I have no idea why you think a federal-type system would not be good for Iran, too; they have a heck of a lot of ethnic diversity.

...just keep on taking from the "ricH' and they won't change any of their behaviors, you know, like the ones that employ a lot of people. We can call it trickle down unemployment.

So how is it that anyone was employed in the past when tax rates on the wealthy were far higher than they are now? Was everyone employed by the government? And that argument doesn't really work when you are talking about wealthy people who don't create jobs...maybe those people should be taxed at a different rate than people who do create jobs, huh?

As for the blue states, do they like to eat? All that food has to get to them somehow, and the roads you don't think the red staters seem to deserve is how how their food gets to them. That's just one example of why this argument is so damned bogus.

Ohhhh...you mean like California? Oh wait, that's not a red state...so it's ok to give more to red states because all that extra money supposedly goes to roads so that they can supposedly feed everyone? So maybe we should give less to those red states that don't provide a significant amount of food? And maybe we should give more to blue states that do provide a significant amount of food? Maybe you should come up with a better example...

I just want to go back to having to be a Christian to hold Office.....

Oh, why not go all the way and say that to hold office, someone must be a Protestant white male land owner...maybe that would make you feel better...

The people of Wyo-tana-ho. Or the people of the great state of Rocky Mountain. Wyoming is a rectangle on a map. It doesn't mean anything. It's a pure abstraction. A border encompassing that which is no different from what's on the other side of the border. If we moved the lines 100 miles in any direction no one would even notice.

The point is and was that states are outdated and silly. They have no real meaning. And the only counter-argument so far is that they are some sort of laboratory for government.

It's not a strong argument.

So which set of Mandarins do you think ought to be running the people of Wyoming's lives if not the people of Wyoming?

Ever wonder why you have to be licensed to practice law in each state independently?

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the laws of various states. One has a little more sales tax, one has a little more income tax.

Rather than being little labs where busy fellows are constantly trying to improve government, state governments are usually clown colleges full of guys who should be cleaning pools or selling cars. California. New York. Louisiana.

It's absurd even to talk about a state government for a state like Wyoming. Wyoming has the population of Oklahoma City. That's not a state. It's a big, square cattle ranch studded with mines. What exactly is the state government of Wyoming learning how to do? In your imagination the USG fails and we turn to Wyoming?

All this concern for the taxes that the wealthy pay is really quite touching...perhaps those who are so upset over this can put on a telethon or something to help with the horrible burden faced by these poor people...also, in all this talk about who is paying and not paying their fair share, I notice that no one mentioned how so many blue states get less back from the feds than they put out as opposed to many red states which get more from the feds than they pay out...is this not also an issue of fairness that needs to be discussed...

With all due repspect your myopia seems to be that you can just keep on taking from the "ricH' and they won't change any of their behaviors, you know, like the ones that employ a lot of people. We can call it trickle down unemployment.

As for the blue states, do they like to eat? All that food has to get to them somehow, and the roads you don't think the red staters seem to deserve is how how their food gets to them. That's just one example of why this argument is so damned bogus.

I assume that you have figured out by now that the federal government doesn't collect sales tax.

You seem to miss the point. The federal government collected 20.7% of the population's income. Ignoring the issues of deficit spending which is just shifting the collection time, that is what the government needs to run. We will call this the 20.7% worth of government. But that tax burden is not proportionate.

20% of the population is getting "20.7%" for the cut rate of 4.3%. In short, they are being subsidized by 16.4%. What a deal.
The next 20% is about half rate at 10.2%. So right there, you have 40% of the population getting between 2 to 5x the government 'services' than they are paying for. The next 40% are also getting more government than they are paying for. So 80% of the population is taking from the other 20% in the form of getting more government than the share they are paying for.

Now lets imagine that we elected senators based on tax dollars. Just to make it easy we are going to say each percent is worth one vote.

You still have a mismatch, but its not as bad. Out of 72.1 possible votes, the vote totals would look like this.

