Mo' Money Mo' Problems, OR California still sucks

[DucatiMonster696]

Then again, California has legitimate problems that inspire legitimate criticism: gangs, sprawl, disturbing dropout rates, water shortages that don't seem to stop farmers from irrigating rice and cotton in the desert, the crazymaking traffic that Hollywood immortalized in Falling Down. It's still sitting on a fault line. Its expensive housing, even after the real estate crash, poses a real obstacle to the dream of upward mobility. So do its public schools and other public services, which have been deteriorating for years — in part because older white voters have been reluctant to subsidize younger minorities.

Nice attempt at race baiting in that article. Its all whitey's fault I take it according to liberals and not the crushing level of taxes and legislation driving businesses and the tax base out. Yeah I guess liberals want to tax old white people out of there homes it seems.

 

[Craig234]

Mine and half the forum, apparently, since I'm far from the only one to receive that pronouncement.

What the rest of the forum does has nothing to do with the point that you posted straw men.

 

[yllus]

Nice attempt at race baiting in that article. Its all whitey's fault I take it according to liberals and not the crushing level of taxes and legislation driving businesses and the tax base out. Yeah I guess liberals want to tax old white people out of there homes it seems.

You took fourteen words out of a three page article and concluded that the entire thing said it's all whitey's fault?

 

[Craig234]

Nice attempt at race baiting in that article. Its all whitey's fault I take it according to liberals and not the crushing level of taxes and legislation driving businesses and the tax base out. Yeah I guess liberals want to tax old white people out of there homes it seems.

It's funny how many right-wingers post constantlyh about 'race baiting' and 'race card' and 'reverse racism' and any other phrase referring to their being victimized by minorities, but never say a word about any concerns with the wrongs to the minorities. If y ou listened to them, you would be convinced that the white population is the impoverished, poverty-stricken underclass of society under the thumb of the all-powerful minorities.

 

[Steeplerot]

I agree. Here's a nice little fact. California currently has 1/3rd of all welfare cases in the nation. This isn't something that happens for no reason. People folk to California to seek out public services. In San Francisco you have groups of able bodied young adult men and women who basically are homeless for no other reason then they can get away with this act and depend on public services and panhandling. On top of this madness you add in bullshit like the sanctuary city polcies which feed, cloth, house and educate illegal aliens and protect them from criminal prosecution. So who gets to foot the bill at the end of the day and clean up the mess? You guessed it the legal and tax paying city residents of San Francisco and in many cases the state of California.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIHa8QyU2Ok

Except that there is no such thing. If you want welfare here you must clean buses/streets. No free ride in SF.

Edit: Saw the link to Haight st squatters, and I have never seen those kids downtown collecting GA, they are mostly not even homeless, they come over from the 'burbs to camp in the park and get high before they go home to their parents.

 

[Zebo]

Liberals operate on the Magic Cupboard theory of economics. Ergo you'll never convince a liberal that raising tax rates won't fix whatever problems happen to exist at the moment. If a hike in tax rates doesn't fix a certain problem, that only means that tax hike was too small or not properly concentrated on the rich. If a hike in tax rates makes individuals or companies leave the state (or country), then the proper response is to find ways to forcibly prevent those individuals or companies from leaving the state (or country) or, failing that, to continue to tax them in their new home.

Unfortunately tax cuts suffer problems as well, not the least of which is the lag between tax cuts and increased tax receipts; I'm a pretty conservative guy and I can see that. California would certainly benefit in the long run if it could cut its tax rates and its social spending, but on the national stage the economy is managed by the Fed to keep growth to 3 or perhaps 4 percent annually, after the runaway inflation of the Nixon to early Reagan years. Therefore the potential increased tax receipts through growth is severely limited. We've dug ourselves a deep hole - and we're still addicted to digging. And our choice in leadership is between a party that wants to dig a lot faster and the party that wants to dig a little faster.

And of course, Saint Algore tells us that just a couple kilometers down the Earth is several million degrees, so we're REALLY screwed.

Taxes are too high on earned income e.g. workers. 50,000 pages of tax code are 90% dedicated to Unearned income, and all the deductions, exclusions and exemptions getting business/passive income largely a free ride if you have half a clue. Rank and File Democats are too stupid to see this, Republicans don't care as these folks are their new Gods, should have rights of kings, so we have a situation where wage earner more as a percentage of their REAL income than a CEO/small business owner.

PS I pay myself $24,500 a year, that's it as it's optimum SS matrix - receive 90% of benefit for 25% payment. I could pay myself a lot more - but I choose to 'reinvest' back into my business to grow. My business needed a new town car last year. Needs a 50' TV for customers who come in my store. Well you get the point.

My goal instead of paying myself a high salary which is taxed high, and has employment taxes tack on such as SS/Medcare which would work out to about 44% in taxes - is to reinvest profits into store and sell one day for 500-750K and pay 15% instead.

This model of deferment of income, tax free growth, and finally cash out at capital gains rates is perfectly legal and exercised by tens of millions - but your wage earner doesn't have that option.

