An update on the CA budget: our first veto

[Lithium381]

What you completely leave out is the fact that the Dems cannot pass any tax increases without Republican votes. Guess who took a childish 'no new taxes' pledge, and has actively pursued recall campaigns against any members who don't follow it, no matter how justified the increase?.

In this case i do not see ANY justification in the increase of taxes. About 20% of my income goes away before I get a chance to see it. Then I've got a 9.5% tax on things I buy.... PLUS 0.35/gal tax if it's gasoline. Then I pay property tax. Where does it all go?
The simple solution is to STOP SPENDING. That's what i've done, as well as a lot of Californians/Americans. Wonder why our economy is slowing? Because our disposable income has been taxed away.
There is no justification in raising taxes. "Don't spend more than you take in" doesn't phase the liberals much does it? Why, they'll just tax you 85% and say "look, more money we can spend!"

Actually in all honesty, it's not the amount I get taxed that bothers me, it's how little return we get for our dollars. I understand taxes are necessary(To a point in a democratic society, as opposed to socialism). Spend it more wisely.



Yes I live in california. I used to vote Dem, but typically find myself voting Rep....... no i don't vote party-line.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, why are the Republicans so wrong for opposing tax increases?

When citizens get a pay cut they have to decrease their spending. Why is the government immune from that?

Why is it every time there is a budget crunch the citizens are expected for fork over more money? Why doesn't the government learn to live within its means?

 

[Craig234]

In this case i do not see ANY justification in the increase of taxes. About 20% of my income goes away before I get a chance to see it. Then I've got a 9.5% tax on things I buy.... PLUS 0.35/gal tax if it's gasoline. Then I pay property tax. Where does it all go?
The simple solution is to STOP SPENDING. That's what i've done, as well as a lot of Californians/Americans. Wonder why our economy is slowing? Because our disposable income has been taxed away.
There is no justification in raising taxes. "Don't spend more than you take in" doesn't phase the liberals much does it? Why, they'll just tax you 85% and say "look, more money we can spend!"

Actually in all honesty, it's not the amount I get taxed that bothers me, it's how little return we get for our dollars. I understand taxes are necessary(To a point in a democratic society, as opposed to socialism). Spend it more wisely.



Yes I live in california. I used to vote Dem, but typically find myself voting Rep....... no i don't vote party-line.

You sound like the sort of Californian who is not unreasonable but only somewhat informed.

You're making a big mistake voting Republican, but don't know you are.

Tell me, as you explain how you have an opinion there is NO JUSTIFICATION for any new taxes - what happened to California's General Fund Revenue from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010?

You're right about things like the gas tax (CA is second highest in the nation); I don't know where you get the 20% loss up front to income (our top rate, for over $1 million, is 10.3%).

But state revenues in the period above, to answer the question *were down 24%*.

I'd say that justifies a tax increase to pay the bills. You say you "do not see ANY justification in the increase of taxes." I doubt you knew about the plummeting income.

That's how these cycles work. In down times, the government has higher needs on it while tax revenues are down, making it hard. That's why it's important to prepare in better times, instead of letting Republicans, like Bush did in 2001-2003, go on a splurge turning a surplus into a huge deficit with borrowed tax cuts for the rich and much other spending - based on 'what to do with the surplus' and lots of anti-tax rhetoric.

To recover the economy, the government spending is an important part. Taxes are needed to do that.

The 'new' taxes are to help make up for the 24% reduction in taxes you didn't mention.

As a crude example, your taxes went from $100 to $76, and you say you see no reason for any tax increase. I see 24 reasons, if we're going to balance the budget.

The reasons are, besides the fall in income, the increased need for services - even while the Democrats have made large cuts in spending.

If that's not a need, I may have been wrong about you. I'm assuming having that one fact - there are more - inform you why some taxes are needed.

 

[nick1985]

^

lies

 

[Craig234]

Even if Brown gets what he wants, a vote on the tax extensions, there is a very good chance he won't get them.

