Is it possible to balance CA's budget without raising taxes?

[Hanuman]

The question says it all- nothing much to add to it other than I am a little disappointed by Bustamonte's immediate embrace of higher taxes if he is elected. I think it gives people the impression that democrats can't do it any other way- which is not necessarily true.

Your thoughts- can we do it without raising taxes?

[radwriter0555]

1. What do you propose cutting? Education? Kids programs? Those

were the ones increased.

Taking back prop 13 isn't 'raising taxes'. Taking back prop 13 would put all us homeowners on the same playing field.

[AP]

33. Exactly. Commercial property isn't carrying its fair burden.

Cruz pointed out today on the Tavis Smiley show that property is valued on sale. Residential property turns over way more. Lots of commercial property has never been sold since Prop 13 is paying according to very old, completely unrealistic valuations. And who moves alot? Not the rich. People moving up from working and lower class into the middle class (non renters) are the ones buying property at higher relative valuations. Those are the people bearing the burdens.

[Maple]

2. There are only 2 ways to balance a budget

Earn more, or spend less.

Your choice.

[TAH6988]

4. Or a combination

of the two.

[Maple]

8. True

but it's hard enough to raise taxes as it is, let alone promising reduced services along with it.

You are asking people to spend more for less.

You can also bring in or create 'new industry' to expand the tax base, but that's a lengthy long-term project.

And it's a hard-sell given the 'raising taxes, lowering services' scenario. How many businesses would want to move into that?

[Hanuman]

7. Correct.

You can tax more or cut spending. Those are the only choices, it's not a complex equation- or a combo as has already been stated.

But, if we consider that spending has increased quite a bit over the last four years, isn't it possible to consider spending cuts as a likely target?

How about cuts for a limited duration- say two years? and then assess the situation? I just don't think Californians are in ANY MOOD to accept more of a burden at this point, and it's going to work against the democratic party.

[AP]

38. Distribution of the Tax Burden is the key.

Raise taxes on some, lower it on others, to help the middle class become more competitive and productive, and more efficient consumers, with more time and money to protect their interests and assert themselves democratically.

This is the key.

Calling that "raising taxes" is such a misrepresentation of reality.

[section321]

3. When them Dems gave the Repubs a wide open shot at the budget...

they couldn't even make enough cuts to balance the budget.

You gotta love em.

R: "We refuse to raise taxes!"

D: "OK. Give us your plan. Tell us exactly what you would cut and we'll go from there"

R: "Here you go. We cut everything we could think of, but it still isn't enough. However, we still won't raise taxes!"

D: "Idiots!"

[bluestateguy]

5. Um, No

This is a time of crisis. Not a time for tax cuts, lolipops and sugar canes. I'm so glad the American people didn't whine for tax cuts in the 1930's and 1940's.

All that really has to be done is for the state to raise taxes on the wealthy equivalent to what they got back with the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the state should say, "We'll take that, thank you..."

[Capn Sunshine]

6. No. But it wouldn't be that bad

a 1/2% sales tax statewide (we put one on for the Earthquake)And raise the taxes of the upper 10% of the bracket.

Which was *'s intention with his tax cut all along: pass it off to the states.

A moratorium on fines for late income tax would be good for upwards of four billion right there ...( this makes those who havn't filed because of the fines file). Worked great before...

[Dookus]

9. Prop 13 has to go....

It's the cause of many of our problems here in CA. Our schools suck, all our cities are strapped, and the state govt.'s in worse shape.

Plus it's just plain unfair. I pay more than twice the taxes of my next-door neighbors, who have a bigger house than I do.

How the Supreme Court ever allowed this to pass the equal protection clause I will never understand.

[TAH6988]

11. Tell that to the people

who live in rent controlled apartments in New York. Life is unfair. Deal with it.

[Dookus]

13. Rent control...

is not destroying schools and local services.

Plus, rent is not taxes.

And yes, life is unfair. I thought liberals were interested in making it more fair.

