wealth of Nations or knows anything about Adam Smith questions that he was the first to propose progressive taxation.

[Phatscotty]

It was you who tried to bring about the argument that any adherence to Marx's 10-point plan was communist. Adam Smith is not a communist.

You want the full quote? For context? Here it is:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

C'mon man, no one who's read The Wealth of Nations or knows anything about Adam Smith questions that he was the first to propose progressive taxation.

You are partially wrong. I was simply comparing the Progressive agenda to the Communist Manifesto, side by side. Adam Smith has nothing to do with that comparison.

[GreecePwns]

Okay.

[Night Strike]

@ Neoteny, why not exempt the first $20,000?

It's better than nothing (and let's not kid ourselves, tax cuts for the poor is not exactly on the tea party platform). But there are so many situations where exceptions might need to be made. If a family of four is relying on a single 25000 income, they might need all the income they can get. I'm no tax expert though. I just copypastaed something Dancing Mustard wrote years ago that directly counters the "Tea Party" tax code. A flat tax seems, to my uneducated opinion, like it will be anything but simple to apply, and only fair if your definition of "fair" has less to do with allowing the majority of citizens to maximize "what they do with their money" and more with maintaining the status quo for the rich. Nobody likes fucking with their taxes, but our current shitty system benefits most people to some degree, while the flat tax causes more problems than it solves. In my uneducated opinion, of course.

Plus, like you mentioned, how would hundreds of thousands of unemployed tax attorneys affect the economy?

How would a flat tax cause more problems than it solves? You make sure all people pay the same rate on taxes instead of deducting it down to way below their current tax bracket. The poorest people would still not have to pay any taxes if they make less than $33k (according to the OP). People save TONS of time on filing their taxes, which actually should mean that the IRS will get more money more quickly because people won't be filing extensions, procrastinating, etc.

By the way, it's impossible for the Tea Party (or anybody) to put tax cuts for the poor on their platform because the poor don't pay federal income taxes! Approximately 48% of the population does not pay federal income taxes.

[Phatscotty]

I think you lost me on this being a serious attempt at reforming the tax code of the wealthiest nation on earth with point 4.

On a postcard.

It's about simplifying the tax code. Your criticism is accurate, it's too easy. Nobody will like that

[Timminz]

Great thread! I especially like the writing style in the OP. Well-done Scott.

Some of the posts since then leave me with a couple questions.

America is not a progressive country. We are quite the opposite actually.

What's the opposite of progressive?

The poorest people would still not have to pay any taxes if they make less than $33k (according to the OP).... Approximately 48% of the population does not pay federal income taxes.

And how many people do you think make less the $33k/year, right now in the US?

[Night Strike]

Great thread! I especially like the writing style in the OP. Well-done Scott.

Some of the posts since then leave me with a couple questions.

America is not a progressive country. We are quite the opposite actually.

What's the opposite of progressive?

The poorest people would still not have to pay any taxes if they make less than $33k (according to the OP).... Approximately 48% of the population does not pay federal income taxes.

And how many people do you think make less the $33k/year, right now in the US?

Oops, it looks like the median income is about $31k. So that number should be lower.

[GreecePwns]

Where is your source for $31k? Just last year it was $48k.

Either way, using statistics from a recession is misleading. Median income has hovered around $50k in 2012 dollars for the past 20 years now.

[Timminz]

Where is your source for $31k? Just last year it was $48k.

Either way, using statistics from a recession is misleading. Median income has hovered around $50k in 2012 dollars for the past 20 years now.

I think you're looking at household income.

[Night Strike]

Where is your source for $31k? Just last year it was $48k.

Either way, using statistics from a recession is misleading. Median income has hovered around $50k in 2012 dollars for the past 20 years now.

I just looked at wiki. I didn't have time to look for anything else. Looking again, it appears that the amount is for each equivalent adult.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ Neoteny, why not exempt the first $20,000?

