Category: Government
More thoughts on the “State Office of Federal Tax Fulfillment”
Previously I started playing with the idea of a “State Office of Federal Tax Fulfillment”. The basic idea is that I would pay my federal taxes, but they would be routed through a state office that holds them temporarily, before forwarding my payment through to the federal government. The purpose is so that if we wanted to, as a state, we could collectively withhold our taxes.
We wouldn’t really even need everyone in the state to do it. It could be a voluntary system, perhaps with a minimum level of adoption before any potential withholding takes place. For instance, here in California, maybe nothing happens unless 16 million people enroll in the system (40% of the state, just to pick a random amount). Once that number is reached, we could collectively vote on whether the 16 million of us want our taxes sent through.
We would of course be assuming some risk, since the federal government could still come after us individually, but in this example, they would have to be coming after 16 million of us.
To extend this idea even further though, what if other states also adopted these measures? We could all work together to withhold our contributions in a unified voice if we desired to do so, increasing the power of the action, and reducing the risk to each individual tax payer.
Property Taxes Should Be Progressive
Here in San Diego, housing long ago crossed into the “insanely expensive” category. As much as it’s not good for many, it seems as though we could do more to provide a public benefit from all of that.
In a brief search of how property taxes are calculated, it doesn’t seem as though they are ever progressively taxed. No matter the assessed value of a property, the rate is always the same percentage. The person living in the $600k apartment at the bottom of the building is paying the same 8% (or whatever it is) as the $10.2 million penthouse at the top of the building.
Because of this, I’m sure as a city, and a society in general, we’re leaving a ton of money on the table that could go to fund better schools, education, transit lines, parks, or other things to reduce housing costs (like my super-controversial plan to publicly subsidize parking garages!).
Better Representative Democracy
The whole gerrymandering thing is an unnecessary issue that arises from an archaic and ill-conceived idea. Drawing lines on maps for most purposes seems to lead to issues, and especially when determining representation for individual citizens.
In my utopian nation, we still have representatives, but there are two key differences:
- You can choose one of the five closest representatives to you. This means that you can most likely find one that aligns at least remotely close to your views.
- Each representative’s power when voting is directly tied to the amount of people they represent, ensuring that everyone’s voice is equal.
There are likely some issues with this, and opportunity for further refinement (perhaps limiting the total number of people each representative can represent would be good), but these two ideas, if applied to the current US system, would create a far fairer situation.
Policy as a Filter
I once had the brilliant idea of imposing a California state tax whose sole purpose would be to use the funds to help bring smart, promising young individuals from red states to California. It could be used as part of their college tuition, moving costs, or whatever else was needed to get smart people here who would help to make our state better.
The secondary benefit of my tax was that it would increase state taxes, which would help to drive away more tax-hating individuals who are in general more than likely, just a draw on the state’s resources, and whose principles inhibit our ability to push harder into science, technology, education, equity, and better governance.
I of course recognize that there are conservatives that add value to the state, and especially some conservative businesses that provide jobs and tax revenue. But there is a larger discussion that should be had on how much of that is needed, balancing private wealth generation and its actual cost to the public. Perhaps it’s a good thing to court those businesses, perhaps not.
But the idea of using policy to attract those you want, and filter out those you don’t isn’t something I see discussed very often, although it already plays a significant role in shaping individual states. There are some interesting discussions that could be had around this topic, and what types of policies we should have, not only to shape policy within the state, but also in terms of attracting the type of talent that we want and need to progress.
An Essential High School Course: Shit You Should Know
There is a course that needs to exist in high schools across the country, titled: “Shit You Should Know”. Even for me, a moderately intelligent individual, it would have been helpful to have such a course that wades into a variety of highly important topics that seem to be overlooked in our current education system.
Here’s an initial start on the course syllabus for “Shit You Should Know”:
- Week 1 – Introduction, Overview of Course Topics
- Week 2 – Logic Principles, Reasoning Skills
An introduction to logic and reasoning. - Week 3 – Logical Fallacies
Highlighting the most common logical fallacies through the first half of the week, then working through less common fallacies in order of importance. - Week 4 – Thinking Better – Patterns and Strategies
Helping to build better thinkers, with emphasis on various ways of looking at topics, pushing past the inclination to limit thought. - Week 5 – Critical Thinking, Skeptical Thinking, Media Literacy
How to see through bullshit, think critically, and consume news and opinion in a responsible manner. - Week 6 – Basic Economic Principles
A basic economic primer, covering basic topics like supply and demand. Compare and contrast various economic systems. - Week 7 – Your Government
How taxes are actually calculated (most people don’t seem to understand), representation. Discussions on how the existing system works, critiques, class discussion on improvements. - Week 8 – Being a Good, Considerate Citizen
Basic moral and ethical principles. How to be a good, considerate citizen. Stupid decisions vs good decisions (win/win vs lose/lose). Conversation skills. - Week 9 – Basic Life Management
Basic life skills, such as budgeting, the concept of compound interest, strategies for making good decisions.
