In the persian empire of old the satraps as they were known were appointed governors who ruled over the various "provinces" of the empire. In exchange for this power and autonomy they were expected in exchange to provide loyalty unto the king of kings but also to provide occasional tribute in the form of men and coin to the empire's coffers.
So the question is as such: could such an indirect form of taxation, alongside say tariffs and tolls on national infrastructure, be used in lieu of direct taxation(income tax, corporate tax) of the people by the central government?
In the United States of America the people of this nation must endure what is referred to as double taxation. They are taxed by the central but also local governments in various ways. Though yes this can be mitigated with deferments, tax credits, and yada yada this comes at the cost of increasing the ever complex and byzantine tax code of these United States.
So a possible solution. Rather than taxing the people why not tax the states themselves and leave it up to them to determine how to pay the bill? This arguably would reduce federal paperwork by requiring the people themselves to only have to pay a single set of taxes(to the local government), reduces the massive amount of federal bureaucracy needed to tax +300 million people, and it may appeal to states rights advocates tired of so much federal meddling. Theoretically that is.
Originally, under the articles, in the United States the federal government was not only barred from levying direct taxes but also in general levying taxes of any sort requiring it to have to in effect beg for funds from the states. This idea could theoretically be a logical fix to that issue without dropping into the murky waters of heavy federal involvement which may placate fears plus it would have provided the federal government a steady source of funding and maybe manpower if that was placed unto the requirements. Unlike persia in exchange for this "tribute" which I will refer to as State Rent from now on they receive representation, free trade, and the protection of the union.
One thing to keep in account is how the value of state rent would be assessed. The arguably most reliable way may be in the manner of a property tax sorta. The property value of all public(state owned) and private land would be assessed and the state rent would say be a tenth of that. So if the property values within a state is about $100 million the state in question would have a rent of $10 million. Later on we could value it on maybe the GDP of the state in question. Complicated but it could be figured out.
So what do you guys think about the idea of State rents, states paying taxes rather than the citizens themselves. This was admittedly in part inspired by another thread which postulated the idea of "representation without taxation" where the citizens of america would be represented but not taxed due to income from abroad.
So the question is as such: could such an indirect form of taxation, alongside say tariffs and tolls on national infrastructure, be used in lieu of direct taxation(income tax, corporate tax) of the people by the central government?
In the United States of America the people of this nation must endure what is referred to as double taxation. They are taxed by the central but also local governments in various ways. Though yes this can be mitigated with deferments, tax credits, and yada yada this comes at the cost of increasing the ever complex and byzantine tax code of these United States.
So a possible solution. Rather than taxing the people why not tax the states themselves and leave it up to them to determine how to pay the bill? This arguably would reduce federal paperwork by requiring the people themselves to only have to pay a single set of taxes(to the local government), reduces the massive amount of federal bureaucracy needed to tax +300 million people, and it may appeal to states rights advocates tired of so much federal meddling. Theoretically that is.
Originally, under the articles, in the United States the federal government was not only barred from levying direct taxes but also in general levying taxes of any sort requiring it to have to in effect beg for funds from the states. This idea could theoretically be a logical fix to that issue without dropping into the murky waters of heavy federal involvement which may placate fears plus it would have provided the federal government a steady source of funding and maybe manpower if that was placed unto the requirements. Unlike persia in exchange for this "tribute" which I will refer to as State Rent from now on they receive representation, free trade, and the protection of the union.
One thing to keep in account is how the value of state rent would be assessed. The arguably most reliable way may be in the manner of a property tax sorta. The property value of all public(state owned) and private land would be assessed and the state rent would say be a tenth of that. So if the property values within a state is about $100 million the state in question would have a rent of $10 million. Later on we could value it on maybe the GDP of the state in question. Complicated but it could be figured out.
So what do you guys think about the idea of State rents, states paying taxes rather than the citizens themselves. This was admittedly in part inspired by another thread which postulated the idea of "representation without taxation" where the citizens of america would be represented but not taxed due to income from abroad.