It's better than nothing (and let's not kid ourselves, tax cuts for the poor is not exactly on the tea party platform). But there are so many situations where exceptions might need to be made. If a family of four is relying on a single 25000 income, they might need all the income they can get. I'm no tax expert though. I just copypastaed something Dancing Mustard wrote years ago that directly counters the "Tea Party" tax code. A flat tax seems, to my uneducated opinion, like it will be anything but simple to apply, and only fair if your definition of "fair" has less to do with allowing the majority of citizens to maximize "what they do with their money" and more with maintaining the status quo for the rich. Nobody likes fucking with their taxes, but our current shitty system benefits most people to some degree, while the flat tax causes more problems than it solves. In my uneducated opinion, of course.

Plus, like you mentioned, how would hundreds of thousands of unemployed tax attorneys affect the economy?

A flat-tax of 20% on all income with an exemption for the first $20,000 demolishes much of the means of crony capitalism. Politicians can't weave tax credits to their friends in certain businesses. Lobbying becomes ineffective for implementing subsidies through taxes for their benefit. A flat-tax would result in a significant curtailment of political power, which is manipulated by politicians and by certain non-government individuals in order to rent-seek. My goal would end much of that.

The $20,000 exemption helps the people of lower income significantly; however, if people want to use the state to provide goods, then they must pay for some of it. If some people feel that the poor aren't getting enough of whatever, then they must pay for that themselves. There is this balance of gaining money in order to pay for something: (1) you can support coercing people through violence (i.e. taxation), and (2) you can support engaging in voluntary exchange.

As for the displaced, all jobs are risky, and all sectors of the economy are not impervious to risk. Therefore, it makes sense to save some of your money.

But what happened? Keynesian economists focus continually on short-term gain at the expense of long-term gain. Basically, they drive down interest rates, so that people will presumably spend more, so that their averaged economic figures (like GDP) look great. This instills confidence in the government, in your politicians, etc. It helps keeping the system going, but what are the long-term costs?

Decades of playing with interest rates have created strong incentives for people to save marginally less money; therefore, we (and the tax professionals) find ourselves in this precarious situation. The government is primarily to blame for the disadvantage which the displaced will find themselves.

Hopefully, the disadvantaged have reduced their risk by expanding their portfolio beyond simply one investment (i.e. their job), but they have accumulated wealth of various value. There's still something to survive on. And, future generations will be provided yet another opportunity to learn from people's mistakes, and at least they have that $20,000 exemption. You could even give them a 5-year warning by implementing the tax in 5 years.

If anything, we shouldn't be supporting these progressive tax polices and all their exceptions because it simply enables the government to take further advantage of us.

[Neoteny]

@ Neoteny, why not exempt the first $20,000?

It's better than nothing (and let's not kid ourselves, tax cuts for the poor is not exactly on the tea party platform). But there are so many situations where exceptions might need to be made. If a family of four is relying on a single 25000 income, they might need all the income they can get. I'm no tax expert though. I just copypastaed something Dancing Mustard wrote years ago that directly counters the "Tea Party" tax code. A flat tax seems, to my uneducated opinion, like it will be anything but simple to apply, and only fair if your definition of "fair" has less to do with allowing the majority of citizens to maximize "what they do with their money" and more with maintaining the status quo for the rich. Nobody likes fucking with their taxes, but our current shitty system benefits most people to some degree, while the flat tax causes more problems than it solves. In my uneducated opinion, of course.

Plus, like you mentioned, how would hundreds of thousands of unemployed tax attorneys affect the economy?

How would a flat tax cause more problems than it solves? You make sure all people pay the same rate on taxes instead of deducting it down to way below their current tax bracket. The poorest people would still not have to pay any taxes if they make less than $33k (according to the OP). People save TONS of time on filing their taxes, which actually should mean that the IRS will get more money more quickly because people won't be filing extensions, procrastinating, etc.

By the way, it's impossible for the Tea Party (or anybody) to put tax cuts for the poor on their platform because the poor don't pay federal income taxes! Approximately 48% of the population does not pay federal income taxes.

I may have mentioned earlier that my initial post was copypasta. I didn't read the OP. Now that I have, I see that it's the same shit that's always brought up with the flat tax. Filing taxes on a postcard? Never going to happen, and it's insulting to pretend that it would.
Dear gummint,

I made $20000 dollars this year. You can't have a single fucking dime. Gfy.

