HAY GUYS

Watts · Local time: Dec 11, 2007, 05:23 PM

Could the states grow apart, or change so much that their needs and interests might be completely different? Maybe even in the future leading to a civil war, or a country of 50 very different states, making them incomparable.

The political dissolution of the Soviet Union was relatively peaceful. Especially when you consider the stakes; breakaway republics with nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Fenix

I mean, if the states had the power, that means they can be so different. Like different countries even.

Scientifically speaking diversity helps to ensure survival in the face of extinction.

I think that's grossly overestimating the threats to the political survival of the United States. But if I had a time machine and went back to the 1980's and told everyone the Soviet Union was going to collapse I'd get laughed back into the future.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Watts · Local time: Dec 13, 2007, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, considering sales tax alone can vary over 10% from state to state (and even varies from one county to the next!), I'm quite sure some states can find new ways to get money out of people if they wanted to.

Not all states have the sales tax. Oregon does not. Tax revenue is "compensated" by having higher property taxes. Raising property taxes with the falling housing market would be a stupid idea to institute anywhere. People don't need another excuse to foreclose and walk away from their mortgages.

Most amazing jew boots

Watts · Local time: Dec 13, 2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Varying by 10% includes 0% (I don't know of any states that actually have 10%, but I'm pretty sure some cities kick it a little over that with their local ones).

And, for the record, Delaware also has no sales tax, but I think they make it up on taxing all of the corporations that are based there since there is a disproportionate number located there.

I'm not going to quibble over semantics. That wasn't the point.

The bottom line is that states will raise taxes (they'll have to anyway -- because of falling property tax revenue) or they will have to cut current spending. To just cover preexisting obligations.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Watts · Local time: Dec 14, 2007, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

My point was agreeing with NP that states can raise taxes to whatever the way.

I don't think there's anything we're actually disagreeing on here.

We're not really disagreeing, just hashing out a few details.

Property taxes are still the one (if not the most) important source of revenue for state (and local) governments. So a housing "slump" like the one the US is in is bound to have serious repercussions on tax revenue. I don't know how states are going to raise more revenue to pay for more obligations like public health-care when they'll be contending with shortfalls as it is.

If the blue (or red) states raise taxes too much too fast, they won't remain blue-controlled for very long. Not that I mind all that much.

Just pointing out what's at stake.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?