"This water is too fuddy to drink", said the horse. I guess if it's not 100% Republicans, then there's nothing to talk about. In fact, let's just not talk about politics - one less AT forum.
"This water is too fuddy to drink", said the horse. I guess if it's not 100% Republicans, then there's nothing to talk about. In fact, let's just not talk about politics - one less AT forum.
I saw this article about the flat-earth society, and the moment I saw it was from a leading science group, I knew it'd be something claiming the world isn't flat. Why are they sheep?
Blaming this "crisis" on the republicans is like blaming the sinking of the titanic on a small group of the passengers. The fundamental problem is actually very simple, but everyone wants to try and make it so complex.
In the long run, you can simply not keep spending more than you bring in. Fundamentally, the problem is that the legislative branch of CA government (democrats) fails to understand that simple reality. They bitch and moan about prop 13, but prop 13 only impacts one part of how much they can bring in through property taxes. Cut your spending to match the level of income. If the public wants additional services that can't be paid for within the budget, then their legislators can take steps to fix the issue.
FACT: you can not sustain spending more than you make indefinitely.
FACT: prop 13 puts certain restraints on the ability to raise certain taxes.
Given that reality, any logical person would say "we need to either cut spending, or we need to ask the voters to allow changes in tax levels". The voters have spoken loud and clear: "No way, no more taxes". Doesn't that make it pretty clear as to what should happen next?
In the long run, you can simply not keep spending more than you bring in. Fundamentally, the problem is that the legislative branch of CA government (democrats) fails to understand that simple reality. They bitch and moan about prop 13, but prop 13 only impacts one part of how much they can bring in through property taxes. Cut your spending to match the level of income. If the public wants additional services that can't be paid for within the budget, then their legislators can take steps to fix the issue.
FACT: you can not sustain spending more than you make indefinitely.
FACT: prop 13 puts certain restraints on the ability to raise certain taxes.
Given that reality, any logical person would say "we need to either cut spending, or we need to ask the voters to allow changes in tax levels". The voters have spoken loud and clear: "No way, no more taxes". Doesn't that make it pretty clear as to what should happen next?
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,278
- 14,698
- 146
Quite a few of us Kahleeforneeyan homeowners are glad Prop 13 is still in place, HOWEVER, many politicians are looking at eliminating the Prop 13 protections for companies and especially corporations...and a LOT of homeowners support this change. It could make a HUGE dent in the state budget problems without pricing homeowners out of their homes.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/...906140309/-1/A_OPINION
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1962187.html
http://www.californiaprogressr...06/schrag_prop_13.html
ONE of the major problems with the Kahleeforneeya budget is the "legislating by proposition" that happens here. Special interest groups convince the voters to support the passage of some idea or another...and it gets passed...with no defined revenue stream to pay for it...OR, they pass "sin taxes" such as cigarette taxes, (always easy to vote for a tax that you don't have to pay) and put the burden on an ever shrinking group...then, when that revenue dries up, the funds get tacked onto the general fund budget...
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/...906140309/-1/A_OPINION
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1962187.html
http://www.californiaprogressr...06/schrag_prop_13.html
ONE of the major problems with the Kahleeforneeya budget is the "legislating by proposition" that happens here. Special interest groups convince the voters to support the passage of some idea or another...and it gets passed...with no defined revenue stream to pay for it...OR, they pass "sin taxes" such as cigarette taxes, (always easy to vote for a tax that you don't have to pay) and put the burden on an ever shrinking group...then, when that revenue dries up, the funds get tacked onto the general fund budget...
Yeah, I'm sure they're all for that, until they see more and more companies closing down or simply packing up and moving to other (less hostile) states. Unemployment will climb even higher, pushing tax income down even further.
I haven't done any analysis, but I'm sure some others have: how does CA rank in terms of corporate taxation? My guess is corporate taxation in CA is very high, but I dunno.
eskimospy has also talked about this issue. Sounds like they need to change the law to mandate that any proposed project be required to identify how it's going to be funded. That way the mandates have to be accompanied by funding, making a much higher threshold for new spending.
My impression of the history is this:
Wealthy interests recognized that big property tax cuts on their business taxes would give them more money, and that's a good thing for them.
But how to get it passed? The public was increasingly upset at high resedential property taxes. So, cut them all, and the public will go along.
But that'll trash the income for the government. The wealthy interests' response: who cares? Most of tha state spending goes to the poor and middle classes, tough luck.
And out of that comes Prop 13, marketed to concentrate on the resedential property tax cuts, and passed - with its built-in protections against raising taxes when the problems w it causes become clear. And so that's how we ended up with the big revenue problems and the decline in the state from that.
I think some relief was fine. This was irresponsible. I think it's worth looking at repealing the reductions to the commericial property taxes - and a bit of poetic justice.
Yeah and my house is worth $1.7 million. Prop 13 limits you to 1.2% of the value of your house. Try taking $20k out of your paycheck every year. Fine 0.48% like that stupid article had the average pegged at because our property taxes apparently don't inflate as quickly. $8200. Good luck.
And once again, why isn't spending being scrutinized enough? Californian liberals already voted down Props 1A - 1E, so it's a clear sign no one wants to be taxed more. Let's tackle our spending problem already.
Also, while CA ranks #45 in relative property tax rate which someone brings up, the fact that property is worth so much brings our net $$ amount up to rank 10. It's not that we need to be taxed the same RATE as other states because it's not like cost of government spending is 2 - 3x other states, thus while our rate is only 0.48%, the dollar figure should be ENOUGH. So unless our salaries are like 2x more, it's kinda hard for us to pay ridiculous property tax rates that you feel we deserve to pay.