Love,
Night Strike

Dear Night Strike,

Ok. Have a good fiscal year 2013!

Love,
Ron Paul
Messiah

Unless you're typing in two point font, you aren't demonstrating your yearly income on a postcard.

Now, that we have patently absurd out of the way, we can actually talk about the tax. Me saying it hurts "the poor" may have been poorly conceived. What the flat tax very clearly does is move "the burden" of tax from the rich (oh Gawd mah millions how am I supposed to buy a yacht every year with all these fucking taxes) to the not rich. The middle class will now carry the weight. Government programs for the poor will be hamstrung. And the rich buy more yachts, which might be enough to counteract the blow to the economy caused by the out of work lawyers. But it's fair, right?

@BBS

I mean, it's cool to try to fight crony capitalism. It's a bad thing and an absurd phrase. Everything about it is terrible. The thing is, as long as there is capitalism and government, CC will find a way. Modifying the tax code will briefly reduce crony capitalism until they find some other way to incentivize business. If that's your main argument for the flat tax, color me unimpressed. I'd rather be violently raped in every oriface, or whatever the cool kids are calling taxes these days, than make a shift that moves the power from one group of rich people to another. It's probably a sad reflection on our society that I trust the bloat of the US government with "my money" than I do the sociopaths (yes, the gummintarians are sociopaths too) in the private sector.

With relation to the rest of your post, I dunno economics lol. Seriously though. My ideas might not make good economic sense. I'm willing to concede such a thing. But I do understand about "fairness" and "equality." Calling a system that maintains an uberrich class and the rest of the peons is neither of those things. Capitalism as a system is not compatible with those concepts. It may, overall be the "best" economic system. But it will never be equal, and it will never be fair. That's really the sort of thing that starts me ranting in these discussions until I end up over my head.

[Night Strike]

Now, that we have patently absurd out of the way, we can actually talk about the tax. Me saying it hurts "the poor" may have been poorly conceived. What the flat tax very clearly does is move "the burden" of tax from the rich (oh Gawd mah millions how am I supposed to buy a yacht every year with all these fucking taxes) to the not rich. The middle class will now carry the weight. Government programs for the poor will be hamstrung. And the rich buy more yachts, which might be enough to counteract the blow to the economy caused by the out of work lawyers. But it's fair, right?

If the federal government is supposed to be a government for all people, why are the rich the only ones who pay for it? Shouldn't everyone be paying for the government to exist? Afterall, ALL Americans are covered by the Constitution. Plus, if everyone actually paid some taxes to the government, then maybe more people would make sure the government is accountable for their actions and spending. You also assume that government programs for the poor are both good and constitutional. A case against both of those claims could easily be made, yet people think that's an important role of the government. It's not. People live off the government instead of working themselves; the safety-net programs have become the way of life for too many people.

[Neoteny]

Now, that we have patently absurd out of the way, we can actually talk about the tax. Me saying it hurts "the poor" may have been poorly conceived. What the flat tax very clearly does is move "the burden" of tax from the rich (oh Gawd mah millions how am I supposed to buy a yacht every year with all these fucking taxes) to the not rich. The middle class will now carry the weight. Government programs for the poor will be hamstrung. And the rich buy more yachts, which might be enough to counteract the blow to the economy caused by the out of work lawyers. But it's fair, right?

If the federal government is supposed to be a government for all people, why are the rich the only ones who pay for it? Shouldn't everyone be paying for the government to exist? Afterall, ALL Americans are covered by the Constitution. Plus, if everyone actually paid some taxes to the government, then maybe more people would make sure the government is accountable for their actions and spending. You also assume that government programs for the poor are both good and constitutional. A case against both of those claims could easily be made, yet people think that's an important role of the government. It's not. People live off the government instead of working themselves; the safety-net programs have become the way of life for too many people.

If you can't pay for the government, you can't pay. That's all there is to it. Someone has to pick up the slack if you want government to work. If you don't that's fine, and you can pursue the deconstruction of welfare, and whatever other programs. But we do need government, so we need the wealthy to pick up the slack in the tax arena. It, isn't fair. I'll admit it. Suck it up. It's glorious capitalism.

