Assuming you were educated from grades K-12 in the US—would/could your family have fronted $1000++/year for your education? Would they have been willing.
What difference would it have made whether they had to shell out the bucks in state income tax as opposed to paying the local school district?
Well, they could, and if we lived in a libertarian country, they would. But that train left the station a long, long time ago. It’s more realistic to think that we might go to a voucher system to keep somewhat of a level playing field between rich and poor.
Because it is in the best interest of everyone to have an educated populace. If you make elementary school students pay for their own schooling, you would end up with a lot of poor kids who can’t attend school. Clearly, this would not be good for their long-term prospects.
Here’s Washington DC’s FY11 budget. We’re not a state but this may provide some interesting contrast to state budgets since we don’t have the smaller municipalities that are collecting the alleged “redundant” taxes. You can look at the agency list and imagine expanding that responsibility across your own state.
Because the alternative would be for our country to collapse as a substantial portion of the population grows up with minimal or zero education because the parents either can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it.
Because states have significant and legitimate expenses that aren’t covered by federal or municipal monies. See how easy that was?
Well, one can have an extraordinarily bad idea without being crazy, but generally restricting education to the children of those able (and/or willing) to pay for it is a really extraordinarily bad idea.
Illinois’ report (PDF) includes all taxes taken in by the state, not just individuals’ income taxes: Link
44.1% - Health and social services (medical assistance, children and family services, developmentally disabled services, etc.)
32.5% - Education
14.8% - Transfers out (debt payments, payments to local governments)
5.9% - Public protection and government (fire, police, courts)
1.9% - General government
0.8% - Other (employment, economic development, refunds, transportation, etc.)
State courts handle almost all criminal matters. Someone breaks into your house and rapes you it might be the local cops that handle the investigaton and arrest. But they get funding from the state, are often trained by the state, and use state-run crime labs. The DA might be elected on a county level, but her office is mostly funded by the state (& he might have gone to a state law school). Ditto with the judges. The state also runs the prison the rapist will be sent to, pays his parole officer, and maintains the sex offender registry he’ll spend the rest of his life one.
State income tax? What’s that? 
No, seriously, Texas has managed without a state income tax (we’d probably be better off if we had one, but it won’t happen in my lifetime), but it’s not because the state has no expenditures. State prisons, state prison guards and employees, state police, state prosecutors, state judges, state parks, state employee salaries, state universities, state motor vehicle registration, state assistance, etc. etc. Costs a lot to run a state.
Where does the money come from if there is no State Income Tax?
oil.
Sales and property taxes. New Hampshire doesn’t have a state incombe or sales tax, but has the highest property taxes in the country. The money has to come from somewhere.
How much of those expenses are driven by unfunded Federal mandates? Back off the Feds and the state could trim their budgets. Would some programs be affected, without a doubt. But that should be state decisions, not the Feds.
Sales tax, franchise tax, crude oil tax, natural gas tax, gasoline tax, occupation tax, etc. I’m far from an expert, but from what I undertstand the oil and gas industry basically makes it possible to get by without a state income tax.
ETA: Or what Northern Piper said.
The Missouri state constitution has dozens of requirements about what the state will fund – everything from public education to roads to a judicial system to mental health services. These aren’t just laws, these are parts of the actual state constitution. That means everyone of them had to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the people.
And they all need to be funded.
Also, virtually anything that you imagine as “being funded by the Federal government” is actually funded by both State and Federal government. Typically the receipt of the Federal funds is contingent on the State spending a certain amount of funds as well.
For some things, the State is paying little brother’s portion while the Feds are covering the lion’s share. For many other things though, the Federal funding might represent a small portion (an invaluable one nonetheless) while the State’s shoulder the lion’s share of the cost.
For example the State’s have significant costs in maintaining the Interstate Road System, which is a creation of the Federal government. If you’ve ever seen work crews on interstates you probably notice they aren’t “Federal Department of Transportation” employees, but state DOT.
Martin Hyde is correct. I work for the environmental quality department of my state, and few of our programs are funded exclusively through “general funds” (e.g., from the state treasury). Much of what we do is funded partially by state taxes and then matched by the feds. So often, if we want to expand a federally mandated program, we have to see if the feds are willing to dig into their pockets and help us out.
What people don’t seem to know is that the states are often carrying out the feds’ bidding before anything else. Take the Clean Water Act. All states are mandated to execute and enforce this law, even though it’s a federal law. EPA makes sure we’re on top of things, because if we aren’t they can be sued by any Joe Q. Public who happens to be paying attention. If EPA comes up with a bright idea, they can mandate that all states who want federal matching funds under whatever grant they’re already receiving to implement this bright idea…even if there’s no guidance from them on how to do it. The federal funds make the plan easier to swallow, but then the states have to pony up the rest of the dough.
Other places where your state taxes go: health and human services. If there’s a disease outbreak in the state, the feds aren’t who you go running to first. You go to the local health department, who more than likely will request help from the state health department. And if they can’t handle it, THEN they will go to the feds (like the CDC). There’s a chain of command that has to be followed.
Residential and community-living group homes for the mentally handicapped are also state-funded.
And TX has horrible property taxes. I know some folks who moved to NM from El Paso because their tax payments were as much as their mortgage payments. They were already working in NM and paying NM income tax, so point in paying both. The sum of NM taxes are much lower than the TX ones.
I would like to find some numbers, but I would not be surprised to find that EPISD gets more state and federal funding per student than local funding, given that they do not even try to keep kids from other districts, states, and countries from attending school illegally.
This is really not complicated. In order to fund halfway decent public services, states need to levy property and income taxes. Granted, they could just jack up property tax rates, but that upsets homeowners, and they vote.
Income taxes upset renters and homeowners equally.
“But RNATB,” I hear you cry, “Alaska, Florida, Texas, Wyoming, Nevada, New Hampshire, Tennessee, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming have no state income taxes!”
Guess what? Nearly all of those states have really shitty public education systems, and presumably have comparably shitty public services otherwise. That’s not even considering the fact that Alaska has the permanent fund, which should more than pay for decent public services all by itself; and South Dakota and Wyoming get far more federal money per capita than nearly any other state.