6%, 14%, 20%, 24%, 36%

Now the bottom 40% still get 40% of the votes in the house of representatives, but only 20% of the votes for senate. In contrast, the top 20% get 36% of the votes for senate and only 20% of the votes for house. We now have a check and balance between taxing and spending. Don't spend enough and that bottom 40% votes for representatives who will give them more bread and circuses. Spend to much and that top 20% will vote for senators who won't spend so much on bread and circuses.
The more you tax a small minority to pay for the rest, the greater the leverage they have to correct the problem.

Is it really that hard for you to see how the current one man, one vote system can run off the rails as you shift the tax burden on to a small minority who pay a disproportionate share of the taxes? At some point that minority may just decide they don't want to be taxed like this anymore. Then how do you pay for the bread and circuses?

Don't they teach anything worthwhile at Harvard these days?

Jim, Maybe that's the problem, that Harvard will teach "anything" in some sense. Postmodernism seems to reject the whole value proposition of the adjective "worthwhile."

The concept of states is itself outdated and frankly silly.

Wrong. Just wrong.

A major selling point of a federal republic was to have all these little experiments in democracy where different ideas could be tried out in, dare I say it, the marketplace of governments, with the best ideas surviving and being replicated elsewhere. Having a single entity where one mistake can bring everything down kind of reminds me or, well, the federal government today.

And if you think a dense state like New Jersey or Florida has the same type of service delivery problems for schools, courts, roads, et cetera, that a state like Wyoming or Utah has, you are delusional. Some starts have international borders, some don't. Some states have maritime needs, some don't. Some states have relatively large rural populations, some don't. Some states are losing population, some aren't. Some states need heat in the winter, some don't. Some states need air conditioning in the summer, some don't. And on and on and on.

One set of laws does not fit everyone and heaven help us if you or Young Mr. Yglesias get your way to force that model down our throats. But hey, only more step then to reach the transnational progressive nirvana of one world government. Just curious but do you also complain about the homogeneity of the suburbs, strip malls, and chain food restaurants? Because that seems to be what you are advocating.

Given the number of 'hands off' legisation coming from the states since January, essentially calling for decentralizing the government, I'm not convinced that Canada's constitutional design, or ours, is the issue, or that the rewording of a constituion is the solution to any such problems. Rather such issues seem to stem from how leftist,and thereby prone to big centralized power, a partcular government is. We didn't see such state level resolutions being seriously offered until such time as the Democrats had all three branches of government. Simlarly, the constitutional issues in Canada also seem to me tied to the intentions/political leanings of the government in power.

In the case of Canada its definitely regionalism - western Canada,Quebec and the Atlantic provinces all see themselves as being neglected by a federal gov't who's policies are almost always aimed at Central Canada (which is where most of the votes are). In fact, under Mulroney's conservatives western alienation skyrocketed (starting the Reform Party) because of the realization that even with a PC party western interests were always going to be sacrificed to those of Quebec and Ontario (the big vote provinces).

The party in power doesn't have that much to do with it, its just the reality that any governing party will ultimately aim its policies to getting elected - that is, at the largest regions. I suspect that one reason regionalism hasn't been as big an issue in the states (well, at least since the Civil War) is the senate. Remove that senate and the sense that each region has some say in the way things are governed disappears.

The appointment of Senators by State legislatures was an anti-democratic (but pro-republic) measure designed to prevent the will of the majority to run roughshod over the minority. It was designed to prevent the majority from governing as they wished. The 17th Amendment was designed by progressives to make the Senate more accountable to the people, so that more progressive legislation could be passed.

The Constitution was put in place so that people like Matt couldn't just change the rules when they had enough votes or an electoral wind blowing at their back. Every piece was put in place to prevent a large centralized government such as we have now.

Don't they teach anything worthwhile at Harvard these days? High School Seniors - go to a real school - Washington and Lee still teaches something called "history."

Only one problem; Why didn't we see that happening under Clinton, and Carter?

Because you had better conservatives in those days?

So you can see that for the total effective tax rates, the top 20% pay an effective tax rate higher than the average and that all the other quintiles (aka 80% of the population) sees total effective tax rates less than the average.

Ah, so by "tax payers" you were referring only to those taxed above the average. I am unfamiliar with that definition, so you can see where I might have been confused.