[Night Strike]

Now, that we have patently absurd out of the way, we can actually talk about the tax. Me saying it hurts "the poor" may have been poorly conceived. What the flat tax very clearly does is move "the burden" of tax from the rich (oh Gawd mah millions how am I supposed to buy a yacht every year with all these fucking taxes) to the not rich. The middle class will now carry the weight. Government programs for the poor will be hamstrung. And the rich buy more yachts, which might be enough to counteract the blow to the economy caused by the out of work lawyers. But it's fair, right?

If the federal government is supposed to be a government for all people, why are the rich the only ones who pay for it? Shouldn't everyone be paying for the government to exist? Afterall, ALL Americans are covered by the Constitution. Plus, if everyone actually paid some taxes to the government, then maybe more people would make sure the government is accountable for their actions and spending. You also assume that government programs for the poor are both good and constitutional. A case against both of those claims could easily be made, yet people think that's an important role of the government. It's not. People live off the government instead of working themselves; the safety-net programs have become the way of life for too many people.

If you can't pay for the government, you can't pay. That's all there is to it. Someone has to pick up the slack if you want government to work. If you don't that's fine, and you can pursue the deconstruction of welfare, and whatever other programs. But we do need government, so we need the wealthy to pick up the slack in the tax arena. It, isn't fair. I'll admit it. Suck it up. It's glorious capitalism.

The deconstruction of welfare doesn't equal the deconstruction of the entire government. Welfare is not in the constitution, but there are plenty of tasks that ARE included in the constitution that outlines what the federal government should be doing. And all people CAN pay even just 1% of their income to the government, it's just that politicians have decided it's better for their own power if they don't.

[BigBallinStalin]

@BBS

I mean, it's cool to try to fight crony capitalism. It's a bad thing and an absurd phrase. Everything about it is terrible. The thing is, as long as there is capitalism and government, CC will find a way. Modifying the tax code will briefly reduce crony capitalism until they find some other way to incentivize business. If that's your main argument for the flat tax, color me unimpressed. I'd rather be violently raped in every oriface, or whatever the cool kids are calling taxes these days, than make a shift that moves the power from one group of rich people to another. It's probably a sad reflection on our society that I trust the bloat of the US government with "my money" than I do the sociopaths (yes, the gummintarians are sociopaths too) in the private sector.

It would practically cut off their fingers if the rule for taxation was clear and uncompromising. **change "forms of all income" to "total income." *** (from my earlier post).

Power would shift from the government to the non-government. But this term "power" is misleading. It's not like a business can force you to buy something--unless it obtains some privilege from the state. (We can discuss this if you disagree. I feel many people have a problem with my position).

If you get a 10% deduction in your taxes, your real income increases (i.e. you have more money to spend and save). How is this bad? You have more money to choose who to trust. If you really trust the government more than the private sector, then you're totally free to donate your money saved to the government.

I don't think you'd do this. If you wanted to help the disenfranchised or whoever, you'd very likely donate to a charity which you feel best serves what you expect.

With relation to the rest of your post, I dunno economics lol. Seriously though. My ideas might not make good economic sense. I'm willing to concede such a thing. But I do understand about "fairness" and "equality." Calling a system that maintains an uberrich class and the rest of the peons is neither of those things. Capitalism as a system is not compatible with those concepts. It may, overall be the "best" economic system. But it will never be equal, and it will never be fair. That's really the sort of thing that starts me ranting in these discussions until I end up over my head.

What's fair about taking more money from several groups of people? "Oh, you worked harder and earned more money? Well, that's nice, we'll take a larger cut!" How is this fair?

In essence, it seems just to give more to the poor, but what if this merely incentives them to cut back on their income, substitute much of it for the subsidies (tax credits, etc.), and then stay poor? Humans are great at tolerating dismal conditions.

What if, in "Making a fairer society," we get other policies with the package? (which we do). Look at the war of drugs and its effect on the poor. Can we call this fair and equal? It's terrible, yet for some reason, I see many people still appealing to the government to make things more fair and equal. But you don't get what you want with government action.

