How to save California - Slash taxes

[spidey07]

Sure it's an op-ed but the recommendation came from Governator's own tax commission. Want to stop business and industry from fleeing your state? Want to fix your local economy? It's real simple - stop taxing business/people to death and maybe they'll stay.
--------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/...74443413742032356.html

"The commission hasn't recommended a pure flat tax, but something much closer to it. As shown in the nearby table, the income tax rate, which currently tops out at 10.55%, would be chopped to a more reasonable (but still high) 7.5%. (The plan doesn't eliminate the one-percentage-point millionaire income tax surcharge, alas.) Because about 70% of small businesses pay the personal California income tax, the commission found that California's high rate is driving enterprises to the likes of Nevada, Texas and Idaho. The number of tax rates is reduced to three from seven (we prefer one), and thanks to the elimination of credits and loopholes, the new California tax form would fit on a postcard."

 

[DealMonkey]

Don't you suppose that the California Tax Commission is ALWAYS going to recommend that course of action?

 

[JSt0rm]

Well I will say that in the movie industry a lot of productions are leaving for tax incentives in other states. It has really fragmented the industry. Add to this sag and writers strikes, lack of bank investments, network tv moving to reality tv ( Jay Leno's move to 10pm saved 500 million per season - 5 scripted shows gone) and you have a industry on the brink.

 

[Craig234]

WSJ editorial page is on my short list of trash not worth reading.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
WSJ editorial page is on my short list of trash not worth reading.

Pure deflection that doesn't address the issues raised in the study.

But what else should I expect from Craig234 when he runs into a study he doesn't agree with.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Craig234
WSJ editorial page is on my short list of trash not worth reading.

Pure deflection that doesn't address the issues raised in the study.

But what else should I expect from Craig234 when he runs into a study he doesn't agree with.

Chairman Fuhrer Patranus Manson-bin Laden the Troll:

You go read this in its entirety and provide a detailed response, and then I'll read another WSJ editorial.

You go enjoy your garbage pile - alone.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Craig234
WSJ editorial page is on my short list of trash not worth reading.

Pure deflection that doesn't address the issues raised in the study.

But what else should I expect from Craig234 when he runs into a study he doesn't agree with.

You go read this in its entirety and provide a detailed response, and then I'll read a WSJ editorial.

First of all, have fun living in the past. and second of all, good luck joining the likes of Stalin and Mao Zedong who actually believes those crap and put it in practice. better yet, take some history lesson and see how many people die from those ideas.

 

[fskimospy]

News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Craig234
WSJ editorial page is on my short list of trash not worth reading.

Pure deflection that doesn't address the issues raised in the study.

But what else should I expect from Craig234 when he runs into a study he doesn't agree with.

You go read this in its entirety and provide a detailed response, and then I'll read a WSJ editorial.

First of all, have fun living in the past. and second of all, good luck joining the likes of Stalin and Mao Zedong who actually believes those crap and put it in practice. better yet, take some history lesson and see how many people die from those ideas.

My post apparently went so far over your head, you would need a telecscope.

I'll explain it just for you.

There is enough information printed every day that you would need more than 2,400 hours, not 24, to read much of it. You have to pick and choose.

Some sources are clear propaganda, they lie, they are often bought and paid for, they are there to disrupt the discussion and derail and steer it off topic, to mislead.

Sources who do that enough in my opinion forfeit any right to more time. There are better, more deserving sources.

A few of the sources who are on that short list include the Wall Street Journal Editorial page - look at thousands of examples of their bad behavior, and they're so bad, they actually have a policy not to print any corrections of their errors; Newsmax.com; the current Nationall Review (the one Bucliey's son resigned from over its move to the radical right); David Horowitz; Fox; The Washington Times; Ann coulter; Rush Limbaugh; The New York Post; William Kristol; AEI; Cato; and a few more.

My point in linking that was since he's not going to understand the point to not reading the WSJ editorial page propaganda, to made him match his own demanded standard, to go and waste a lot of time reading something that he rejects out of hand, so that he's forced into the position of saying 'that's not worth the time to read and debunk', trying to get him to have some clue that that can be the case sometimes and off of his high horse of denial denying that there's anything that's a waste of time to read - if he agrees with it, at least.

The point was not to actually promote Marx's book - though you did a remarkably crappy and ignorant job attacking it had that been the case.

