Reason # 534957296 why Cali sucks...New Tax

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

On the flip side, why is there so much anomosity towards the millionaires.

It's the principal of the issue that is involved. The mentality that "you have TOO much money, you MUST give us some, NOW". I loathe it, I hate it, I despise that mentality. It really makes me sick that there is a money line that I can cross, and no matter how much risk, sweat, my own money and how much I have given back in job creation, taxes and charity, some people just believe it's never enough. "We don't care", the exclaim, "you still have TOO much". Why go through that? Why try to make yourself more successful?

 

[DanTMWTMP]

i'm going to vote against this stupid thing. So they make the people who work hard and be successful pay for this sh!t?

I hate this idea of penalizing hard working, succesful people.


it's their own hard earned money and they can do whatever the hell they want with it, instead of getting it jacked. A lot of 'em have charities because of the tax break it gives.

This new bill sucks.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, I agree we need more mental health services in CA. Currently, LA county jail is the largest mental health facility in the world. The mental health system is virtually nonexistent in CA. Why should someone have to commit a crime in order to get psychiatric treatment? Even if someone mentally ill attempts suicide, they are given very little treatment and released to try again.
I don't mind paying taxes for them. So I think they should tax everyone to some extent, like a progressive tax, not just the millionaires. I think people should have to pay taxes for mental health services based on their ability.
At the same time, it's not going to stop me from voting for this proposition because of what it aims to do, regardless of how it funds it. The rich are getting taxcuts from Washington, they can afford a tax hike from Sacramento.

You were doing so well, then at the end you fell back into the "boohoo for me, those rich bastards get everything" mentality.

Let's see, my household income is 6 figures. Some would say I'm rich, so let's assume I am.

Because I make too much money:
I can't get the Earned Income Credit.
I can't use the Child Credit.
I can't use Hope Credit or Lifetime Education Credit.
I have to calculate Alternative Minimum Tax (effectively making my normal itemized deductions useless).

So, I ask you, where are my tax cuts?

You should ask Bush. I didn't get no tax cut either. But people making over $1M sure did.
This tax is only for earnings after $1M. Do you think they should get Earned Income Credit?
Do you make more than $1M? Every dollar above $1.2M is now taxed at 35% compared to 39.6% under Clinton.
That's a $46K tax cut on every million after $1M. So they have to pay $10K per Million for healthcare. They are still out with $36K per Million tax cut. Not to mention all the dividend tax cuts they are getting.

I have absolutely no problem with that. The fact is Bush's tax cut act applied to everyone. It did not piecemeal it out to certain groups. And that's the way it should work.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

Yeah, if the decision is so easy to you morally, then even if the bill doesnt pass, I expect to see you breaking into millionaires homes, stealing their money (which is exactly what this bill does) and then you donating that money to the mentally ill. Go on Robinhood, make us proud of of the strength of your convictions.

Are you comparing taxation with theft?
States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket. It's part of living in a society that you get to pay taxes. If you don't like it, end yourself.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Gulzakar
So you want to foot the bill?

Whats 10,000 to a millionare?

It's $10k that can go into the economy instead of a government beaurocracy.

which will actually generate considerable income for the government since every time that money changes hands, a little slice of tax comes off of it.

 

You are all dirty pinko commies!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, I agree we need more mental health services in CA. Currently, LA county jail is the largest mental health facility in the world. The mental health system is virtually nonexistent in CA. Why should someone have to commit a crime in order to get psychiatric treatment? Even if someone mentally ill attempts suicide, they are given very little treatment and released to try again.
I don't mind paying taxes for them. So I think they should tax everyone to some extent, like a progressive tax, not just the millionaires. I think people should have to pay taxes for mental health services based on their ability.
At the same time, it's not going to stop me from voting for this proposition because of what it aims to do, regardless of how it funds it. The rich are getting taxcuts from Washington, they can afford a tax hike from Sacramento.

You were doing so well, then at the end you fell back into the "boohoo for me, those rich bastards get everything" mentality.

Let's see, my household income is 6 figures. Some would say I'm rich, so let's assume I am.

Because I make too much money:
I can't get the Earned Income Credit.
I can't use the Child Credit.
I can't use Hope Credit or Lifetime Education Credit.
I have to calculate Alternative Minimum Tax (effectively making my normal itemized deductions useless).

