Really, a ridiculous assertion
Of the taxes we pay, who gets the majority of any money...
The federal government via the income tax. So, what you propose is to eliminate the income tax, and institute a national sales tax, and if a state opts out it, they don't get revenue.
Well, let's follow this line of reasoning, all taxes are sales tax, there are no income taxes, estate taxes, et al, all sales.
So, let's suppose a state, in seeing this makes the decision, I can impose this tax burden, be eligible for federal money, but I have to give a cut to the federal government, or... I can impose the same burden but not give it to the feds, I will have enough money to pay for everything in state, I won't need federal money.
No state can opt out, and in this day and age, none is even remotely going to try.
As I said before, that makes the rest of what you're saying not worth the time it takes to talk about it.
... I can impose the same burden but not give it to the feds, I will have enough money to pay for everything in state, I won't need federal money.
Wouldn't make a gnats worth of difference, as the U.S. Treasury would just set up shop in the state and collect the tax directly from the retailers, inplace of the state, as is provided for in the legislatation in any state that decides it's going its own direction.
Bottomline, you are over looking a big factor in all this. Taxation by the national government is not dependant upon what any state does or wants to do, it will happen regardless.
- ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;
- There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;
The states have the opportunity to act a agent in administering the NRST and receive compensation for doing so if they choose to exercise that option. If they opt out of it, or default in the responsibilities they contract to by agreement with the Treasury, then the U.S. Treasury has the authority necessary to collect NRST from businesses completely separately from whatever a state does.