Mao nd Stalin had about as much to do with Marx as Bernie Madoff had to do with Adam Smith.

You may not gbe aware that at the height of the cold war even Stalin's successor discredited him for his crimes. Care to point me to Stalingrad on the map?

You are clearly not informed enough to have any discussion about any of these topics with IMO - and you just completely missed the point of my post on the WSJ Editorial page.

I think I'm done explaining, if you got it great, if not that's ok.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

It is probably going to take more than that to fix those problems.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

It is probably going to take more than that to fix those problems.

No, probably not. California's main problem is its extremely unstable tax base. In good years, it's rich beyond any state's wildest dreams, in bad years it's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. A large portion of this can be laid at the feet of stupid propositions like prop 13. (it has a few friends) Property taxation is generally a very stable form of income for the state and allows it to plan for future years accordingly.

Sure there are a few other things California could do like repeal prop 98 and eliminate the 2/3rds majority required for increases in taxation, but prop 13 is the main offender.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, probably not. California's main problem is its extremely unstable tax base. In good years, it's rich beyond any state's wildest dreams, in bad years it's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. A large portion of this can be laid at the feet of stupid propositions like prop 13. (it has a few friends) Property taxation is generally a very stable form of income for the state and allows it to plan for future years accordingly.

Sure there are a few other things California could do like repeal prop 98 and eliminate the 2/3rds majority required for increases in taxation, but prop 13 is the main offender.

Good luck waiting for the good times to come back.

CA needs more moderates to run the state, not a bunch of liberal retards who don't know how the real world really works. Idiotic policies are either driving productive people out of the state and making middle class people suffer while keeping deadbeats (like the octomom) happy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

It is probably going to take more than that to fix those problems.

No, probably not. California's main problem is its extremely unstable tax base. In good years, it's rich beyond any state's wildest dreams, in bad years it's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. A large portion of this can be laid at the feet of stupid propositions like prop 13. (it has a few friends) Property taxation is generally a very stable form of income for the state and allows it to plan for future years accordingly.

Sure there are a few other things California could do like repeal prop 98 and eliminate the 2/3rds majority required for increases in taxation, but prop 13 is the main offender.

Raising taxes is not going to fix the issue.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: charrison

Raising taxes is not going to fix the issue.

Liberals have no idea how companies are leaving CA in droves. I have met a few people in Austin who moved from the Bay Area because the companies they worked for moved here.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

It is probably going to take more than that to fix those problems.

No, probably not. California's main problem is its extremely unstable tax base. In good years, it's rich beyond any state's wildest dreams, in bad years it's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. A large portion of this can be laid at the feet of stupid propositions like prop 13. (it has a few friends) Property taxation is generally a very stable form of income for the state and allows it to plan for future years accordingly.

Sure there are a few other things California could do like repeal prop 98 and eliminate the 2/3rds majority required for increases in taxation, but prop 13 is the main offender.

Raising taxes is not going to fix the issue.

I didn't say raising taxes would fix the issue. Read more closely. Also, check up on the California constitution's method of spending vs. taxation, then get back to me.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

Let me give you a personal example of how that would work. My property taxes when I purchased my home were $2800 a year, ten years later they would have been around $9000 a year if prop 13 had failed. The reason prop 13 passed is that people were being taxed out of their homes, most of those people were retired and living on a fixed income, they couldn't afford the taxes imposed by the rapidly rising home values. I'd be one of those moving out of state if it wasn't for prop 13.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

It is probably going to take more than that to fix those problems.

No, probably not. California's main problem is its extremely unstable tax base. In good years, it's rich beyond any state's wildest dreams, in bad years it's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. A large portion of this can be laid at the feet of stupid propositions like prop 13. (it has a few friends) Property taxation is generally a very stable form of income for the state and allows it to plan for future years accordingly.

Sure there are a few other things California could do like repeal prop 98 and eliminate the 2/3rds majority required for increases in taxation, but prop 13 is the main offender.

Raising taxes is not going to fix the issue.

It can sure help. There are reams of studies showing marginal tax increases replenish coffers while making almost zero difference in attracting business.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This isn't rocket science. Taxes have long been way to high in California. Other states have caught onto the idea that they can draw away businesses away from California if they provide a better tax incentives. There is no major reason to have a large business operation in California unless you "HAVE" to be there in the state. Toyota understood this and moved a lot of those jobs that were at the now dead Nummi plant to Texas.