[TAH6988]

14. Who do you think really pays the poperty tax,

The renter or the landlord? Be realistic.

[Dookus]

15. You're losing me.....

I presume the landlord pays the tax and passes it on to renter when possible.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Prop 13 has gutted our state and needs to be repealed.

[TAH6988]

17. I'm not

a California resident, but I do know this: there's a better chance of a snowball in Hell, before California voters repeal Prop 13. Too many of the elderly would NEVER approve that, and they VOTE.

[AP]

48. Cruz, today, suggested that property tax problem

was not the cap so much as it was that commercial property changes hands so infrequently (relative to residential property) that it doesn't get revalued as often. Some commercial property pays property taxes on their valuations on the day prop 13 passed. If updated valuations on that property, which would put lots of corporations on the same footing as the millions of middle class people who bought houses in the last 8 years, you'd close a big gap in the budget.

[radwriter0555]

20. I couldn't agree more. The last gal I bought a house from was paying

$220 a YEAR for her taxes, because she bought in the mid 70's.

I pay ten times that, and I DON'T MIND. I wouldn't mind some of those Bel Air folks paying comparable taxes for the million dollar homes.

[radwriter0555]

21. THE LANDLORD pays the taxes. He writes the check. What's the

point?

[TAH6988]

22. Sigh

Way over your head...

[Dookus]

29. Then type real slowly and use small words...

please explain how these two issues are analogous?

Seriously - you lost me with the "who pays the taxes" question. I think the landowner pays the taxes. I presume that cost is included in the rental prices he charges.

But renting real estate in NY is a regulated commercial activity.
Does rent control have any effect on property taxes paid?

[radwriter0555]

39. Hardly. The rent a renter pays, pays for MANY things, including

property taxes. It includes maintenance, upkeep, gardeners, water, electric. Repairs and upgrades, improvements.

In SOME cases, but usually with buildings owned for the longer term, there is a genuine profit to be made in owning rental units, but usually, that profit comes a long way down the road.

For example, a 4 unit building I was looking at; 3 1 bedroom units, 1 2 bedroom unit. $325,000. Total income for the building was under $3500 per month. The note on $325,000 is about $2800, then add on $500 per month gardener, water, electricity. Factor in say, a set aside of $500 per month for annual repairs, and how much is left for profit? About $400 bucks. A hundred bucks a week profit. And you can only raise rents for ongoing tenants 2-3% per year.

THEN, consider the fact, that in a market like los angeles, you're getting $800 a month for a decent, clean, nice area 1 bedroom apartment. That's a LOT of money. Lotta things to factor into owning rental properties. Not a LOT of people can afford rents that high... so you have a limited number of people to rent to.

So who pays the property taxes? The landlord writes the check. The landlord is responsible.

[TAH6988]

41. The landlord may write the check

The taxes are PAID by the renter.

[bluestateguy]

18. THAT is a California NO, NO

Prop. 13 cannot go. It won't go. And that should be the end of that. There are even limits to the liberalism of California. That would be like telling Alaskans they could not get their Permanent Fund Money any more. My parents, both liberal Democrats, voted for 13 in 1978 even as they re-elected Jerry Brown and voted a straight Democratic ticket. Trust me, this is not something you want to mess with in California.

--a 4th generation native Californian.

[Dookus]

19. oh...

If your argument is only that Prop 13 is unlikely to be repealed, I agree entirely.

I was arguing what SHOULD be done. And we SHOULD repeal Prop. 13.

And, I think if things got bad enough, we'd be forced to consider the idea. We could "grandfather" in certain people (say those who've owned their homes 40 years) and SLOWLY phase in a more equitable taxation system.

[radwriter0555]

23. HEY! YOU! DOOKUS! STOP WITH THAT LOGIC

already.

Just KNOCK it off pal.