Incorrect. It's possible, but not a 'very good chance'; polls show a small majority for them.

Then what? Will they finally do an all cuts budget? I doubt it. The Dems will try and come up with some other way to get the money regardless of what voters want.

Sounds like an opinion based on ideology. The facts say they will. Admittedly, reports say Democrats backed off it this week - but Brown vetoed their doing so.

The funny part about all this is that the current budget problem is nothing compared to California's unfunded pension liabilities. How is the state going to pay for those? Let me guess, more taxes?

Democrats are planning pension reform.

Regardless how the current budget mess plays out, there is no way around even more cuts and, in all likelihood, more taxes.

-KeithP

Sounds right. They project an improving economy, recovering by about 2016. Maybe.

 

[nick1985]

^

more lies

 

[halik]

You sound like the sort of Californian who is not unreasonable but only somewhat informed.

You're making a big mistake voting Republican, but don't know you are.

Tell me, as you explain how you have an opinion there is NO JUSTIFICATION for any new taxes - what happened to California's General Fund Revenue from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010?

You're right about things like the gas tax (CA is second highest in the nation); I don't know where you get the 20% loss up front to income (our top rate, for over $1 million, is 10.3%).

But state revenues in the period above, to answer the question *were down 24%*.

I'd say that justifies a tax increase to pay the bills. You say you "do not see ANY justification in the increase of taxes." I doubt you knew about the plummeting income.

That's how these cycles work. In down times, the government has higher needs on it while tax revenues are down, making it hard. That's why it's important to prepare in better times, instead of letting Republicans, like Bush did in 2001-2003, go on a splurge turning a surplus into a huge deficit with borrowed tax cuts for the rich and much other spending - based on 'what to do with the surplus' and lots of anti-tax rhetoric.

To recover the economy, the government spending is an important part. Taxes are needed to do that.

The 'new' taxes are to help make up for the 24% reduction in taxes you didn't mention.

As a crude example, your taxes went from $100 to $76, and you say you see no reason for any tax increase. I see 24 reasons, if we're going to balance the budget.

The reasons are, besides the fall in income, the increased need for services - even while the Democrats have made large cuts in spending.

If that's not a need, I may have been wrong about you. I'm assuming having that one fact - there are more - inform you why some taxes are needed.

Wow this mentality is EXACTLY why california is fucked.

Let me explain the idea of a balanced budget, the way any viable business operates:
You asses your revenue and from that you adjust your expenses accordingly. If your revenue is up, you have more money to spend. If the revenue is down, you have to cut expenses. Notice how firms lay off works and cut free coffee/birthday parties/etc in bad economy? Coincidence?


Apparently the california version of this is spend money first, look at revenues later and then issue debt/tax people for the difference. When tax receipts are up, spend more, when tax receipts are down, tax more. Briliant!

 

[Craig234]

About a year ago NPR had a story about some prop that now regulates chicken coop sizing for egg farms in cali. The rule, going in effect in ~2015 will essentially end all egg farms in cali, because they can't compete with farmers one state over.

They had one farmer on saying that either the rule gets tossed or he'll have to sell and move his farm.

You believe everything you hear? Of course they say that. It's a political campaign.

Let's say you're right, some farmers will leave the state to practice torture elsewhere.

Does that mean we need to allow it here? No. You make a good argument for a federal law.

If China allows terrible worker abuse, do we have to do the same?

Your punishment for defending the cruelty is to watch this video supporting the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb8od9ZlUtM&eurl=http://uncaged.yesonprop2.com/

 

[nick1985]

Wow this mentality EXACTLY why california is fucked.

No no no, you are just blinded by ideology.

 

[halik]

You believe everything you hear? Of course they say that. It's a political campaign.

Let's say you're right, some farmers will leave the state to practice torture elsewhere.

Does that mean we need to allow it here? No. You make a good argument for a federal law.

If China allows terrible worker abuse, do we have to do the same?