And then, what do we receive from this? Subsides of poverty? Subsidies to big business? A bloated bureaucracy that spends billions on a vast war industry? That's what your notion or "fairness" and "equality" unfortunately results in. You appeal to the government, and you get the package deal.

I'd take the road to the free society. I pick what I want with my own money--whatever that may be. Businesses have to respond to demand, and either profit if successful or incur loss if they fail to meet the demands of consumers--unless of course the government fixes this "problem" with subsidies, by granting monopolies, by granting fixed quantities (like taxi medallions), etc. If you support the government, then you get the package deal, and this results in anything but "fairness" and "equality."

We shouldn't forget the consequences of seemingly "fair" and "equal" arguments for government intervention.

[bedub1]

Which... will...never...happen

Tell me, oh Brit, why will that never happen in America?

A flat tax? Cause you're not really that interested in it as a nation.

Even after the historic election results of 2010? You might at least admit we are more interested now than we were before? (why a Brit is so interested....idk)

What's that a map of? Because I can guarantee that the greater seattle metro area has never experienced a "Republican Win", so that map is either pointless or just plain wrong.

The tax plan is a great idea. Removing all the special exceptions is a great idea. The only thing is that it shouldn't be a flat tax, it should be just like it is now, only about 10% lower. Once you remove all the exceptions and loopholes the plan will collect more money, so the rates can be lowered. Herman Cain planned on doing this, which is why I thought he was great. rMoney will never implement a plan like this because he would have to pay taxes then.

[BigBallinStalin]

Which... will...never...happen

Tell me, oh Brit, why will that never happen in America?

A flat tax? Cause you're not really that interested in it as a nation.

Even after the historic election results of 2010? You might at least admit we are more interested now than we were before? (why a Brit is so interested....idk)

What's that a map of? Because I can guarantee that the greater seattle metro area has never experienced a "Republican Win", so that map is either pointless or just plain wrong.

The tax plan is a great idea. Removing all the special exceptions is a great idea. The only thing is that it shouldn't be a flat tax, it should be just like it is now, only about 10% lower. Once you remove all the exceptions and loopholes the plan will collect more money, so the rates can be lowered. Herman Cain planned on doing this, which is why I thought he was great. rMoney will never implement a plan like this because he would have to pay taxes then.

What's an extra 2% for the 35% tax bracket? Why not just lift it a little more?

Just keep it flat. If an increase is to made, all must pay for it. This would more accurately represent voter preferences because now they all have some money on the line. They can't scream to extract wealth from others without incurring an increase in their own taxes.

[Neoteny]

@BBS

I mean, it's cool to try to fight crony capitalism. It's a bad thing and an absurd phrase. Everything about it is terrible. The thing is, as long as there is capitalism and government, CC will find a way. Modifying the tax code will briefly reduce crony capitalism until they find some other way to incentivize business. If that's your main argument for the flat tax, color me unimpressed. I'd rather be violently raped in every oriface, or whatever the cool kids are calling taxes these days, than make a shift that moves the power from one group of rich people to another. It's probably a sad reflection on our society that I trust the bloat of the US government with "my money" than I do the sociopaths (yes, the gummintarians are sociopaths too) in the private sector.

It would practically cut off their fingers if the rule for taxation was clear and uncompromising. **change "forms of all income" to "total income." *** (from my earlier post).

Power would shift from the government to the non-government. But this term "power" is misleading. It's not like a business can force you to buy something--unless it obtains some privilege from the state. (We can discuss this if you disagree. I feel many people have a problem with my position).

If you get a 10% deduction in your taxes, your real income increases (i.e. you have more money to spend and save). How is this bad? You have more money to choose who to trust. If you really trust the government more than the private sector, then you're totally free to donate your money saved to the government.

I don't think you'd do this. If you wanted to help the disenfranchised or whoever, you'd very likely donate to a charity which you feel best serves what you expect.

With relation to the rest of your post, I dunno economics lol. Seriously though. My ideas might not make good economic sense. I'm willing to concede such a thing. But I do understand about "fairness" and "equality." Calling a system that maintains an uberrich class and the rest of the peons is neither of those things. Capitalism as a system is not compatible with those concepts. It may, overall be the "best" economic system. But it will never be equal, and it will never be fair. That's really the sort of thing that starts me ranting in these discussions until I end up over my head.

