Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Federal Funding  (Read 5635 times)

Dan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Federal Funding
« on: November 06, 2002, 12:33:07 am »

I just found your website and I think your ideas are refreshingly bold and interesting.  However, I have a few questions.  The biggest problem I see is Federal Funding.  As you are aware States get a very large amount of money from the Fed's for roads and schools and such.  Because this is a major way for the Fed's to control States we must wean the FSP off this income source.

The problem is that we (the people) will still be paying as much federal taxes as everyone else in the country.  So, how will we compensate for loosing all this money?

-Dan

(This is a practical question so it assumes secession is not feasible.)
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5723
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2002, 08:45:23 pm »

States do receive substantial federal funding but it may be less than you think.  Total federal grants to state governments represent less than a third of state budgets.  Federal highway funds, which are used to coerce states in all the ways we find undesirable, account for only about 10% of total state road budgets.  So if we can grow the economy, eliminating the need for a lot of federal funding, then combined with the culture of liberty we will be helping to reinforce, rejecting federal highway funds should be quite possible.  Many states have already considered it.  After that, there are a variety of negotiation techniques we can use to reduce federal tax burden and obtain control over federal lands.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2002, 11:00:57 pm »

The problem is that we (the people) will still be paying as much federal taxes as everyone else in the country.  So, how will we compensate for loosing all this money?


Get jobs that pay cash.  Working for the underground economy would be very profitable.  Or be more self-sufficient and you won't have need for much money.  Or use the barter system.  no taxes would go to the gov't, so you'd basically be 'saving' money.
Logged

Dan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2002, 04:02:27 pm »

Jason,
I did a quick google search and found the Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Wisconsin, 2001.  It shows the federal government gave $26,645,345,126 to the people of Wisconsin.  I think that's a bit of money.

It's true a lot of that will still come in regardless.  $10B is for retirement and disability payments alone (something that makes me sad, but that's another post).  But we could still be talking in the billions.  It is important to understand that if you sufficiently piss the feds off they can make your political life difficult.  And don't forget your political competition in state.  They will have a field day when you have to report you lost a couple billion dollars from the feds.  Even if the state can work without the money, you have to convince the native public of that.

JT,
All those avenues of income must be reported to the IRS.  You will still be taxed.  I assume you aren't suggesting 20,000 people and eventually an entire state should defraud the IRS?
Logged

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2002, 04:48:34 pm »

Jason,
I did a quick google search and found the Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Wisconsin, 2001.  It shows the federal government gave $26,645,345,126 to the people of Wisconsin.  I think that's a bit of money.

It's true a lot of that will still come in regardless.  $10B is for retirement and disability payments alone (something that makes me sad, but that's another post).  But we could still be talking in the billions.  It is important to understand that if you sufficiently piss the feds off they can make your political life difficult.  And don't forget your political competition in state.  They will have a field day when you have to report you lost a couple billion dollars from the feds.  Even if the state can work without the money, you have to convince the native public of that.

JT,
All those avenues of income must be reported to the IRS.  You will still be taxed.  I assume you aren't suggesting 20,000 people and eventually an entire state should defraud the IRS?

Have you ever seen the actual law that requires barter income to be reported to the IRS? How about the law that requires you to report your own income to the IRS? There are many, many people (not all of them are crazy, as the IRS tries to assert) that believe the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified.

I'm not suggesting defrauding the IRS, but I do suggest the IRS is defrauding Americans and that we should find peaceful ways to end its evil reign if possible. One way or another, this huge zit on the face of America is going to get popped. To avoid infection, we should study the best method for popping it with as little damage to surrounding tissue as possible.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5723
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2002, 05:23:47 pm »

It's true a lot of that will still come in regardless.  $10B is for retirement and disability payments alone (something that makes me sad, but that's another post).  But we could still be talking in the billions.  It is important to understand that if you sufficiently piss the feds off they can make your political life difficult.  And don't forget your political competition in state.  They will have a field day when you have to report you lost a couple billion dollars from the feds.  Even if the state can work without the money, you have to convince the native public of that.