So, I ask you, where are my tax cuts?

You should ask Bush. I didn't get no tax cut either. But people making over $1M sure did.
This tax is only for earnings after $1M. Do you think they should get Earned Income Credit?
Do you make more than $1M? Every dollar above $1.2M is now taxed at 35% compared to 39.6% under Clinton.
That's a $46K tax cut on every million after $1M. So they have to pay $10K per Million for healthcare. They are still out with $36K per Million tax cut. Not to mention all the dividend tax cuts they are getting.

I have absolutely no problem with that. The fact is Bush's tax cut act applied to everyone. It did not piecemeal it out to certain groups. And that's the way it should work.

Well this tax hike applies to everyone too. You'll have to pay $10K in additional tax for every million after $1M no matter who you are. Just pretend the top tax rate has been raised by 1%.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

Yeah, if the decision is so easy to you morally, then even if the bill doesnt pass, I expect to see you breaking into millionaires homes, stealing their money (which is exactly what this bill does) and then you donating that money to the mentally ill. Go on Robinhood, make us proud of of the strength of your convictions.

Are you comparing taxation with theft?
States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket. It's part of living in a society that you get to pay taxes. If you don't like it, end yourself.

And states have the right to collect the money at gunpoint if need be. Do you consider that theft or armed robbery?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenixok, but i didn't say anything that challenges that. what the idea is that the money isn't entirely his, that some of it (if not the vast vast vast majority) is attributable to civilization.

Actually, he should pay to use the infrustructure. But his money is his.

His rights and freedoms to make the money are attributable to civilization. But his ability and willingness to produce are not.

not even all of his ability is his. go to a state school? it's an investment in human capital the state is making in its own citizens, often heavily subsidised.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, I agree we need more mental health services in CA. Currently, LA county jail is the largest mental health facility in the world. The mental health system is virtually nonexistent in CA. Why should someone have to commit a crime in order to get psychiatric treatment? Even if someone mentally ill attempts suicide, they are given very little treatment and released to try again.
I don't mind paying taxes for them. So I think they should tax everyone to some extent, like a progressive tax, not just the millionaires. I think people should have to pay taxes for mental health services based on their ability.
At the same time, it's not going to stop me from voting for this proposition because of what it aims to do, regardless of how it funds it. The rich are getting taxcuts from Washington, they can afford a tax hike from Sacramento.

You were doing so well, then at the end you fell back into the "boohoo for me, those rich bastards get everything" mentality.

Let's see, my household income is 6 figures. Some would say I'm rich, so let's assume I am.

Because I make too much money:
I can't get the Earned Income Credit.
I can't use the Child Credit.
I can't use Hope Credit or Lifetime Education Credit.
I have to calculate Alternative Minimum Tax (effectively making my normal itemized deductions useless).

So, I ask you, where are my tax cuts?

You should ask Bush. I didn't get no tax cut either. But people making over $1M sure did.
This tax is only for earnings after $1M. Do you think they should get Earned Income Credit?
Do you make more than $1M? Every dollar above $1.2M is now taxed at 35% compared to 39.6% under Clinton.
That's a $46K tax cut on every million after $1M. So they have to pay $10K per Million for healthcare. They are still out with $36K per Million tax cut. Not to mention all the dividend tax cuts they are getting.

I have absolutely no problem with that. The fact is Bush's tax cut act applied to everyone. It did not piecemeal it out to certain groups. And that's the way it should work.

Well this tax hike applies to everyone too. You'll have to pay $10K in additional tax for every million after $1M no matter who you are. Just pretend the top tax rate has been raised by 1%.

sigh.......

 

[fawhfe]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

Yeah, if the decision is so easy to you morally, then even if the bill doesnt pass, I expect to see you breaking into millionaires homes, stealing their money (which is exactly what this bill does) and then you donating that money to the mentally ill. Go on Robinhood, make us proud of of the strength of your convictions.

Are you comparing taxation with theft?
States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket. It's part of living in a society that you get to pay taxes. If you don't like it, end yourself.