;)

[Dookus]

24. I'm sorry...

what was I thinking? ;)

[radwriter0555]

26. You were thinking like a (shudder) LIBERAL!

That fiscal responsibility thing is a HORRIBLE thing to teach our kids. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Hanuman]

25. I find the prop 13 system to be already "fair and equitable"

The cost of CA real estate goes up and up and up- and people sell their houses here relatively frequently, so those property taxes do appreciate over time- just not as fast as other non prop 13 states.

My house cost me $190,000 in 1996- I am paying $2000 a year in taxes. If and when I decide to move, I will be paying a lot more for property taxes, becuase the market has moved northward. But right now, I am strapped. Sole provider for a wife and kid.

I have no idea what my house would appraise for, maybe as much as $350,000. I simply cannot afford another $1500 in taxes. CA is already an expensive state to live in.

Honestly- no bullshit- I am considering the option of moving out of the state because it's getting too expensive. My wife is a teacher, we could probably live on her salary alone elesewhere.

If I am having these thoughts- a lot of other people must also be having them. This is not a good sign for democrats who believe that the only answer is more and higher taxes. There just has to be a better way.

[Dookus]

27. If you bought in '96...

then you're paying a lot more taxes than people in similar homes to yours who bought a lot earlier.

Hey, we'd ALL like to pay as few taxes as possible. But when our schools have degraded so drastically, when local services are shuttered, when we can barely afford to hold an election, something needs to give.

Lots of people move to California. Do you think it would be fair for the state income tax to vary depending on when you arrived? I came here 19 years ago. How 'bout I pay only 3% while a new resident pays the full 10%?

[TAH6988]

30. But you are

paying the same rate as those who bought when you did! That's fair.

Remember, Prop 13 was passed to keep people from being forced out of their homes due to rising property taxes. People who bought a $20,000 home and who could afford the $200 a year property taxes, were not able to afford the $2,000 a year poperty taxes (especially those who were retired or on fixed incomes). Their house may have appreciated in value, but they derived no benefit from it.

Now, you come along and purchase that house for $200,000. You can afford to pay that $2,000 a year property tax bill, (otherwise you would not have bought the freaking house), but if your house appreciates to $400,000 in 10 years (not that unusual in CA), you too are now protected from maybe being forced out of your home due to a doubling of your property tax bill.

Don't give the voters any ideas about income tax rates being tied to when you arrived in state. Californians just might like that idea!

[Hanuman]

35. "No benefit"

That's exactly, precisely true. I receive no benefit whatsoever from my property appreciating in value- as long as I don't sell it.

But once I do sell it, and assuming I stay in the state, I will have derived that benefit of appreciation and THEN I will contribute that benefit back into the system upon buying a different house at the greater tax rate.

I find prop 13 to be very fair.

[Dookus]

36. I continue to believe

that it's possible to have a more equalized taxation system that doesn't force the elderly out of their homes.

You also need to understand that the elderly actually hold a lot of the wealth in this country.

I think if a person owns a million dollar home and can afford to pay an equitable tax rate on it, he should.

[TAH6988]

40. He/She is paying an equtiable

tax rate; they are paying the same tax rate as everyone else who bought their house that year.

[Dookus]

42. well that only works

if you define "equitable" as paying the same as people who bought the same time you did. I don't see that as equitable.

In fact, the analogy I gave about income tax being based on when you arrived would, by most people, be considered inequitable. Now I can re-define "equitable" to mean something else, but it doesn't change the fact that people in identical houses in identical neighborhoods pay often widely disparate taxes. I don't need to redefine the word "equitable" to see that there's something wrong with that.

[TAH6988]

46. You may not

see it as equitable (the property tax issue) but obviously a majority of Californians did.

People who live in identical houses in identical neighborhoods are NOT identical. Why should you treat them as such?

[Dookus]

54. because it's a tax based on the value of something...

items of similar value should be similarly taxed. What's so hard to understand about that?

We can improve the system without throwing people out of their homes. Say an elderly couple can't afford the current tax rates - we can exempt them or give them a deep discount on the stipulation that the difference is paid when the property is sold.

[TAH6988]

56. No, it's not

It's obvious that California's property tax "scheme" is based on two variables: value and date of purchase.

