He loves to fight with everyone and destroy everything.

Just how would Newsom redirect them to the state without the taxpayers being held liable by the IRS for not paying them?

is going to get me off the hook for what the feds say I owe? Somehow I doubt ...

to pay our withholding into.

garnishing wages, freezing accounts, liens on property?

but this is the game the R’s are playing. Break norms, break laws, then fight until the end.

I wonder if the state set up the fund so that individuals were indemnified if it could be a tool in this battle.

There seems to an attack on the state of CA planned.

It is not only Canada, Panama Canal and Greenland. CA and NY have been vilified by the right wing media for 4+ decades. It feeds into their base.

Governor Newsom is going to need to use every means possible to save the state from this aggression.

where we diverge is in definition of 'every means possible'. In a nutshell - - this ain't.

Again - good talking point. But, that's really all ....

one has to assume that everyone (including the gov) recognizes it as purely palaver.

The population of the 20 least populated US States (40 Senators) added together, is less than the population of California (2 Senators). This is simply absurd. California, with 2 Senators and ~40 million people, should pay no more taxes than Wyoming, with 2 Senators and ~600 thousand people.

Assuming a tax rate of 18%, a California taxpayer making AGI of $80,000 would owe $14,000 in Federal income taxes while the Wyoming resident making the same $80,000 would owe $950,000 in taxes. Annually.

And you think that would be logical?

I could just as easily say that California should have 40 Senators.

cannot possibly be construed as "representation equal to taxation". Which is not only hugely absurd, but also represents a glaring injustice (and the undermining of our democratic process).

"One man, one vote" is a far better way of making the (fairness) point.
(and there is a quite valid point to be made there .. )

It's from the American Revolution. It means, if we do not have fair representation, then we should not be expected to pay taxes.

The outrage is a state with 40 million people having no more representation than a state with less than 1 million people. In protest, just pay the same amount of taxes as that little state (i.e. essentially no tax).

I was responding to a post about Gov. Newsome suggesting Californians not pay tax, to protest Trump's actions. But never mind.

had very little relevance (and thus an extremely poor fit) for the discussion at hand.

I even went so far as to agree that your 'outrage' (as far as proportional or fair representation) had good basis.
It just doesn't have any applicability to the Newsom 'taxation' discussion - Paul Revere, Tea Party, and all that good stuff aside ....
(yes, we have heard of the American Revolution, thanks)
Still - returning to the point - 'Without representation' simply doesn't make any sense in this context.

Oh, and it's Newsom (even though that is consistently mangled as well)

Many larger cities impose non resident income taxes on people who don't live there, but work there. Yet, they are not permitted in vote in city elections.

In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton wrote “Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York… Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail"

Others such as James Madison and George Washington agreed, but compromised with the smaller states.

Equal distribution of Senators dilutes the power of population centers and skews it toward smaller or more rural states. This is one of the biggest factors giving the Republican Party an unfair advantage. Ask them. They love it.

Good way to assure ALWAYS losing rural states though

The Tyranny of the Minority is a bigger problem and that is what we have now.

Those bodies have to agree. IOW, there in balance and no minority rule.

In the House, it's proportional, because it represents the population. In the Senate, it's equal by state, because they originally represented the states. However, "equal representation" does not mean "no representation".

"Without representation" really did mean "without (any) representation." Puerto Rico has more representation in Congress than the colonies had in Parliament.


Notice that Newsom's claim falls flat if moved from the state to the individual level. Lots of Americans pay far more in federal taxes than "they get back," and lots of Americans get far more back than they pay. Then there's always the "wealthier should pay more" kind of argument, right--this sort of exposes it to the claim that it's just a manipulative talking point.

Like I posted in #11

Should wealthy suburbs like Beverly Hills or Bel Air get back proportionally what they pay in at the expense of poor areas like Compton?

and keep them for themselves because they pay out more than they receive from the state?

he said that a couple months ago too.