Taxation in general isn't really theft because we use a lot of the services we pay for. Let's ask what theft is. Theft is when you take something that rightfully belongs to someone away from them without their consent. You believe that it is right to take 10k/million over 1 from millionaires without their consent (certainly paying for the mentally ill doesnt help them one bit, as opposed to things like police or transport). So please explain to me how what youre doing isn't theft in the context of the definition or give me a different definition.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, I agree we need more mental health services in CA. Currently, LA county jail is the largest mental health facility in the world. The mental health system is virtually nonexistent in CA. Why should someone have to commit a crime in order to get psychiatric treatment? Even if someone mentally ill attempts suicide, they are given very little treatment and released to try again.
I don't mind paying taxes for them. So I think they should tax everyone to some extent, like a progressive tax, not just the millionaires. I think people should have to pay taxes for mental health services based on their ability.
At the same time, it's not going to stop me from voting for this proposition because of what it aims to do, regardless of how it funds it. The rich are getting taxcuts from Washington, they can afford a tax hike from Sacramento.

You were doing so well, then at the end you fell back into the "boohoo for me, those rich bastards get everything" mentality.

Let's see, my household income is 6 figures. Some would say I'm rich, so let's assume I am.

Because I make too much money:
I can't get the Earned Income Credit.
I can't use the Child Credit.
I can't use Hope Credit or Lifetime Education Credit.
I have to calculate Alternative Minimum Tax (effectively making my normal itemized deductions useless).

So, I ask you, where are my tax cuts?

You should ask Bush. I didn't get no tax cut either. But people making over $1M sure did.
This tax is only for earnings after $1M. Do you think they should get Earned Income Credit?
Do you make more than $1M? Every dollar above $1.2M is now taxed at 35% compared to 39.6% under Clinton.
That's a $46K tax cut on every million after $1M. So they have to pay $10K per Million for healthcare. They are still out with $36K per Million tax cut. Not to mention all the dividend tax cuts they are getting.

I have absolutely no problem with that. The fact is Bush's tax cut act applied to everyone. It did not piecemeal it out to certain groups. And that's the way it should work.

Well this tax hike applies to everyone too. You'll have to pay $10K in additional tax for every million after $1M no matter who you are. Just pretend the top tax rate has been raised by 1%.

sigh.......

Yes, just like top rate can be lowered by the federal government, it can be raised by the states. It's called states' rights.

 

[Amused]

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket.

the federal gov't, on the other hand, has not.

 

[fawhfe]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenixok, but i didn't say anything that challenges that. what the idea is that the money isn't entirely his, that some of it (if not the vast vast vast majority) is attributable to civilization.

Actually, he should pay to use the infrustructure. But his money is his.

His rights and freedoms to make the money are attributable to civilization. But his ability and willingness to produce are not.

not even all of his ability is his. go to a state school? it's an investment in human capital the state is making in its own citizens, often heavily subsidised.

True, but when I went to public school, I didn't sign anything that said I'd pay for programs that don't help me in any way when I grow up as a result of your having invested in me. As a matter of fact, that's not even the expectation of the investment in public education. The expectation is that you become a productive member of society, which I tihnk millionaires have done a damn good job of.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

Yeah, if the decision is so easy to you morally, then even if the bill doesnt pass, I expect to see you breaking into millionaires homes, stealing their money (which is exactly what this bill does) and then you donating that money to the mentally ill. Go on Robinhood, make us proud of of the strength of your convictions.

Are you comparing taxation with theft?
States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket. It's part of living in a society that you get to pay taxes. If you don't like it, end yourself.

Taxation in general isn't really theft because we use a lot of the services we pay for. Let's ask what theft is. Theft is when you take something that rightfully belongs to someone away from them without their consent. You believe that it is right to take 10k/million over 1 from millionaires without their consent (certainly paying for the mentally ill doesnt help them one bit, as opposed to things like police or transport). So please explain to me how what youre doing isn't theft in the context of the definition or give me a different definition.

So every citizen should have a veto over a tax, they have to consent to being taxed? You get a vote, not a veto.
Get a grip on reality.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused
Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

dragging up an ayn rand quote, i see.

actually, corporate voting is remarkably like that of the soviet union

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: CPA
Another example of class envy - or at least that's how I view it.

Am I the only middle class person who things this is assinine? California needs to be let go and handed off to China.

another example of geographical envy - or at least that's how I view it.

California has some dumb laws, but to hear a lot of you Texans tell it the state is run by Karl Marx...it's simply not the case.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Anubis
sounds like a good idea to me, they can afford it, shoudl make it nation wide and have it fund education as well as other things

The trouble with that is that it creates an incentive for wealthy entrepreneur types to NOT move their businesses to CA or to move them out of state if they are here. It's a stupid initiative. I'm voting no on it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket.

the federal gov't, on the other hand, has not.