Your punishment for defending the cruelty is to watch this video supporting the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb8od9ZlUtM&eurl=http://uncaged.yesonprop2.com/

Inane emotional arguments don't work on me, my friend, my education is in economics and public policy. You're no different than holy rollers using fetus pictures to make abortion policy arguments.


Literally the only thing that proposition has accomplished is reduce cali corp tax receipts. Great success though, expect fruit baskets from the neighboring states.

 

[Craig234]

Wow this mentality EXACTLY why california is fucked.

Let me explain the idea of a balanced budget, the way any viable business operates:
You asses your revenue and from that you adjust your expenses accordingly. If your revenue is up, you have more money to spend. If the revenue is down, you have to cut expenses.


Apparently the california version of this is spend money first, look at revenues later and then issue debt/tax people for the difference.

You are entirely ignorant of how economies function, it appears. The government can cut some spending, can shift priorities, for budget pressures in down cycles. But it can also be a time when borrowing is justified for needed investment for economic recovery. I understand that's not something you can hear though your ideology. "blah blah liberals spend."

In fact, I suspect it's a waste of time - you are like telling a child not to eat candy.

You have your ideology, and that's all you are going to care about, zero interest in getting informed about the issue. You will just wallow in your simplistic errors.

Hint: this is about balancing the budget, in part. Moderate, appropriate taxes help do that.

Moderate, appropriate taxes - you know the kind the Republicans have no clue about with their childish 'no new taxes' pledges, fingers in ears la la la la.

The kind that have already been playing an important role in reducing the state deficit that would be even worse without them, that Democrats want to extend.

 

[Craig234]

Inane emotional arguments don't work on me, my friend, my education is in economics and public policy. You're no different than holy rollers using fetus pictures to make abortion policy arguments.

Talk after you do your punishment.

 

[halik]

You are entirely ignorant of how economies function, it appears. The government can cut some spending, can shift priorities, for budget pressures in down cycles. But it can also be a time when borrowing is justified for needed investment for economic recovery. I understand that's not something you can hear though your ideology. "blah blah liberals spend."

In fact, I suspect it's a waste of time - you are like telling a child not to eat candy.

You have your ideology, and that's all you are going to care about, zero interest in getting informed about the issue. You will just wallow in your simplistic errors.

Hint: this is about balancing the budget, in part. Moderate, appropriate taxes help do that.

Moderate, appropriate taxes - you know the kind the Republicans have no clue about with their childish 'no new taxes' pledges, fingers in ears la la la la.

The kind that have already been playing an important role in reducing the state deficit that would be even worse without them, that Democrats want to extend.

Ideology? This is empirical evidence:

Expenditures in cali consitenty overshoot revenues on the downturns, but never the other way around. It's a systematic issue, not a one time oops.

 

[halik]

Talk after you do your punishment.

Pictures of dead chickens don't make for compelling policy arguments any more than dead fetus pictures. But somehow i get feeling this whole idea is lost on you.

 

[Craig234]

Pictures of dead chickens don't make for compelling policy arguments any more than dead fetus pictures. But somehow i get feeling this whole idea is lost on you.

Is that in the video? Did you watch it to say that, or just making it up?

 

[halik]

Is that in the video? Did you watch it to say that, or just making it up?

No I didn't watch it, but I'm sure it shows chickens dying or being slaughtered or whatever. Stereotypical PETA "if you eat kfc, god with kill a chicken" quasi-argument.

None of that has any bearing on that prop being retarded policy. You're eating the same eggs, the only difference now is that nevada gets to collect that corp income tax and ship the eggs over to you. Congrats, treehugger emotional policy FTL.

The irony you and these people use the same tactic to push stupid policy:

 

[Craig234]

Ideology? This is empirical evidence:

Expenditures in cali consitenty overshoot revenues on the downturns, but never the other way around. It's a systematic issue, not a one time oops.

That's a different topic, the history of the budgets - but interesting note, look at the graph you posted. See the one flat period from about 2000 to 2004?