The Danger of “All Men Are Created Equal”
I wonder how much of the lack of empathy in the US is a result of the “all men are created equal” line from the Declaration of Independence. When I was younger, I always felt that this was a positive, uplifting message, but as I’ve grown older, I feel that perhaps while the intent was good, I’m no longer sure that it has a positive impact on society.
Disregarding the obvious (most likely incorrect) assumption about being “created”, I don’t like this line because I think buried in the phrasing is a notion that we all have the same capabilities to overcome setbacks, even those that are unfairly placed on some people and not others. And this makes it easier to blame people for their positions in life, regardless of if it’s truly anything that they have any control over. From the position of many, I get the sense that “I had my setbacks, and since we’re all created equally, you should also be able to meet whatever challenges you face.”
This of course ignores the fact that we aren’t really all equal in terms of ability (whether intellectual, athletic, or any of the other million characteristics that make us all unique), or that we all have to deal with the same level of setbacks in life, or even have the same opportunities. And that’s a pretty dangerous thing. If we recognized that we all have different challenges, and that we aren’t all equipped to handle things equally, perhaps we would be better at helping each other out, and do our best to make life fairer, even though it’s inherently unfair.
No Taxation Without Equal Representation
People a long time ago had the right idea with the notion of “no taxation without representation, ” but they didn’t quite get it fully where it needed to be.
We’re currently in the situation where those who provide most of the funding to the US (primarily those terrible liberal cities, and successful blue states) have less and less say in how the country is run, along with how those funds are spent, and where it gets directed (generally red states). And as conservatives continue to gerrymander the nation to hell, the ratio of taxes sent to Washington vs our voice in the direction of the country continues to skew.
Our new rallying cry should be: “no taxation without EQUAL representation”. Until we all have an equal say in how our tax money is spent, we should do whatever we can to correct the imbalance. In reality, the amount I pay in taxes should factor in the amount of representation that I get.
I like the phrase since it has a bit of a conservative ring to it. I would like to think there are a few sane republicans out there who do value fairness, and perhaps it can appeal to them as well to push our cause forward. Yeah, I’m probably not fully living in reality.
Collectively Not Paying Taxes
I see comments online that we should all stop paying federal taxes (in response to the new military presence in our nation’s cities, a masked and un-uniformed police force rounding people up off the streets, withholding funds to blue states for green energy programs, using the powers of government to go after political enemies, etc..). This isn’t really feasible, since we all have to pay taxes individually, and since there are severe penalties involved, the likelihood of us all acting together on this are pretty slim.
Perhaps it was brilliant design, to limit the power of states (or other jurisdictions) in this way, but I wonder if there are some exploits that could be made to make it possible. (And I’ll admit here that there are probably many problems with this next idea, but a central idea of this blog is to push further into these thoughts that are potentially dead-ends).
A Unified Release of Tax Returns
States could potentially create a mechanism for releasing everyone’s individual tax returns at once. For instance, here in California we could enact a “State Office of Federal Tax Fulfillment”. That office’s responsibility is to basically do your federal taxes for you . This could be outsourced to existing tax professionals, or perhaps we would do taxes as we do now, they just get routed through this office for final release to the federal government. The central idea is just that the taxes are still coming from you, they’re just finally “released” by the state organization, but they are released together at the direction of the state government.
This would give states more power to withhold those funds collectively if residents aren’t feeling as though their money is being used well.
Of course, there are plenty of problems with this — the federal government could still go after individual tax payers, so I’m not sure what protections could be put in place (or loopholes to be exploited) to mitigate that danger, other than for a state like California, there would be 39 million of them. And you’re right, this very well could spell the end of America if all states did this (which they would). And for the record, I’m all for paying taxes, and we (those who make more than most), should probably be paying more, but perhaps taxes could be a larger leveraging tool for making the nation better.
Is the US Now Authoritarian?
Before I had to think about such things, I always just assumed that there was a line — you’re either living in Authoritarianism, or you’re not. But there of course a range of conditions that move you either to the left or right along that line, and we have definitely moved towards the authoritarianism end, especially during (but not limited to) Trump’s second term. And we’ve been doing it with remarkable speed. I keep hearing that “we’re on the road to authoritarianism”, which I guess just also assumes that there is a magic line, or perhaps it’s just how we all tend to think — that there is a point where one thing becomes another. And that line exists at a different point for some all of us. For me, I feel as though we’ve definitely ticked enough checkboxes to land us in that authoritarian zone. There may be plenty of more room on the spectrum to lead us more fully into authoritarianism, but we’ve definitely moved quite a bit further away from the “ideal democracy” side of things.
Democracy Or Not?
I had never really thought about democracy as something that exists along a spectrum (but the more I think about various topics in general, it seems that nothing is ever really an either/or as we generally think of them). I had always assumed that here in the US we live in a democracy, but I’m not really sure at one point along that spectrum you go from “no democracy”, where citizens have zero say in how things are run, to an “ideal democracy”, where everyone’s vote counts, and counts equally. We’ve never had an “ideal democracy” in the US — as a Californian, my vote has always counted less than the votes of people in some other states. But as we gerrymander state representatives to favor some groups of people more than others, we’re moving even further away from that “ideal democracy.” How far can you move before it really isn’t democracy any more?