> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
The power of taxation has rested with the federal government since the early 20th century.
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Hence, each state collects levies, fines, rates, stamp duties, privatise public services and various other money grubbing exercises in order to raise capital for themselves so that they can waste/embezzle it according to their whims.
Then there's the problem of disproportionate tax distribution, which most states, particularly WA, seem to raise constantly.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxati... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_90_of_the_Constitution...
The states gave up on the practicalities, but they still have the theoretical power to collect income tax.
Why? Because when the GST was introduced WA'S resource income was counted... During an unprecedented resources boom that has since collapsed. You know what doesn't get counted? Poker machine income, which is substantial in the three Eastern states.
Can it be changed? Technically, yes. Practically is incredibly difficult because no one wants to give up revenue and politicians are worried it'll be electoral suicide, which it may well be.
The fact that the government has proposed anything at all, however anemic, is kinda amazing.
The "this problem" that we are talking about here is the problem of the national government handling state taxes in addition to national taxes. For this problem the national government is dealing with states, not individuals, and so it is the number of states that it has to deal with that is the main factor affecting complexity and scaling.
A more useful response would be to give reasons why the "why can't we just" solution wouldn't work. (The GP indeed gave reasons)
What is the purpose of a forum if not discussion and getting (positive or negative) feedback on your views so you can improve them?
The problem I see is the following. The person who wrote the "why can't we just" has done next to no thinking of his own as to why the situation might be more complicated than his first thought suggests, but it goes beyond that. Someone who writes "why don't we just" is sending the signal that they're emotionally committed to the position that the solution _should_ be simple. If I take a deep breath and write a long, careful reply in response to the short, lazy "why don't we just" post, I'm not only taking on all the burden of thinking about the topic at hand, but there's every risk this will just be thrown back in my face by the poster who wants a shortcut to a simple answer. A "why don't we just" post has a poor chance of leading to a good discussion, and I think there will be overall more beneficial discussion on a forum if they are discouraged.
Some people are intellectually lazy. I think this is because it's easier to feel smarter when you think less. If there's a solution that seems obvious to Mr. A and he assumes everyone who missed it is a bozo, then Mr. A feels like a smart guy. If someone else comes along and starts telling Mr. A that actually it's not so simple, and there are reasons why the "obvious" solution isn't actually a full applicable solution, then Mr. A has to think harder, only to feel less smart as a result. A lot of people resist that. I don't know the full solution of how to inspire such people to start thinking more, but I think some push-back some of the time is part of the answer. A bit like when people come to stack overflow and ask for their homework to be done for them: it's good if they're prodded to try _something_ for themselves. Being "nice" and just doing their homework for them wouldn't be optimal.
Yes, "the world is complex" might not be ideal phrasing if you think it implies someone needs to grasp the entirety of that complexity. But I'm sure the poster who wrote that only meant to encourage Mr "why don't we just" to _start_ considering the complexity of the world.
This makes filing taxes a nightmare on top of being horribly inefficient for local governments. The federal government could handle tax collection and refunds for everyone, and come up with a standard set of rules that apply across the US. It makes life easier and more efficient for everyone involved.
This happens across the US political specturm, whether about their tax system, banking system, gun reform, electoral reform, and many other issues; it's a frequent refrain that the US is so different it can't learn from others.
As a US citizen who is resident elsewhere it is infuriating to watch.
Alternatively, it's a frequent refrain that the U.S. _should_ learn from others, which is e.g. why we should preserve our federal system, electoral system and rights.
I think it's a _good_ thing that the several states are separate sovereigns from the United States, and I think it's a good thing that the states are entirely reliant on the United States for their budgets (and in fact, those places where they are reliant, e.g. the highway budget, have led to anti-federal things like a uniform drinking age, something which is 100% not the business of the United States government).
It shifts the blame from the current politics which is something people can engage with to "reasons out of anyone's control", which just helps maintain status quo.
Most of the times it comes down to constitutional issues in which case they are technically not possible.
Case in hand; the federal government has no constitutional right to prevent the states from collecting taxes -- which would be required for there to be one official Collector of Taxes for all the states.
If the United States looks only inwards, however, there's nobody left to learn from in terms of how to run a Union, since there is only one United States, and its powers and responsibilities are (because of federalism) quite different from those of the states.
"Because the world is political, and any change will be bitterly fought by those who are impacted to the point of inventing whole national mythologies."
Really now, centralized collection of taxes, even in the face of different local rates, is a standard feature of the civilized world. It works in countries with gun rights, it works in socialist countries, in advanced and poor countries, it's not a cultural aspect.