Gyroscopic Investing

Here's an article that advocates that Red States start nullifying federal laws that they feel are unconstitutional.

I'm more interested in the concept in general. Red or Blue states refusing to comply with Federal laws that they feel are unconstitutional or that don't represent the interests of the state.

How would that work in practice? The article suggests just ignoring the federal law - or in some cases - passing state Bills that formally say they will ignore the federal law. I believe that has happened in both red and blue states to some extent. The article gives this example with respect to gun rights :

Already, we are seeing some movement in the states on the nullification front. The Arizona Senate passed a bill that declares it will not enforce federal gun control laws. Oklahoma, South Dakota and North Dakota legislators have all introduced legislation that nullifies Biden’s executive orders.

While not having immediate examples at hand, I feel that blue states are exercising the same sort of push-back by enacting their own drug enforcement edicts and by deciding not to co-operate with the feds on issues of immigration.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against any particular state issue, but I would love to see more states push back against the erosion of their sovereignty and their week kneed abdication to a federal government that holds no legal authority over them.

Any chance that we will see a resurgence of Federalism?

What would make it even more of a credible stand would be those states that not only push back on the Federal Government, but put their money where their mouth is by handing back the Federal money they receive (if any) that exceeds the taxes they pay in.

Here is a link to one article that lists and ranks states in order of how dependent they are on the Feds. https://smartasset.com/taxes/states-mos ... nment-2020

Boy it would make quite a statement for a dependent state to take a stand, and make a financial sacrifice in doing so. On the other hand, to bitch about the Feds and take their money (in excess of what is paid in) at the same time is a credibility issue as far as I'm concerned. But then I've always felt the same way about employees who take their employer's money and complain about them all the way to the bank.

I completely agree. Dumbest thing the states did was to become dependent on Federal Money.

Who pays you, owns you.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:27 pm I completely agree. Dumbest thing the states did was to become dependent on Federal Money.

Who pays you, owns you.

Texas is one state that might be in a good position for a variety of reasons to do as you are suggesting. Not the least of which being cultural.

The federal dollars comment made me think.

The official 1 oz coin has a $50 face value.

If you pay someone with a $50 gold coin, their taxes would be quite low on $50 vs the $1700 they might otherwise receive..

Edit:
For that matter the service fee of spending $1700 to buy $50 coin is probably deductible.

whatchamacallit wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:17 pm The federal dollars comment made me think.

The official 1 oz coin has a $50 face value.

If you pay someone with a $50 gold coin, their taxes would be quite low on $50 vs the $1700 they might otherwise receive..

Edit:
For that matter the service fee of spending $1700 to buy $50 coin is probably deductible.

I've thought about every variation of that scheme
You don't want to do it.

There are a bunch of tax 'gotchas' that can apply if the feds decide they need to set you straight. And it has been tried, plenty of times. Notably a guy in Nevada paying his workers in gold and silver coins.