The unrealized value of an asset should not be used to tax people out of their homes!

[Dookus]

59. you seem...

to keep missing the points I make about NOT taxing people out of their homes.

I'll say it again: I DO NOT SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT TAXES PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES!

OK?

Now....

My neighbor receives exactly the same level of local services I do. The police don't respond to me faster because I pay more taxes. They don't fix MY sidewalk first. If I had children, they wouldn't get to go to a better school. Why shouldn't we pay the same taxes?

[TAH6988]

61. So you are in favor of a flat tax then

"My neighbor receives exactly the same level of local services I do. The police don't respond to me faster because I pay more taxes. They don't fix MY sidewalk first. If I had children, they wouldn't get to go to a better school. Why shouldn't we pay the same taxes?"

Sounds like an argument for a flat tax to me.

[Dookus]

65. well...

it seems all you're interested in doing is misreading what I write and then restating it in your own terms as something I never said. It's not very fruitful.

A flat tax on property would mean that every homeowner pays the same amount. That is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing for a progressive property tax system in which expensive houses are taxed more than cheaper homes.

[TAH6988]

71. You already HAVE that

You also have another variable, time of purchase.

And if you are arguing that people who receive the same level of services should pay the same level of tax, you ARE arguing for a flat (income) tax.

[Dookus]

57. And given a chance...

the majority of Californians would vote to pay no taxes whatsoever. That doesn't make it right.

I've come the conclusion that TOO much democracy is killing California. Prop 13 being one example.

If you've ever seen one of our voter guides, you'd see what a nightmare it's become. Why should individual citizens be expected to understand the intricacies of say, health care or education policy? That some rich tech guy can pay for a ballot initiative requiring English-only teaching is silly. It's an emotion-driven issue that doesn't rely on the real research done in education.

The recall is another example. It's a ridiculous law that allows us to remove a governor who's committed no malfeasance.

I'm not arguing for NO ballot initiatives. But I think we need to a) raise the bar for qualifying and b)outlaw paid signature-gathering.

[TAH6988]

58. I see your point now

"Voting is too important to be left to the citizens."

[Dookus]

62. Well then you need new glasses...

because I never said any such thing.

There's a reason we set up a representative system of government. Do you really want to put EVERYTHING up to a popular vote? Well... then we'd outlaw flag-burning, we'd have official prayer in schools, hell, we might even still have segregation.

We have representatives whose job it is to make the big decisions of our government. The ballot initiative system in California has allowed the legislature to abdicate their responsibility on many issues of public policy.

But I'm sure you'll find another one-sentence way to dismiss what I say.

[TAH6988]

70. I'm not dismissing what you say

The ballot system in California was/is a way for people to "take back" their Govt. Not my fault if the idiots out there misuse it. By dismissing ballot initiatives, you are arriving at something I already belive: the ignorance of the American voter is immense.

[Dookus]

78. ok.. done here...

if the best you can argue is "the idiots out there misuse it", then we needn't continue.

I had some nuance in all my arguments, and you just ignore it. Did I say end the ballot initiative process entirely? No.

Did I say tax people out of their homes? No.

Did I say I want a flat tax? No.

Have a great day!

[TAH6988]

81. Actually

You may not have MEANT any of those, but your arguements lead to all of them. You have a nice day too!

[Retrograde]

77. cash flow and liquidity

Let's say houses similar to mine in my neighborhood are going for $1M, but I bought mine 20 years ago for $200,000. My property taxes are around $2500 per annum (base plus yearly increases), while my neighbors are $10,000. While it would have been nice if my income had gone up by 5X in the same time, that's not usually the case. Assume for the sake of arguement that I'm at or near retirement age, and will be living off my investments and savings (Pension? What's that? but that's another thread).

Now while I look good on paper with that million-dollar house, the money is all tied up in the residence - i.e., I can't get it without selling the house. That's the situation that led to Prop 13 in the first place: real-estate prices were rising so rapidly in the late 70s that people were faced with defaulting or selling.