On top of this tax mess you add in all the "social programs" ( Of which has attracted 1/3rd of all welfare cases in the nation to California along with a rapid increase of illegal immigrants.) and a down turn in the economy and you can see why California is in dire straights. The 12% unemployment rate that will take major work to lower by attracting more businesses to the state is not helping. In fact most of those jobs will never return to the state with the current rate of taxation.

Edit: The solution of taxing middle-class people out of their homes is not a solution. You can call it anything you want but the removal of prop 13 would be in effect a tax on property owners and especially home owners. So those bashing prop 13 should realize that it would only hurt and stifle middle-class home owners in the state and devastate the further battered home lending and real estate markets in the state. Removing prop 13 would just further death spiral as home owners and businesses flee the state for saner grounds tax wise.

 

[Siddhartha]

I was watching the 4th Indy Jones movie last night. The first half or so was filmed in CT because of the state tax breaks. The Maury, Jerry, and someone have moved their production to CT for the same reason.

The US has moved production to China because of low labor costs and barriers to business.

Of course this makes sense in the short term. But in the long term, a healthy economy is based on its labor force earning a decent wage. Barriers to business really mean safety, food safety, anti-polution, etc regulations.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Sure it's an op-ed but the recommendation came from Governator's own tax commission. Want to stop business and industry from fleeing your state? Want to fix your local economy? It's real simple - stop taxing business/people to death and maybe they'll stay.
--------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/...74443413742032356.html

"The commission hasn't recommended a pure flat tax, but something much closer to it. As shown in the nearby table, the income tax rate, which currently tops out at 10.55%, would be chopped to a more reasonable (but still high) 7.5%. (The plan doesn't eliminate the one-percentage-point millionaire income tax surcharge, alas.) Because about 70% of small businesses pay the personal California income tax, the commission found that California's high rate is driving enterprises to the likes of Nevada, Texas and Idaho. The number of tax rates is reduced to three from seven (we prefer one), and thanks to the elimination of credits and loopholes, the new California tax form would fit on a postcard."

taxes really aren't a big deal unless the system is needlessly complicated, which i can't comment on in california's case. there are many things that have a much more noticeable effects.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Craig234
WSJ editorial page is on my short list of trash not worth reading.

Pure deflection that doesn't address the issues raised in the study.

But what else should I expect from Craig234 when he runs into a study he doesn't agree with.

You go read this in its entirety and provide a detailed response, and then I'll read a WSJ editorial.

First of all, have fun living in the past. and second of all, good luck joining the likes of Stalin and Mao Zedong who actually believes those crap and put it in practice. better yet, take some history lesson and see how many people die from those ideas.

das kapital =/= communist manifesto, idiot.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

Let me give you a personal example of how that would work. My property taxes when I purchased my home were $2800 a year, ten years later they would have been around $9000 a year if prop 13 had failed. The reason prop 13 passed is that people were being taxed out of their homes, most of those people were retired and living on a fixed income, they couldn't afford the taxes imposed by the rapidly rising home values. I'd be one of those moving out of state if it wasn't for prop 13.

on the other hand, property taxes would have helped prevent real estate prices from getting out of control

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
News flash: Right wing editorial highlights right wing governor's tax plan.

So what should be done to keep the taxbase from leaving the state?

California will be fine as-is. It's been a boom-bust tax base due to the fundamental structure of its taxation for quite awhile now. (thanks prop 13)

A smarter move would be to repeal prop 13, restore normal property taxation, and reduce other taxes to compensate.

It is probably going to take more than that to fix those problems.

No, probably not. California's main problem is its extremely unstable tax base. In good years, it's rich beyond any state's wildest dreams, in bad years it's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. A large portion of this can be laid at the feet of stupid propositions like prop 13. (it has a few friends) Property taxation is generally a very stable form of income for the state and allows it to plan for future years accordingly.

Sure there are a few other things California could do like repeal prop 98 and eliminate the 2/3rds majority required for increases in taxation, but prop 13 is the main offender.

Raising taxes is not going to fix the issue.

having a stable tax base will, and raising taxes would certainly help in the sort term.