I agree that the particular text of the amendment smells funny. So go on, propose your own. You'd do that if you actually cared about the details but agreed with the overall goal. I'm betting the Dems do not.
Party of no, is it?
Exactly, it's just an attempt to make an end run on the democratic process, tilting things towards Republican goals of less government that the people haven't voted for.
What a dumb idea.
Hey, look who doesn't know anything about California's budget situation.
Prop 13 and it's bastard child prop 98 have had a large, direct influence on the budget problems California has had. (they are the poster children for why the proposition system should be abolished) That and the fact that for years California required a simple majority to pass new spending, but a supermajority to pass taxes to pay for it.
Because California's budget problems have nothing to do with the state relying on too much on the uber wealthy for their revenue. When economy goes south... so does their earnings hurting the state's bottom line.
At least California should require a supermajority for new spending.
Most of those people are the ones who rely too much on the government.... the same ones with little or no federal income tax liability. The same ones that need to get off the government teet.
First of all as is mentioned to you over and over again, you only focus on the income tax because it serves your ideological point. People in lower income brackets pay plenty of taxes for other things.
Second of all, who cares what they pay in taxes? This is either an end run around democracy or it isn't. You appear to be agreeing that it is, but find it ok due to the amount that people contribute to the federal tax base. Are you advocating for a tax requirement for voting rights?
I focus on income tax because we are discussing the federal budget. Everyone in Tennessee, in my case, pay taxes for other things... sales tax, property tax, etc. That tax revenue goes to the state/local municipalities. If there are two families... one pays $8000/year in food. They are taxed close to 10% so say $800. The other pays $8000/year in food, again $800 for taxes. One family is eligible to file for Earned Income Credit, the other does not. One family gets free school lunches one does not. One family gets free pre-k school services, one family does not. One family can apply for Tenncare (TN's healthcare plan), one family cannot. So lower income brackets do pay taxes, but they get quite a bit back in terms of services.
I am not advocating any sort of requirement for voting rights. I am advocating there be a budget amendment that is tied to GDP. If this means entitlements are reduced... so be it. Taxing people more so the government can spend more is crazy. If I have $100 extra in my pocket each month... what do you think will do more to stimulate the economy? Me spending that $100 on eating out, clothes, movies... or sending it to the Federal Government so 15 cents of each dollar can find its way into the local economy of buttmunch, WV?
Hey, look who doesn't know anything about California's budget situation.
Prop 13 and it's bastard child prop 98 have had a large, direct influence on the budget problems California has had. (they are the poster children for why the proposition system should be abolished) That and the fact that for years California required a simple majority to pass new spending, but a supermajority to pass taxes to pay for it.]/b]
22% is way too high.except for provision 2, i like this bill. I dont think 18% is a realistic number, as that would cut our budget nearly 30%, which I dont think is reasonable at this juncture in time. maybe like 22% is more realistic.
pssst.... property taxes are local only in California. NONE of that money goes to the state.States are big fans of property taxes because they provide stable revenue from year to year.
Wait a second. I can't believe I'm reading this.
Since when would limiting the yearly budget to a certain % of the country's output (which would account for inflation, etc) give ANY minority more power?
I read through this posting and I see a bunch of people arguing smoke and mirrors and BS.
How simple is it to balance your fucking checkbook people? If Outgoing > Incoming, you're pretty well fucked. But that's BAD at the government level?
Holy shit.
WE have a 27th Amendment that says the Congressional houses can not raise their salary till they have all been elected or re-elected, so there has NOT been an official Congressional pay raise since 18 MAY 1992, when the 27th Amendment was ratified.
The pay of Congressional members then was $133,000. Now with the 27th Amendment and NO official pay raise, their pay is $174,500.
LOL!
....and you think a Balanced Budget Amendment will have any effect?
LOL!
true, i like how it says it's all basically null and void if we're at war as well. they'll just keep us at war then so they can spend to their hearts delight.
Also, any bill that's going to be put in place to require a balanced budget needs to have tax reform attached to it as well. Flatten out every tax to the same percentage and get rid of any write offs or tax breaks. Once the top guys are paying 25% vs the 0-10% they write themselves down to, things might get back in order.
Enjoyed by the rest of the bankrupt world. Those safety nets only exist in their current form as pyramid schemes. It's guaranteed to collapse and no longer exist one day.
Make it THIS day, before the currency goes with.
Wait a second. I can't believe I'm reading this.
Since when would limiting the yearly budget to a certain % of the country's output (which would account for inflation, etc) give ANY minority more power?
I read through this posting and I see a bunch of people arguing smoke and mirrors and BS.
Easy fix to that:
Any war or military conflict/action we're in is an additional tax on Everyone's paycheck. This covers the cost of those war(s)/actions/conflicts, and it shows each and every taxpayer how much these policies are costing us.
Problem solved.