I often wonder how real the effects from Prop 13 are. A lot of the family agricultural land in Silicon Valley - this was one of the biggest arguments for Prop 13 - family businesses being forced out - has been sold to developers for industrial parks and housing. To be sure, there are parts of the state where this did not happen, but looking at the places where 80% of the population lives I sometimes think Prop 13 is a scapegoat for not budgeting according to resources.

I voted against Prop 13 when it passed (in 1978, BTW, which is one reason I think the argument that it's the cause of all ills is bogus), and have both griped about paying 5 times more than my neighbor and been happy that I can budget my retirement expenses with less uncertainty.

linda

[realFedUp]

10. Bake sales just don't make it anymore....

Unless you want the state to act like a church
and pass the hat, revenues needed to be raised
when incomes are lower. Prop 13 ought to be
recalled.

[terryg11]

12. sure, gut some programs

how else besides fund raisers for the state would you balance the budget? either have to cut spending or increase your income

[Hanuman]

16. One of my concerns in raising taxes

is the sour taste it's going to leave in the electorates mouth at this particular moment in time.

Taxes going up or remaining level in a time of prosperity is one thing, but most people feel that high taxes along with the high cost of doing business in CA is what's driving people and businesses from the state.

I don't know for a fact that this is true or not, but this is the distinct impression of those who are in support of the recall.

To give them a Hobson's choice like Bustamonte seems somewhat counterproductive. Maybe this is the art of politics (though I doubt it) to make Bustamonte actually look like a worse choice than Davis as far as taxes go in an effort to keep Davis in.

I don't know.

[sangh0]

32. How Republican of you

to worry about how the rich people who have their taxes raised are going to react, while ignoring how the many voters whose children aren't getting an educating feel about it.

Instead of letting your worries lead you into repeating the cheap-labor conservatives propoganda, why don't you do what the other Democrats are doing; Support the spending that raised the test scores of millions of CA schoolchildren. Don't be ashamed of Democratic accomplishments. Don't help the cheap-labor 'pukes who want to misportray our accomplishments.

[Hanuman]

43. One of our great accomplishments is a huge deficit

And for most people it all boils down to money.

What good are very marginal increases in test scores when the state is bankrupt and the angry electorate is pounding at the doors with their pitchforks and torches?

I'm sorry- but their is a limit to how much we can spend on even great needs such as education and health care before:

a) There is a tax revolt and

b) business and industry leave the state for greener pastures

I commend your idealism, and share it to a point. But my point has been reached- and baby, I'm no Repuke, and I don't really appreciate the comparison.

[sangh0]

64. More Republicanism?

very marginal increases in test scores

Marginal? That's RNC-speak. CA has had FIVE YEARS of consecutive improvements in math and reading. That's significant to parents.

and baby, I'm no Repuke, and I don't really appreciate the comparison.

I don't care what you *are*. All I know is that you are repeating Karl Rove's arguments. No one, besides the Repukes, is "pounding at the doors" over high taxes.

Furthermore, your claims about a tax revolt and business exodus are pure RNC propoganda that ignores that the proposed tax increases are mostly on the rich. The rich will not revolt. They are already revolting.

[Hanuman]

84. You think you can defeat an idea

just because it may have some traction in republican circles? That an idea is only "good" if it comes from a liberal or a democrat and any other source is immediately discounted?

Maybe Rove IS pushing these ideas- I don't know. I've never heard the man speak and I don't even know what he looks like. I get my inspiration from my own value judgements, the judgements that I make for myself based on my understanding of cost versus benefits.

CA still ranks at the bottom of the national testing status- only above Guam and the Virgin Islands. What does that mean? I don't rightly know. I don't want to starve the schools- but we've increased the spending across the board by 40% in the last four years. I think we can cut it back by 5-10% without killing anybody.

As I said, I appreciate your idealism and share it to a point, but we cannot always be pushing the ceiling of taxation and spending higher and higher indefinitely. Right?

