Does your state have income tax?

But you do recall voting in elections for the politicians who bring in the taxes. And unless you're very stupid indeed, you realise that the general public prefer these to sales taxes.

If there was one thing I wish was in the Constitution, it would be a part that said all government employee pay rate increases and all tax increases should be decided by referendum only. That would give the power of the purse to the people where it aught to be.

Connecticut has an income tax. The creation of which actually destroyed the emerging three party system we had going here for a little while.

You do realize though that you have confused federal government with state government? You do know there is a difference between the two?

In fact, prior to any tax being created or increased in CA, there needs to be a 2/3's majority vote on it either by the state legislature, or via the initiative system. Some taxes and fees have to be brought to the voters via the initiative process as well.

No, I haven't confused anything. Both are elected, and people wouldn't vote for candidates who wanted to bring in a tax system which moved such a great share of the burden to those on low incomes.

So government has the right to put their hands in my pockets and live off of my hard work because a majority of voters says that's a good idea? What if the same majority decide that certain groups shouldn't have rights? How is that any different than rule by mob, in this case one that wants to live off those with money?

People want something for nothing and there isn't a politician that wouldn't pander to that. "You'll get this program you want Joe Voeter, and it won't cost you an extra dime in taxes, because we'll take from that guy over there. He has so much, so it's perfectly moral to take take take from him."

I am reminde of the words of Ben Franklin. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch.
Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision."

Well considering you chose to claim that the general public prefers a sales tax, yet there is no national sales tax, yes you are confusing the various levels of government. I can agree with the second paragraph, but outside of that you are simply wrong.

Which is exactly one of the reasons the Constitution in its original state did not allow for an income tax on individuals. It was to prevent the majority from seizing the property and wealth of a minority of people.

I did not say that the general public prefers a sales tax. I said that they prefer an income tax, which is why it is so.

Well, perhaps you can start shooting people who disagree with you as you hint at.

I don't seem to recall suggesting anyone be shot. Go figure on that one. I'm sure Henryhill can entertain me with how he drew that conclusion.

CA has an income tax, and a particularly odious one at that; covers all your income, no matter where you earned it or were you were living when you earned it, if you were a resident of CA.

OH has something similar, but at least has a part-year resident credit to get rid of most of that.

By way of comparison, with most of what I earned in CA, my CA tax bill was roughly 20 times what OH's was. If the income distribution had been reversed, they would have been about equal, at the larger amount each, or they would be if OH and CA had the same income tax rates.

CA has some outrageous tax rates in my opinion.

What would you consider an equitable tax rate, KIRK?