 

[werepossum]

Taxes are too high on earned income e.g. workers. 50,000 pages of tax code are 90% dedicated to Unearned income, and all the deductions, exclusions and exemptions getting business/passive income largely a free ride if you have half a clue. Rank and File Democats are too stupid to see this, Republicans don't care as these folks are their new Gods, should have rights of kings, so we have a situation where wage earner more as a percentage of their REAL income than a CEO/small business owner.

PS I pay myself $24,500 a year, that's it as it's optimum SS matrix - receive 90% of benefit for 25% payment. I could pay myself a lot more - but I choose to 'reinvest' back into my business to grow. My business needed a new town car last year. Needs a 50' TV for customers who come in my store. Well you get the point.

My goal instead of paying myself a high salary which is taxed high, and has employment taxes tack on such as SS/Medcare which would work out to about 44% in taxes - is to reinvest profits into store and sell one day for 500-750K and pay 15% instead.

This model of deferment of income, tax free growth, and finally cash out at capital gains rates is perfectly legal and exercised by tens of millions - but your wage earner doesn't have that option.

That is definitely the way to work a business. My father did much the same thing, buying and building up inventory. Too many people pay themselves a big salary and enjoy a very good living, then when hard times strike lose what is in other years a good living. By keeping the money in the business you can weather almost any financial situation and your business looks much better to investors, so if you do decide to cash out your net gain is higher and, as you say, taxed at a lower rate.

 

[Slew Foot]

That is definitely the way to work a business. My father did much the same thing, buying and building up inventory. Too many people pay themselves a big salary and enjoy a very good living, then when hard times strike lose what is in other years a good living. By keeping the money in the business you can weather almost any financial situation and your business looks much better to investors, so if you do decide to cash out your net gain is higher and, as you say, taxed at a lower rate.

Thats what my wife and I plan to do with her corporation. Pay ourselves a small salary and keep most of the funds within the corporation.

Prop 13 is stupid because it's an unfair tax on the young and working, and another handout to the elderly.

 

[Zebo]

That is definitely the way to work a business. My father did much the same thing, buying and building up inventory. Too many people pay themselves a big salary and enjoy a very good living, then when hard times strike lose what is in other years a good living. By keeping the money in the business you can weather almost any financial situation and your business looks much better to investors, so if you do decide to cash out your net gain is higher and, as you say, taxed at a lower rate.

Yeah but I'm just a chump compared to someone like Gates who pays himself a token salary of 400k while extracting billions in cap gains. My point was issue of fairness.

I tend to fall along the lines of flat taxation but the investor class doesn't pay their flat share way tax system is structured, (relative to wage earners)

 

[JS80]

Yeah but I'm just a chump compared to someone like Gates who pays himself a token salary of 400k while extracting billions in cap gains. My point was issue of fairness.

I tend to fall along the lines of flat taxation but the investor class doesn't pay their flat share way tax system is structured, (relative to wage earners)

Then let investors write off entire loss instead of $3k carryover.

 

[Zebo]

Thats what my wife and I plan to do with her corporation. Pay ourselves a small salary and keep most of the funds within the corporation.

Prop 13 is stupid because it's an unfair tax on the young and working, and another handout to the elderly.

Don't forget Company Assets and "Occasional Use" use rule. It's nice to buy things off pre tax (read untaxed) income but don't take too much advantage.()

That reminds me, I got to take that TV to office.

 

[Zebo]

Then let investors write off entire loss instead of $3k carryover.

I agree 100% no limit.

But tax all income regardless of source like regular income?

Obama's Bonused Bailed Banker Buddies won't like that though - so it will never happen.

 

[Zebo]

Slew Foot - How does prop 13 work with inheritance? Say your parents have a crib and pass leave it to you, do you still get their low property tax rate? Or is it reassessed on transfer. Course a trust would negate this complication.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You guys need a little something to eas the pain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egCeIwjIuZM

 

[Craig234]

But tax all income regardless of source like regular income?

Obama's Bonused Bailed Banker Buddies won't like that though - so it will never happen.

+1 for looking at the same tax rate for both - if not a higher rate for unearned income.

 

[Zebo]

+1 for looking at the same tax rate for both - if not a higher rate for unearned income.

I'm not sure how we can recover without some redistribution. Prosperity comes with bottom up. Hardly anyone understands this. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expand businesses, buy new equipment, etc, if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. No one will invest if no one is out there with money to spend.

Used to be high paid union and union pressure on non-union jobs kept America's companies and businessmen rich. Now they decided to get rid of those jobs to slave wage nations they got richer Americans by in large got poorer. Sure nice house, nice second, totally in hawk to banks. What's called extend and pretend.

 

[First]

There are still dittoheads here that claim raising taxes marginally drives out businesses? I guess to feel comfortable about one's ideology that person has to be willfully ignorant of the facts, studies, and research done on the matter. Because both NY and CA have been raising taxes for decades and yet they are by far the two largest states/economies in the union. Not definitive proof certainly, but it's hard to be that successful without some massive outlier driving that population and economic growth.

And the spending issue is, again, overblown; everyone's a fiscal conservative on the national scale, until it comes to their district/locality where, suddenly, they feel the need to vote for a "small" spending program that they believe adds value to their residence. Except nearly every American generally thinks this way so it is difficult to avoid the cumulative nature of the numbers.

Edit: And as eskimospy properly noted, CA's constitution is as useful as hot garbage.