• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a state be able to charge a tax on exports to another state?

Should a state be able to charge a tax on exports to another state?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • No

    Votes: 19 90.5%

  • Total voters
    21

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Let's assume, for kicks and giggles, that Texas decided to tax its exports to the other 49 states of fossil fuels, farm products, building materials (most cement is made in Texas), and mining output.

Should that be allowed, or would the Federal Government have a case to step in and try to force Texas to share its wealth with the peasant states?


I think that by taxing our oil exports (remember that even imported oil is regularly refined or at least piped through Texas) and other products could really pump some money in to the state. No reason we should be giving away the fruits of Exxon's labor, for example, for free to Californians.

But what say you?
 
If the people of Texas want to do that then sure. Cities should be able to do as well. But then I believe the more local the government the more weight it should carry. Pretty much the opposite of what we have now so I am odd.
 
Let's assume, for kicks and giggles, that Texas decided to tax its exports to the other 49 states of fossil fuels, farm products, building materials (most cement is made in Texas), and mining output.

Should that be allowed, or would the Federal Government have a case to step in and try to force Texas to share its wealth with the peasant states?


I think that by taxing our oil exports (remember that even imported oil is regularly refined or at least piped through Texas) and other products could really pump some money in to the state. No reason we should be giving away the fruits of Exxon's labor, for example, for free to Californians.

But what say you?

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5

The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union. Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution. As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes. In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies. They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery. They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry.

Read more. Guide to the Constitution
 
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5

The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union. Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution. As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes. In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies. They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery. They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry.

Read more. Guide to the Constitution


Carefully note the use of the conditional verb "should" in the question posed.

I didn't ask if Texas IS able to charge export taxes, I asked whether it SHOULD be able to charge export taxes.
 
Carefully note the use of the conditional verb "should" in the question posed.

I didn't ask if Texas IS able to charge export taxes, I asked whether it SHOULD be able to charge export taxes.

Your answer lies in the article cited. No, they shouldn't. Very sensible, timeless, and necessary reasons.
 
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5

The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union. Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution. As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes. In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies. They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery. They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry.

Read more. Guide to the Constitution
In the above they are concerned that they will be taxed disproportionately by an export tax for what they are exporting.
A federal proscription, not state.

Which would not be the same as an export tax charged by them to another state.

Is there another proscription that applies to the States?
 
No, that was the original intent of the commerce clause...

As a conservative I should think you would understand that - never met a liberal who understood anything about the Constitution though, and since they dominate our country... anything goes.
 
No, that was the original intent of the commerce clause...

As a conservative I should think you would understand that - never met a liberal who understood anything about the Constitution though, and since they dominate our country... anything goes.

exactly, the real purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent different states from say slapping import tariffs on goods coming into the port of NYC but destined for Ohio or Pennsylvania or say Ohio levying tariffs on Pittsburgh coal destined to St Louis and traveling on the Ohio river past Cincinnati
 
peasant states?

I thought Texas was the one that was just crying to the feds for some disaster relief :lamo

Hey Texas! Hurry up and secede so that you can deal with the floods yourself and spiral down into social, economic, and political disarray! It'll sure be a good laugh for me :lamo
 
Carefully note the use of the conditional verb "should" in the question posed.

I didn't ask if Texas IS able to charge export taxes, I asked whether it SHOULD be able to charge export taxes.

People still don't seem to get that distinction. Something is LEGAL because it is in the Constitution. But being in the Constitution doesn't necessarily make it JUST.
 
In the above they are concerned that they will be taxed disproportionately by an export tax for what they are exporting.
A federal proscription, not state.

Which would not be the same as an export tax charged by them to another state.

Is there another proscription that applies to the States?

You're right, I just took a glance and thought it was what I was looking for. Now I'm thinking it was in the continental congress debates... Or constitutional conventions... Too tired to look right now. But I remember it being agreed that commerce between states should be free and open unless a product violates that states laws.
 
People still don't seem to get that distinction. Something is LEGAL because it is in the Constitution. But being in the Constitution doesn't necessarily make it JUST.

I feel your pain brother. If we're just here to spit out what the law is and never question it, what debate is there to be had? Where's the fun?
 
peasant states?

I thought Texas was the one that was just crying to the feds for some disaster relief :lamo

Hey Texas! Hurry up and secede so that you can deal with the floods yourself and spiral down into social, economic, and political disarray! It'll sure be a good laugh for me :lamo

Plebeian.
 
Let's assume, for kicks and giggles, that Texas decided to tax its exports to the other 49 states of fossil fuels, farm products, building materials (most cement is made in Texas), and mining output.

Should that be allowed, or would the Federal Government have a case to step in and try to force Texas to share its wealth with the peasant states?


I think that by taxing our oil exports (remember that even imported oil is regularly refined or at least piped through Texas) and other products could really pump some money in to the state. No reason we should be giving away the fruits of Exxon's labor, for example, for free to Californians.

But what say you?

Since we tax things we want less of, I would be in favor of Texas being the only State that taxes it's exports. The less of Texas we get the better.
 
The last thing we need is protectionism within our own borders. Just a disastrous proposition.
 
If Texas were to do this, it would be an exploitative form of obtaining revenue, since it's essentially taking advantage of other parts of the country to benefit your own. No, obviously.
 
No

The United States of America. Making taxes as suggested would make the country less United. I would apply this concept to the rest of the world as well. but that is an other discussion.


Joey
 
Back
Top Bottom