Fine, give them TAX free status.
It would at least make them equal with Puerto Rico and the others.
It’d be much more simple than the other suggestions as well.
There couldn’t be much tax money coming out of there anyway so why doesn’t this happen?
It would possibly save money since with taxation would go unemployment, EIC, and other forms of support.
And making an Amendment is a really big pain in the ass.
Marc
Well, relocating a business to Puerto Rico to save on taxes would be logistical hell, but running to a new tax shelter in northern Virginia would be quite a bit more doable for such companies as Microsoft, all of Silicon Valley, and many, many others.
You can’t just create a 30 square mile offshore holding company in the middle of the eastern seaboard. It would kill the country’s tax base.
*Ah… just so.
The path of least resistance is not always the path of the righteous man, brother.
No payment of Federal Income Tax on locally-earned income (but YES on SS taxes, unemp. tax, buncha others) is granted to the unincorporated territories BECAUSE they are not states… it’s not the other way around. Voting representation in Congress, and electoral votes proportional to population, are prerrogatives of the actual States, which have to apply for admission and be admitted by Congress (thus DC required the 23rd. Amendment to get their 3 electors, and may never have more than 3 no matter the population)
( “Unincorporated Territory:” as defined by SCOTUS near the beginning of the XXth century, a jurisdiction that “belongs to, but is not a part of” the USA.
**
And ya think we like to throw 40% of our income to these jokers in San Juan?? (or the Guamanians to their jokers in Agana?) Give us some credit! Anyway we haven’t asked for it, have we?
[hijack]One big reason the vote for Statehood in PR is stuck at 46% is precisely because the supporters of leaving things as they are have successfully campaigned for years that if we became a State, we’d have to throw 40% of our income over to a bunch of folks who’d rather see us screwed – as you so literately put it.[/hijack]
And an Amendment for DC Statehood passed Congress many years ago and it didn’t get anywhere with the State legislatures.
This was a pretty hot subject the last time I lived in the DC area, about ten years ago. As I recall the Congressional Democrats from the DC suburbs were against statehood as well because of their constituents’ fear that “New Columbia” would impose a commuter tax, something its current lack of autonomy prevents it from doing.
Uh, Congress is made up of two houses. Which house did it pass and in which house did it fail?
Marc
I believe the amendment wasn’t actually to make DC a state, but to treat it as a state for the purposes of electing the Congress. It was passed by Congress in the late 70s but never became law because fewer than half of the 38 states required to ratify it had done so by the deadline.
Forgive what may seem like a silly question, but…
Once DC has the right to vote in presidential elections and has representation in Congress, in what way are they NOT a state. Even if the proposed ammendment ruadh mentioned didn’t make it a state, wouldn’t it really be one on a de-facto basis?
Zev Steinhardt
Local autonomy, basically.
The Constitution gives the Congress complete authority to run the Federal district; granting it a mayor and council is, so to speak, by their gracious will. They have the power to can the local government and appoint a commissar…er, commissioner, to run it, and have done so in the past (whether this would either a good idea and/or politically acceptable are other threads; I’m talking strictly about Constitutional powers here).
A state, OTOH, has the right to choose its own constitution (subject to certain limitations), and, generally, to choose its own officers without the leave of the Congress (again, the question of whether it would be a good and/or acceptable idea for Bush to send the Marines to take over South Carolina is a topic for another thread; it is established constitutional law that he doesn’t have the right to do so, except in certain restricted circumstances).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akatsukami *
**
Thanks for the answer Akatsukami.
That of course then leads to the next step. If we do give DC’ers representation in Congress, how long before they start complaining again. “Every state is run by it’s elected officials, but we have to live under the direct control of Congress who can throw our city council out on a whim? Why should some congressman from Wyoming have a say about Washington’s transit system?”
Zev Steinhardt
I’d say there should be a commuter tax. I think cities should be able to tax the income of commuters. The commuters should pay something to the city where the income was earned. This should not mean higher taxes for the individual commuter, though. The deal should be that the city gets a percentage of whatever state income tax the commuter is paying, regardless of wheather (s)he does or does not live in the same state (s)he works in.
If you work in DC and live in MD or VA – DC should get a portion of the income tax you pay to MD or VA. If you work in NY City and live in a suburb in NY State, NJ, or CT – NYC should get a portion of the income tax you pay to whichever state.
I agree with Zev that a solution that does not give DCers control of their own city government is not much of a solution. I thought statehood would accomplish that?