What's fair about taking more money from several groups of people? "Oh, you worked harder and earned more money? Well, that's nice, we'll take a larger cut!" How is this fair?

In essence, it seems just to give more to the poor, but what if this merely incentives them to cut back on their income, substitute much of it for the subsidies (tax credits, etc.), and then stay poor? Humans are great at tolerating dismal conditions.

What if, in "Making a fairer society," we get other policies with the package? (which we do). Look at the war of drugs and its effect on the poor. Can we call this fair and equal? It's terrible, yet for some reason, I see many people still appealing to the government to make things more fair and equal. But you don't get what you want with government action.

And then, what do we receive from this? Subsides of poverty? Subsidies to big business? A bloated bureaucracy that spends billions on a vast war industry? That's what your notion or "fairness" and "equality" unfortunately results in. You appeal to the government, and you get the package deal.

I'd take the road to the free society. I pick what I want with my own money--whatever that may be. Businesses have to respond to demand, and either profit if successful or incur loss if they fail to meet the demands of consumers--unless of course the government fixes this "problem" with subsidies, by granting monopolies, by granting fixed quantities (like taxi medallions), etc. If you support the government, then you get the package deal, and this results in anything but "fairness" and "equality."

We shouldn't forget the consequences of seemingly "fair" and "equal" arguments for government intervention.

I'm not particularly invested in the idea of "fair and equal" as a political or economic system. I think I generally recognize the downside associated with increasing and decreasing monetary "freedom." My issue is one of trust. On your side of the divide, we have businesses maximizing profit, and people "talking with their money." Plus charity. I don't have faith in this system to achieve what we as a society need to move toward the "greater good." Welfare was implemented for a reason. And I have no doubt that it is a system that is abused to a horrifying degree. But it is, at most, adequate at helping those who want the help to move up. I worry that a situation with reduced governmental control will not meet the same standard. I don't trust Night Strike to donate to charity. I don't trust Phatscotty to donate to charity. Maybe they do, but I don't trust the individual, in general (lol), to make big picture decisions with their money that lead to ethical outcomes. I do think that people, when voting on what to do with tax money (however indirectly) are more likely to think of using it positively (maybe I'm naive; stereotypically, people vote for people that will further their own situation [damned capitalism is everywhere], but I get the impression that I can rely more on a federalized distribution system). I juat don't truat the invisible hand to improve society. Maybe it'll improve the economy, and while they are intertwined, one does not lead to the other.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, then maybe I can appeal to your love of government with another approach:

show

Barry Weingast wrote an article called "The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development."

He basically talks about "competitive politics" and de facto constitutions, and how a certain system greatly expanded the economic growth for several countries. He examines the US from 19th to 20th century, England from 18th to 19th centuries, and China from the late 1970s to 1995.

Basically, the federal government oversees monetary management, diplomacy, the military, and has a small tax to cover this. Each State (or province) then has its own regulatory scheme and tax policies. There is some balance between taxation, providing the state goodies, and not taxing people (or letting the market handle the rest). There's a balance between state regulation and market self-regulation.

Bureaucrats and politicians don't really know what the perfect mix is, and if they get it wrong, then they will have a strong incentive to change--assuming that they aren't the only game in town. In other words, if the federal government has all the monopolies on regulation and legislation, and if they mess up, then there's very little that people can do.

In the federalist system, if one State messes it up, then people have a stronger incentive to leave to States which get that balance better. As more people leave, the State that messed up is strongly induced to change its balance of regulation and market discipline, etc.


Basically, this is why I strongly dislike the national government because as with any monopoly, if there's practically no substitutes and no competition (i.e. no practical way of leaving the country), then the federal government reaps the benefits, and the people incur the costs.

In my opinion, Barry's market-preserving federalism is a superior system of governance. You get to appeal to the government to tax people and do what seems to be right with whatever, but if that State government becomes too intrusive or messes up, then other State governments can entice people to move toward its own political region. It's political system of governance that incorporates the benefits of competition.