However, the vast majority of these funds are not tied to any state compliance with federal mandates; instead, they're entitlements owed to individuals - like the $10 billion in SSI payments you note (I assume that's what they are).  So we won't be cutting off those funds until and unless we get an equivalent federal tax exemption for our citizens.  Now, it's certainly true that in a state of the size we are considering, we could lose tens of millions from the federal government for our recalcitrance.  We'll need to build popular support for that recalcitrance in advance.  And it's true that we can also make life difficult for the federal government in a variety of ways.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

heyerstandards

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
  • Who's guarding the guards?
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2002, 05:58:16 pm »

Imagine if the Congresscritters suggested that they might withhold Social Security payments to residents of [Free State] unless we complied with some promulgated horse poop.   If they can hang any sword over the state's heads with highway money, why not the money paid directly to citizens as well? .  

Citizens have no contractual defense against Uncle Scam doing it.  

That being said, there's little benefit to coming up with all sorts of horrible things they can do to screw with us. Wost case, they drop a Hellfire through Jason's bedroom window at the governor's mansion and call it a day.
Logged
Is government sometimes useful? Answered Mencken:

So is a doctor. But suppose the dear fellow claimed the right, every time he was called in to prescribe for a bellyache..., to raid the family silver, use the family tooth-brushes, and execute the droit de seigneur upon the housemaid.

Dan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2002, 06:03:25 pm »

Palindrome,
I agree that the IRS is not a good thing.  It has way too much power and way too little accountability.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But civil disobedience in this case is just not going to work.  The government really likes to get money and the IRS really likes to punish those that it doesn't like.  If 20,000 people stop paying federal income tax there will be 20,000 people investigated by the IRS.  And seeing how we are organized and vocal it will be much easier for the IRS to find us.

Jason,
That's all I wanted to hear.  I'm happy as long as people understand the problems and are thinking about them.  And that there will be debates and plans of action when the movement gets further along.

-Dan
Logged

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2002, 06:05:16 pm »

JT,
All those avenues of income must be reported to the IRS.  You will still be taxed.  I assume you aren't suggesting 20,000 people and eventually an entire state should defraud the IRS?


 ;)
www.taxableincome.net
Logged

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2002, 06:24:27 pm »

Palindrome,
I agree that the IRS is not a good thing.  It has way too much power and way too little accountability.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But civil disobedience in this case is just not going to work.  The government really likes to get money and the IRS really likes to punish those that it doesn't like.  If 20,000 people stop paying federal income tax there will be 20,000 people investigated by the IRS.  And seeing how we are organized and vocal it will be much easier for the IRS to find us.

Jason,
That's all I wanted to hear.  I'm happy as long as people understand the problems and are thinking about them.  And that there will be debates and plans of action when the movement gets further along.

-Dan

The IRS is welcome to investigate me as long as they can prove they have the legal authority to do so. I have nothing to hide and lots to say. I'm not worried about a legal investigation. Sadly, I don't think the IRS even pretends to follow the letter of the law in many of its harassment and intimidation attempts.

Maybe it will take 20,000 investigations in a concentrated area in order to change things and get the IRS disbanded. Or maybe I'll die with a bad taste in my throat about the increasingly paramilitary collection agency socialist bureaucrats against landowners nature of our government.

Either way, I'm in this war for the duration or until my expiration date, whichever come first.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Federal Funding
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2002, 10:45:30 am »

There's actually more to this subject than we've covered here, and that is in the state selection process.

If the fed money is concentrated in certain areas like highway funds, that is much better than if it is spread across the population. For example, a very high percentage of the people in states like North Dakota are engaged in farming. They probably get subsidies like (Conservation Reserve Program?) payments, and they are also political heavyweights in the state. These folks might form a powerful opposition to FSP political work.

I think it would be much easier to dump highway funds than to cut these individual subsidies. I don't know how to get around this problem - convince these people they are a bunch of welfare queens??!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up