Guess which governor's budgets those were. The only Democrat we've had in office, Gray Davis, since Jerry Brown in the 80's.

You did not respond to the actual topic, your comments about how the budget is and should be done, and my response, but I'm not complaining, I think we covered that.

 

[ProfJohn]

That's how these cycles work. In down times, the government has higher needs on it while tax revenues are down, making it hard. That's why it's important to prepare in better times, instead of letting Republicans, like Bush did in 2001-2003, go on a splurge turning a surplus into a huge deficit with borrowed tax cuts for the rich and much other spending - based on 'what to do with the surplus' and lots of anti-tax rhetoric.

Wait!!! Now Bush is responsible for California's problems???

How did that happen?

 

[halik]

That's a different topic, the history of the budgets - but interesting note, look at the graph you posted. See the one flat period from about 2000 to 2004?

Guess which governor's budgets those were. The only Democrat we've had in office, Gray Davis, since Jerry Brown in the 80's.

You did not respond to the actual topic, your comments about how the budget is and should be done, and my response, but I'm not complaining, I think we covered that.

You do realized that during the whole "flat period" you run deficit and there's no surplus actually pay for those? In other words, you're spending more money than you have and afterwards you go back to spending all the money you have. It's a little disconcerting this little detail seems to escape you...

It goes hand in hand with the optimal budget stategy - that is you should have a surplus built up that gets used during times of declining receipt. What california does is the exact opposite, they run deficits and never pay for those during up years.



Would I be wrong to guess you have absolutely no economics/policy/business background?

 

[Craig234]

Wait!!! Now Bush is responsible for California's problems???

How did that happen?

Quite a bit.

You don't want to open the can of worms you can't handle.

We could start early with pro-Enron federal policies, with anti-California federal policies like for the first time ever using federal emissions standards as a MAXIMUM, denying California its traditional exceptions to be able to have better standards. We could start with the later part, his role in mis-regulating Wall Street leading to the crash. Forget it.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW
Texas has a balanced budget without raising taxes.
Indian balanced its budget without tax increases.
Minnesota balanced its budget without tax increases.

How is it that these states can do it, but California can not?

 

[nonlnear]

BTW
Texas has a balanced budget without raising taxes.
Indian balanced its budget without tax increases.
Minnesota balanced its budget without tax increases.

How is it that these states can do it, but California can not?

It's hard to quit spending crack.

 

[ProfJohn]

Quite a bit.

You don't want to open the can of worms you can't handle.

We could start early with pro-Enron federal policies, with anti-California federal policies like for the first time ever using federal emissions standards as a MAXIMUM, denying California its traditional exceptions to be able to have better standards. We could start with the later part, his role in mis-regulating Wall Street leading to the crash. Forget it.

What does that have to do with California budget problems that you claim are related to inability to raise taxes due to evil Republicans??

Enron?? They went out of business in 2002 that was 9 years ago.
Emissions standards?? What does that have to do with anything?
Wall Street crash? It effected every state and yet many of them are able to balance their budgets without tax increases, why can't California?

 

[marincounty]

Former Gov Schwarzenegger's approval ratings hit bottom , with only 20% of California voters still supporting the gov. Three in Four voters view him unfavorably.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57212.html

These numbers come in contrast to far better approval ratings during his seven years in Sacramento, when positives reached as high as 64 percent in May 2004, shortly after he first won office in a 2003 recall election

Schwarzenegger’s numbers are now below those of former governors Pete Wilson and Gray Davis – whose own unpopularity led to the recall election propelling Schwarzenegger into office. Before Davis left office, a 2003 Field Poll found that 67 percent of voters viewed him unfavorably.

Typical Republican, they sweep into office using celebrity and lies like not taking special interest money, then fail spectaculary-leaving the state or country in tatters.
Now it's up to Democrats to clean up the mess left by the insane Republicans.

 

[ProfJohn]

You think his drop in ratings could be related to his personal scandals??