[Neoteny]

That's all cool, and sounds all founding feathery and economical. We, as a nation, started off rather decentralized, and slowly moved power centrally. Why did this happen, and how does this system account for/prevent/otherwise deal with this tendency?

Revolution?

[Night Strike]

We've moved to more central power because the progressive agenda has succeeded in lying about and distorting the truth of the Constitution and our national founding. The solution to move away from the central power is simply by following the letter of the Constitution.

[patches70]

That's all cool, and sounds all founding feathery and economical. We, as a nation, started off rather decentralized, and slowly moved power centrally. Why did this happen, and how does this system account for/prevent/otherwise deal with this tendency?

Revolution?

How did this come about? From sentiments like this-

I don't trust the individual

I can rely more on a federalized distribution system

I don't trust Night Strike to donate to charity. I don't trust Phatscotty to donate to charity. .....Welfare was implemented for a reason

I trust the bloat of the US government with "my money"

we do need government........ to make big picture decisions with their money that lead to ethical outcomes

And so on and so on. You don't trust individuals to make the choices you would want to see on their own so you'd advocate government under threat of violence to force people.

It's a difference between the Individualist philosophy and the Collectivist philosophy. You are firmly rooted on the Collectivist side of the aisle (which is fine, to each their own) while BBS is arguing for the Individualist side of the aisle.

For the most part, Individualists and Collectivists can easily agree on things that need to be done but the difference comes on how to get those things done. It's a debate that has been going on practically since the first days human beings started forming society.

[Neoteny]

We've moved to more central power because the progressive agenda has succeeded in lying about and distorting the truth of the Constitution and our national founding. The solution to move away from the central power is simply by following the letter of the Constitution.

There were no social, economic, or political pressures that contributed to the shift? The libruls are just out to get me, and have been for approximately a century? Oh lord, Night Strike, what would we do without your piercing, balanced, and historically-oriented intelligence to lead us from the midnight of our wretched compassion?!

That's all cool, and sounds all founding feathery and economical. We, as a nation, started off rather decentralized, and slowly moved power centrally. Why did this happen, and how does this system account for/prevent/otherwise deal with this tendency?

Revolution?

How did this come about? From sentiments like this-

I don't trust the individual

I can rely more on a federalized distribution system

I don't trust Night Strike to donate to charity. I don't trust Phatscotty to donate to charity. .....Welfare was implemented for a reason

I trust the bloat of the US government with "my money"

we do need government........ to make big picture decisions with their money that lead to ethical outcomes

And so on and so on. You don't trust individuals to make the choices you would want to see on their own so you'd advocate government under threat of violence to force people.

It's a difference between the Individualist philosophy and the Collectivist philosophy. You are firmly rooted on the Collectivist side of the aisle (which is fine, to each their own) while BBS is arguing for the Individualist side of the aisle.

For the most part, Individualists and Collectivists can easily agree on things that need to be done but the difference comes on how to get those things done. It's a debate that has been going on practically since the first days human beings started forming society.

The question was less a query about how it happened, and more a prod to explain what should be done about these centralizations that were, at the time of their incorporation, often very popular and democratically supported changes. These changes were enacted as responses to social issues that previous federalism were not sufficient enough to merit attempts to change them. I can accept as an explanation that power-grabbing played a factor, but it certainly was not the only one, and I'd argue not the most important. Collectivism vs individualism plays a role, I'm sure, but we've moved, as a country toward the former, at least governmentally, for a reason(s). Why?

[BigBallinStalin]

@whoever

It's a difference between the Individualist philosophy and the Collectivist philosophy. You are firmly rooted on the Collectivist side of the aisle (which is fine, to each their own) while BBS is arguing for the Individualist side of the aisle.

For the most part, Individualists and Collectivists can easily agree on things that need to be done but the difference comes on how to get those things done. It's a debate that has been going on practically since the first days human beings started forming society.

One of the main implications of the market-preserving federalism (as wiki more clearly defines (see bulleted list)) is that you* and your friends are free to implement a certain way of governance but only within a limited political boundary. Therefore, only you and your friends will bear nearly all the costs and benefits directly from a form of governance for which y'all advocated.

(**the general "you"***), and not to be confused with General Yu