The thread idea sounds similar to the Trump impeachments. A legislative body with a Democratic majority votes against Trump in a way that cannot stick. There then is a federal trial, and the Trump administration wins. Democrats, please do not hand Trump wins.
Look at what they did today when a MAGA prosecutor got over his skis this way:
D.C. prosecutor drops bid to investigate Schumer for purported threat
The Republicans knew they were going to lose, so they dropped it. Smart move.
That’s not how this works. At all. The state has absolutely no role in collecting federal tax and there’s no constitutional means by which they can insert themselves into the process unilaterally. If I owe you money, you don’t get to tell my boss to give my paycheck to you from now on.
By the time the states themselves are engaging in acts of civil disobedience on that scale, we’re well on the way to dissolving the Union.
For a slightly different take…
Many states have passed laws whining about “unfunded mandates” where the Feds write a law that requires the states to do [whatever] but the Feds do not provide the corresponding funding to pay for doing [whatever]…
Those laws collectively amount to a fart in a windstorm even when the Federal government is functioning as it should. They are feel-good measures with zero actual functional impact.
And is the state going to somehow file my Federal tax return? Because otherwise they don’t know how much to send to the Feds and how much I owe/get refunded. Even if I complete it and send it to whatever state entity handles this, it will cost money to keep track.
And all of that is assuming that my employer sends the state the Federal taxes withheld from my paycheck and I don’t pay quarterly taxes myself- because no matter what laws a state passes in your hypothetical world, they can’t keep the Feds from jailing me or my employer for failing to follow the Federal law by passing a state law. Kind of like the Feds can jail me for possessing marijuana no matter what the state law says. So chances are very good the Feds will get the money anyway - maybe I’ll just end up paying twice, once to the state and once to the Feds.
It doesn’t matter
if I’ve got 10 guys and you’ve got 1 guy, you’re not going to win the enforcement game.
when I’ve already sent them the money.
Who said anything about use of force? or about the IRS invading a state? I said: a federal court will issue an injunction against the individual state which passed the law, directing the state not to enforce that law, because it violates federal law. And, barring a civil war (in which case the topic is again moot), the states will comply.
~Max
This is just secession with extra steps.
But if the State impounds the funds, the Feds come after me for not paying my taxes. Also, if Federal law says taxes must be sent to the Department of Treasury directly, how does the Supremacy Clause not apply?
If funds are withheld from the Federal Government by the states, is there any possible way to stop the Federal Government from doing the same to the states and/or messing with interstate commerce? Do any states come out ahead when it comes to money coming in versus money going out…and do those state happen to be Blue, or Red?
Of course the whole point of the OP’s exercise is they are assuming the trumply Feds very soon will begin playing “red state yes / blue state no” games with federal funding.
At which point the blue states fight back by refusing to send money to DC. The OP just picked a real bad idea for how the blue states can prevent blue state citizens from funding an utterly corrupt, hostile, & extortionate federal government.
There are no examples with which states can win money wars with the feds. Sure, this one is both unconstitutional and impossible, but so are all the others.
Newsom is floating the idea:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/06/newsom-floats-withholding-federal-taxes-00393386
Looking through the IRS rules, my second pass on how to functionally do it would be:
For example, California could say that fresh produce and utility services are to be covered by the state, free to denizens up to some limit. These would be paid for by the state, using funds raised by a new tax on employers.
For the second, California could initiate various nonprofit organizations that act to ensure the fair treatment of workers, functioning as a contracting company to industries in the state. The companies are paying the nonprofit contracting fees. The workers are receiving wages as employees of a charitable organization.
So, state taxes. Which is what states already do. And has nothing to do with the SovCit-style theory that states can redirect federal taxes to themselves sonehow.
Read the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It’s really short. You don’t even need to click on the link.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Do you see any ambiguity in the phrase “lay and collect taxes?” Do you see anything there that gives the states a right to claw back taxes?
Come back when two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and 37 states are on board with this proposal.
There’s precedence for a state taking on federal responsibilities. For example, my state has its own agency to handle workplace safety (I work for that agency) so OSHA doesn’t do it in my state.
It’s set up by agreement though, and is a state/federal partnership. And it’s been in place for many decades.
Its conceivable a state could pass a law saying that certain charitable deductions are also credits for state income tax purposes. That way a $1000 payment counts as a state tax payment and is not limited by the SALT limitation. In fact I’m pretty sure that some donations to religious schools in some states are already credited against your state taxes and still are deductible federally as a donation. I’m sure there are various clean the beaches, support the firemen, etc, charities that California could set up if it wanted to play this game.
Federal taxes are a percentage of income. If wages are lower, because the cost of living is lower, then there’s less for the Federal government to tax.
If I could live on $10 a day, my wage only needs to be $3650 a year.
But so, yes, as part of covering the cost of produce and utilities, California would want to pass a law that reduced the income of employees by a few hundred per month. I forgot to write that, clearly.
Inflation means this won’t work.
I understand the idea, but in today’s economy it has no chance of success.
But the IRS could just interpret the rules and say that your free California fruit basket and water bill discount are forms of income that are subject to tax. It would probably be adjudicated in Tax court, and if the IRS lost, Congress could pass a law that codifies it.