Cali intiative-Wealth Tax and Ocean Preservation Act

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?

I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.

Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.

Then please allow the state of CA to break it down for you...

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/...mmary/Introduction.pdf

Why? I checked their data before answering, and it's one way to break it into groups.

I still have no idea what you are getting at.

That's ok, I'm sure everyone else who cares can see what I mean.

Then post to them, and leave me out of your posts, if you don't care to discuss.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: Craig234

A lot of wealthy Californians feel differenly.

I'm sure they do, but I don't see the allure of joining them, it's all been done before. I want to be a wealthy yooper, it has much more pizazz. How about the wealthy Californians in the future if this tax gets passed? I doubt they'll be thrilled with a 55% tax on their wealth.

On the one hand, this has almost no chance to pass as-is IMO.

On the other, what's the income cutoff for it again?

After a certain point, making tens of millions, other factors can play a more important role than taxes. Most average people don't want to pay those rates, but they won't have to.

Back when the US top rate was 91%, the wealthy were still wealthy and did fine, even if it was better to lower the rate as JFK did.

 

[Brigandier]

Voting for more taxes means you're in full approval of your government and how it spends money. You're syaing, "Hey, great job guys, have some more money to spend how you've been spending." It'd be quite awhile before I ever voted that way.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Brigandier
Voting for more taxes means you're in full approval of your government and how it spends money. You're syaing, "Hey, great job guys, have some more money to spend how you've been spending." It'd be quite awhile before I ever voted that way.

Not really at all. Right off the top, voting to increase taxes on the top 2% can allow decreasing taxes on the rest of society - just as Obama plans to do.

And if the Bush administration tomorrow suggested increasing taxes somewhat to pay down the debt, I'd agree, despite disagreeing with them on nearly all of their policies.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd only be repeating what I said earlier about the issue being who government serves and the need to get it serving the public, not the wealthy. We need an anti-Reagan.

A government with fat coffers will always serve the wealthy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd only be repeating what I said earlier about the issue being who government serves and the need to get it serving the public, not the wealthy. We need an anti-Reagan.

A government with fat coffers will always serve the wealthy.

I disagree. I think the government can serve the public or the wealthy regardless of the size of taxes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
Voting for more taxes means you're in full approval of your government and how it spends money. You're syaing, "Hey, great job guys, have some more money to spend how you've been spending." It'd be quite awhile before I ever voted that way.

Not really at all. Right off the top, voting to increase taxes on the top 2% can allow decreasing taxes on the rest of society - just as Obama plans to do.

And if the Bush administration tomorrow suggested increasing taxes somewhat to pay down the debt, I'd agree, despite disagreeing with them on nearly all of their policies.

1) Rob from the rich and give to the poor. - Of course they can afford it.

2) A politician actually utilizing extra tax money to reduce taxes. Will never happen.

3) What Obama or McCain state will also have to be approved by Congress. And that is a major road block.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
Voting for more taxes means you're in full approval of your government and how it spends money. You're syaing, "Hey, great job guys, have some more money to spend how you've been spending." It'd be quite awhile before I ever voted that way.

Not really at all. Right off the top, voting to increase taxes on the top 2% can allow decreasing taxes on the rest of society - just as Obama plans to do.

And if the Bush administration tomorrow suggested increasing taxes somewhat to pay down the debt, I'd agree, despite disagreeing with them on nearly all of their policies.

1) Rob from the rich and give to the poor. - Of course they can afford it.

Waah. We should never increase taxes on the rich, because it's always unjustified robbery.

2) A politician actually utilizing extra tax money to reduce taxes. Will never happen.

Right, democrats have never reduced taxes. Clinton only spent all the increased revenue, he did not do anything to reduce the deficit. Obama doesn't plan a middle class tax cut.

3) What Obama or McCain state will also have to be approved by Congress. And that is a major road block.

Not that major. A new president after a disaster has a lot of honeymoon for change, espeically when his campaign has mentioned change a few times.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
Voting for more taxes means you're in full approval of your government and how it spends money. You're saying, "Hey, great job guys, have some more money to spend how you've been spending." It'd be quite awhile before I ever voted that way.

Not really at all. Right off the top, voting to increase taxes on the top 2% can allow decreasing taxes on the rest of society - just as Obama plans to do.

And if the Bush administration tomorrow suggested increasing taxes somewhat to pay down the debt, I'd agree, despite disagreeing with them on nearly all of their policies.

1) Rob from the rich and give to the poor. - Of course they can afford it.

Waah. We should never increase taxes on the rich, because it's always unjustified robbery.
Why should those that have worked hard for their $$ be required to subsidize those that do not? Why do not you send an extra 10% to the IRS to help reduce the deficit or those that pay not taxes?

2) A politician actually utilizing extra tax money to reduce taxes. Will never happen.

Right, democrats have never reduced taxes. Clinton only spent all the increased revenue, he did not do anything to reduce the deficit. Obama doesn't plan a middle class tax cut.
Clinton did not reduce taxes. He had extra revenue coming in that was not being spent due to the dot com bubble not yet bursting until he was packing up.

3) What Obama or McCain state will also have to be approved by Congress. And that is a major road block.

Not that major. A new president after a disaster has a lot of honeymoon for change, especially when his campaign has mentioned change a few times.

The Dems have stated that they can not follow through on their promises because of the Republicans and (not openly) they do not want to change the way they do business. Each feels the other side is not allowed to take credit for any ideas. As long as the Repubs can block Dem initiatives, the status quo will exist. Unless there is a landslide in the WH or the Dems pick up enouigh in the Senate to override roadblocs, there will not be large changes

 

[XMan]

I would tend to think that an exit tax would be regarded as regulation of interstate commerce by California, and thus, unconstitutional.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd only be repeating what I said earlier about the issue being who government serves and the need to get it serving the public, not the wealthy. We need an anti-Reagan.

A government with fat coffers will always serve the wealthy.

I disagree. I think the government can serve the public or the wealthy regardless of the size of taxes.

Really? Who is the president of the US more likely to have dinner with: you or Rupert Murdoch?

No tell me again, who do you think government serves?

 

[Darwin333]

Outstanding. My state is lowering taxes so I hope some of that "wealth" moves here if this is passed.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: XMan
I would tend to think that an exit tax would be regarded as regulation of interstate commerce by California, and thus, unconstitutional.

That's the first thing that came to my mind when I read this. Well, the first thing after how retarded this is.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Outstanding. My state is lowering taxes so I hope some of that "wealth" moves here if this is passed.

Unfortunately they bring their moonbat attitudes and (lack of) sensibilities with them. They're particularly bad in Colorado.