I won't get into all the flaws of your post but one is an incomplete statement - the voters also said no to the cuts. So no, that doesn't make it pretty clear.
Do you need any more evidence than the number of people who spend too mch to recognize that voters are not always going to vote as rationally as yo claim?
It's pretty damn clear to us CA residents that after raising our sales tax by 1%, bringing registration fees back to where they were before, raising the state income tax that we don't need ANY MORE taxes. If we're being taxed well above the median when compared to the rest of the people in this nation, I fail to see how other states can survive but we can't.
In dollar amount, CA ranks #10, but in terms of % of the value of the house, CA ranks #45, but in my previous post I discussed that and someone pointed out that houses cost a buttload here. It's true that in terms of value of the house we may pay less but if we already pay more than the average American in terms of $ amount, then that's the same. It seems some of the left wing nuts here want us to pay closer to 1%.
It doesn't cost the CA government TWICE as much per citizen to run this state ok? So we don't need to pay twice the property taxes or whatever you deem to be reasonable for us.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
What we are saying is that the system is so bloated, bureaucratic and full of wasteful pet projects, that the only way to reign in Democrats was to restrict their access to the cookie jar.
California cannot afford to bleed any more jobs, and placing the tax burden on corporations would do just that.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Looks like progressive tax rates are part of the problem:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12579720
People making over $500,000 make up less than 2% of the population, but bring in 40% of the states personal income taxes.
When the economy does poor the amount of money made by the people at the top falls off a cliff and this revenue drops too.
Some other interesting stuff at that site too.
The states spending is almost $20 billion more than what would be expected if they had kept spending growth the same as inflation and population growth.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12579720
People making over $500,000 make up less than 2% of the population, but bring in 40% of the states personal income taxes.
When the economy does poor the amount of money made by the people at the top falls off a cliff and this revenue drops too.
Some other interesting stuff at that site too.
The states spending is almost $20 billion more than what would be expected if they had kept spending growth the same as inflation and population growth.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,974
- 140
- 106
prop 13 is not the problem. Base line budgeting is the cause of the problem. All Calif property owners benefit from prop 13. It's also time to make end users in the public school system pay a tuition instead of free loading off the tax payers. If you have kids in the public school system you should pay a tuition and stop free loading off the tax payers.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
California is one of the most fiscally defunct states in the union, no question. Can I ask, and I am honestly ignorant and would love a real answer, what are some of the most fiscally prudent states? What do they do differently? Is there any reason California (and Washington, where I currently am, which is nearly as bad a state) couldn't emulate their tax/spend methods?
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
What republicans never learn is that it's exactly the high taxes that make people want to cut government spending. If you cap taxes, there is no incentive for people to demand their politicians cut spending. We saw it on national level, and now we are seeing it in CA.
High taxes make you want to spend less? I doubt it. Some people have a debt problem. You know those people. They make enough to get by and they go out to fancy dinners, drop money on a boat, have loads of credit card debt. You know what they say? "My life would be so much better if I had $10,000 more." No. We could double their income and they would STILL have spending problems. Rich people, poor people all face spending problems. Sure if you're rich you're less likely to run into issues unless you run wild buying multiple multi-million homes or buy exotic cars.
I think you might be right in that if the government makes a buttload of money (high taxes), then it might not have enough things to spend it on, thus resulting in less spending problems. Ok, this is NOT the solution to the problem. If the government has a spending problem, you don't FEED it more money. If someone has spending issues, you teach them to budget their money properly. If you had all the money in the world, by all means feed them more. Make the druggie worse. But we don't have unlimited money to throw around to the government. The only reason we might need higher taxes is if the government DOES legitimately need money for sound programs that benefit the economy and the people. However, taxes in CA as it is now, are just fine. The real problem is spending, and to fix it, you have to limit spending, not throw more money.
The whole argument that we saw it on a national level has nothing to do with tax cuts. Bush and Congress spent way too much. This wasn't because they cut taxes. It's because they spent too much money. Are you saying that if we kept taxes like the Clinton rates, that the costs of going to war and everything else would've been covered and that we would still be running a surplus today? Hah. Come on.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
The rightwing "starve the beast" ideology of cutting taxes and expecting spending to be cut, has never worked. In fact it has resulted in out of control spending because people no longer feel the negative impact of their votes for spending measures. The only incentive for people to cut spending is fear of higher taxes. Once you pass a measure that says taxes cannot be raised without a supermajority, people feel free to vote for every spending measure.
Anyways, we'll see what Arnie does. Sh!t is finally hitting the fan, it's good to have a prop 13 supporter in place to deal with the mess it created.
Anyways, we'll see what Arnie does. Sh!t is finally hitting the fan, it's good to have a prop 13 supporter in place to deal with the mess it created.
On the other hand, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, W. Virginia, etc are pretty terrible states in most respects.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, you didn't answer the question. It's easy to point at failure but it's often harder to prescribe a method for success.
What states are doing well that should be lauded and imitated?
[edit] California is my home state, the northern part specifically, and it hurts to see it struggling. Ironically the legalization of marijuana would be the most incredible boon to my home county, pulling it out of poverty and neglect and into a profitable agricultural center...
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Do you REALLY want to go there?
Or have you REALLY forgotten the hundreds of threads that show how the 'liberal' policies have created FAR more wealth in the states you mentioned than in the 'conservative's states? Not to mention higher education, greater productivity, better health, etc, etc? Or how conservative states have failed? So much so that the "liberal" states you mention have to pour billions of dollars every year into the 'conservative' states to keep them afloat? Or that if those liberal states would only receive back from the Federal government what they pay those states would have HUGE surpluses?
Really, you don't want to go there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 398
Facebook
Twitter