Not what? The federal government sets different rates for different income brackets too.

 

[fawhfe]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

Yeah, if the decision is so easy to you morally, then even if the bill doesnt pass, I expect to see you breaking into millionaires homes, stealing their money (which is exactly what this bill does) and then you donating that money to the mentally ill. Go on Robinhood, make us proud of of the strength of your convictions.

Are you comparing taxation with theft?
States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket. It's part of living in a society that you get to pay taxes. If you don't like it, end yourself.

Taxation in general isn't really theft because we use a lot of the services we pay for. Let's ask what theft is. Theft is when you take something that rightfully belongs to someone away from them without their consent. You believe that it is right to take 10k/million over 1 from millionaires without their consent (certainly paying for the mentally ill doesnt help them one bit, as opposed to things like police or transport). So please explain to me how what youre doing isn't theft in the context of the definition or give me a different definition.

So every citizen should have a veto over a tax, they have to consent to being taxed? You get a vote, not a veto.
Get a grip on reality.

Right so I'm assuming that since you didn't challenge my definition or my interpretation of it, youre saying that state taxation is an acceptable form of theft. In which case, I'd revert back to my original question which is whether you'll be raiding the homes of millionaires to pay for services you deem worthy?

 

[HamSupLo]

Prop 63 will keep the mentally ill out of prisons and hospitals. From the costs savings alone all Californians will benefit.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fawhfe


True, but when I went to public school, I didn't sign anything that said I'd pay for programs that don't help me in any way when I grow up as a result of your having invested in me. As a matter of fact, that's not even the expectation of the investment in public education. The expectation is that you become a productive member of society, which I tihnk millionaires have done a damn good job of.

productive member that they can then tax. why else do you think they do it?

 

[kranky]

If this passes I think Californians can look forward to a lot more single-issue taxes.

"Oh, the mental health people got their tax, so <insert cause here> should get one too."

Doesn't anyone wonder why government programs never end? Isn't there a single problem that they have been able to fix, then put an end to the program and its associated costs? In PA we have an 18% tax on liquor - an "emergency" tax that was enacted in 1936 to help rebuild Johnstown after it was devastated in a flood. Nearly 70 years later, the tax remains, yet none of the money goes to Johnstown.

Eventually, the people with smarts will move out of CA to avoid such nonsense.

If CA was smart, and really believed they have to increase funding for mental health, they would make cuts in other programs to get the money. But since no program ever takes a hit, they'll keep raising taxes. Crazy.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: fawhfe

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it some sort of new fad to feel sorry for millionaires? Come on. They just had their top rate cut from Washington by 5% under Bush. That's $50K per Million. So I am not going to lose ANY sleep about them having to pay $10K per Million for mental healthcare. The taxes on their first million won't be effected. I mean seriously, mentally ill who need help, or the rich who don't but are getting plenty of help from Bush? Easy decision for me.

Yeah, if the decision is so easy to you morally, then even if the bill doesnt pass, I expect to see you breaking into millionaires homes, stealing their money (which is exactly what this bill does) and then you donating that money to the mentally ill. Go on Robinhood, make us proud of of the strength of your convictions.

Are you comparing taxation with theft?
States have always had the legal right to collect taxes at the rate they see for each income bracket. It's part of living in a society that you get to pay taxes. If you don't like it, end yourself.

Taxation in general isn't really theft because we use a lot of the services we pay for. Let's ask what theft is. Theft is when you take something that rightfully belongs to someone away from them without their consent. You believe that it is right to take 10k/million over 1 from millionaires without their consent (certainly paying for the mentally ill doesnt help them one bit, as opposed to things like police or transport). So please explain to me how what youre doing isn't theft in the context of the definition or give me a different definition.

So every citizen should have a veto over a tax, they have to consent to being taxed? You get a vote, not a veto.
Get a grip on reality.

Right so I'm assuming that since you didn't challenge my definition or my interpretation of it, youre saying that state taxation is an acceptable form of theft. In which case, I'd revert back to my original question which is whether you'll be raiding the homes of millionaires to pay for services you deem worthy?

No, because they don't get a vote in me doing that. They do get a vote in what the tax rate is.