• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Taxpayers benefits in California?

All I am going to say is the problem here is the same problem for a million other topics. State VS federal LAW. I live in the border of New York and Connecticut. The laws change drastically a 5 minute drive from my house.. WHY!? Why is something ok in one state and not in another? I WANT a removal of State jurisdiction for Federal Jurisdiction. One Country, one set of laws. Will there be problems? THERE ALREADY ARE A MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS! Lets simplify.
 
VERAULT said:
All I am going to say is the problem here is the same problem for a million other topics. State VS federal LAW. I live in the border of New York and Connecticut. The laws change drastically a 5 minute drive from my house.. WHY!? Why is something ok in one state and not in another? I WANT a removal of State jurisdiction for Federal Jurisdiction. One Country, one set of laws. Will there be problems? THERE ALREADY ARE A MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS! Lets simplify.
Click to expand...

States are supposed to be sovereign. We need to keep that. One set of laws/rules and it's too easy for a dictatorship to manifest itself.
 
One dictatorship for smaller dictatorships doesn't make things easier.
 
In Connecticut, county government, except for the county sheriffs, was dissolved back in 1959. Unifying the highway departments under state control was not a panacea. Eliminating state governments to place everything under Federal control might not result in better results.

Heading across the border to Massachusetts or New York would mean dealing with different tax laws but so does going into Hartford which operates under different state sales tax laws compared to the rest of Connecticut.
 
It's similar discussion in Europe. But probably when most Americans will say "I am American", the most people in Europe won't say I am "Union European". In Denmark most people have a flag near the house and it's of course flag of Denmark. In Poland many people are using flags on national holidays and it is mostly flag of Poland. The problem with creating "super-states" is that most people don't want to be ruled exactly the same. For example - in Europe people needs rights to free travel, and work(and this way union exists now, it started as a coal union in past, which ecologists forget). But are angry that people not even chosen in open elections - says "You can't use Your Diesel car anymore, because we will increase taxes or even ban it", "we will say that You have right to free travel, but we will increase taxes and de facto ban cheap airlines, because we use luxury ones from Your taxes".

Personally I think that with so much diversity in states(look at election results, maybe I am wrong but nearly half was for one candidate, and second half for another, so millions of people would be angry, despite who wins), creating "super-state" may result if not in another civil XIX century lesson of history, but at least peaceful secession of many states. The Brexit showed, that even if You give Britons rights to be something like a tax-heaven(You won't believe but e.g. most banana for European Union was sailing on paper via City or Docklands, just to pay lower taxes), they would be angry at something, and secede.
 
Brexit just shows if you let people make stupid decisions they will. The EU will eventually dissolve like the US colonial confederation or become one country with a strong central government.

I like the distinction between federal and state laws, you can go live in places that are more to your liking and that keeps people who are over armed from causing revolutions. The same can be said of local laws that vary in individual states.

Corruption never goes away. You have rich arias around Washington DC feeding on the government just like you have rich areas in Columbus, OH feeding off the state. If anything it just gives more people access to tax dollars. Having everything go through Washington just means bigger corruption like you have in Moscow Russia.
 
pgru2 said:
It's similar discussion in Europe. But probably when most Americans will say "I am American", the most people in Europe won't say I am "Union European". In Denmark most people have a flag near the house and it's of course flag of Denmark. In Poland many people are using flags on national holidays and it is mostly flag of Poland. The problem with creating "super-states" is that most people don't want to be ruled exactly the same. For example - in Europe people needs rights to free travel, and work(and this way union exists now, it started as a coal union in past, which ecologists forget). But are angry that people not even chosen in open elections - says "You can't use Your Diesel car anymore, because we will increase taxes or even ban it", "we will say that You have right to free travel, but we will increase taxes and de facto ban cheap airlines, because we use luxury ones from Your taxes".

Personally I think that with so much diversity in states(look at election results, maybe I am wrong but nearly half was for one candidate, and second half for another, so millions of people would be angry, despite who wins), creating "super-state" may result if not in another civil XIX century lesson of history, but at least peaceful secession of many states. The Brexit showude oed, that even if You give Britons rights to be something like a tax-heaven(You won't believe but e.g. most banana for European Union was sailing on paper via City or Docklands, just to pay lower taxes), they would be angry at something, and secede.
Click to expand...

One thing I never quite understood in this day and age about Europeans, is their tolerance for the so called royalty; i.e. kings, queens, barons, and so forth, that seem to be skimming off of the top. Over here on this side of the pond we have some that think they are royalty, and do skim, but sooner or later thing sort of even out, as in justice is served. Just my take.
 
You guys took this tangent and ran west with it......

Rather than wave sticks at Europeans, why not look at who Americans make their celebrities out of (American Royalty that is..). Anyone on Reality TV who comes across as a short-bus riding idiot who shouldn't be allowed to breed. You know, the jersey shore cast, the Kardashians, the last president... Whomever it is now as I dont watch that crap. And the music? Whatever they pass along as music today (which isnt). Maybe we shouldn't go finger pointing when so many aspects of our country are a complete F$%king embarrassment.
 
Agent Orange said:
One thing I never quite understood in this day and age about Europeans, is their tolerance for the so called royalty; i.e. kings, queens, barons, and so forth, that seem to be skimming off of the top. Over here on this side of the pond we have some that think they are royalty, and do skim, but sooner or later thing sort of even out, as in justice is served. Just my take.
Click to expand...

Hmm Europe modern history shows that Queen in UK have less stupid ideas than for example European union officials. Somebody in Europe(and hope her name will be forgotten and land on trash of history) now wants to ban meat, just because she is vegan.

The only country in Europe that increased the power on paper of royalty is probably Liechtenstein. Just the people wanted to gave something to guy who offer them(probably) low taxes and (probably) invites every taxpayer to his castle once a year. Or maybe they were thinking that he is better than people elected.

On other side - Poland have very long tradition(even in older times) of electing(!) kings, and comparing to other countries at the time, quite big number of people had voting rights. Even Polish constitution was second in the world.
 
Chuck(G) said:
Although not a king, Albert II of Monaco is a very powerful monarch. It may also be one of the most corrupt countries in Europe..
Click to expand...

Monaco - quite interesting country, if You count that residents don't pay taxes from work or wealth(but I am not sure if they have VAT). The whole country is living from selling apartmentst(You must have one to be a resident and not pay taxes, but the French ones are not allowed for it, because of the union with France), casino, and maybe some small high income business(I am not sure if some "glasses" or other similar is made there). Despite I am not right or left one(just like something on one, something on other side) , the Monaco is probably a problem for leftists in Europe that want to tax riches as high as they can. So probably they will try to be against them in most articles about Monaco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top