You DO agree with that concept, don't you? That there is a limit to the money? That at some tipping point we go over the edge and the people really do riot?

Or is there no limit to what we give the government?

[sangh0]

85. Now we get RNC debating tactics

You think you can refute my arguments by accusing me of an ad hom, but it's very easy for me to point out that my arguments also included reasons for why cutting services is a bad idea, and why raising taxes will not lead to the consequences you seem to think are inevitable. Republicans also like to ignore the arguments of their opponents.

Maybe Rove IS pushing these ideas- I don't know. I've never heard the man speak and I don't even know what he looks like. I get my inspiration from my own value judgements, the judgements that I make for myself based on my understanding of cost versus benefits.

You make your judgement on the basis of your understanding, but you fail to acknowledge the role Republican propoganda plays in the formation of your understanding. (Hint: corporate flight has nothing to do with high taxes. Some of the highest taxes areas, including CA, also have the most business) but this is hard to understand when you spend your time in the thrall of FAUX News.

CA still ranks at the bottom of the national testing status- only above Guam and the Virgin Islands

Not true, That is just more RNC propoganda, like "tax increases lead to corporate flight" and "increases in the minimum wage lead to lost jobs"

As I said, I appreciate your idealism and share it to a point, but we cannot always be pushing the ceiling of taxation and spending higher and higher indefinitely. Right?

Now you're using RNC straw men. No one has spoken of raising taxes and spending (another RNC catch phrase) "indefinitely", except you and the Republicans.

You DO agree with that concept, don't you?

I laugh at the concept, and at you for your fantasy that anyone has suggested such a thing

Or is there no limit to what we give the government?

Your reliance on this straw man is indicative of your lack of honesty. No one here has suggested this. Go argue with your mirror.

[Hanuman]

86. Well Sangh0, you're real good at

putting people down because they think differently than you, but are you good at showing me a better solution?

All of your counterpoints were based strictly on a "you're ignorant and/or brainwashed" philosophy.

So, tell me how is it possible to argue that higher taxes will not make it more likely that businesses and people will move away? Especially when we consider that we're not really getting all that much out of the money that we're putting into the system. My tax load is over 50% of what I earn, and a very healthy chunk of that is CA taxes. Are you suggesting that none of the businesses that have closed down or moved out are the result of higher taxes, greater regulation and increased workers comp?

None? Not one? And what is the tipping point? Where do taxes "need to be" in your world view to make it a perfect system?

Look, Ive been a democrat for a LONG TIME- my whole life. Since when did being a democrat mean that you must never question a tax increase or how money is spent or a politician who threatens to raise your taxes? Since when did such talk automatically inspire the wrath of others, like you, to vilify my moderate views on money?

I don't want to join the republican party, their views are not my views on MANY issues, except perhaps on matters of economics, but getting raked over the coals by you sure makes me wonder.

You can assume that I have been brainwashed by the right-wing if it makes you feel comfortable in explaining how it is possible that others can think differently than almighty you- but the fact is I don't get my opinions from politicians or operatives. I'm sure that you feel you don't get your opinions from such people, too, though they exist on both sides of the aisle.

Your anger at my viewpoints is disturbing.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

97. I put your arguments down

and you shouldn't be surprised that Republican arguments (and even you admit you're pushing a Republican argument here) are met with criticism.

but are you good at showing me a better solution

Yes, I am better than you showing better solutions. Specifically, raise taxes, which results in a growing economy, and lower unemployment (cf Clinton's tax increase), an argument you have yet to address, besides repeating the RNC canard that tax increases lead to corporate flight and tax revolts.

So, tell me how is it possible to argue that higher taxes will not make it more likely that businesses and people will move away?

Simple, look at history. Clinton raised taxes, and business didn't flee; it increased. In NY State, our RNC governor lowered taxes, and our economic growth lagged behind the rest of the nation.

Are you suggesting that none of the businesses that have closed down or moved out are the result of higher taxes, greater regulation and increased workers comp?

If you can point out where I said that, you get a medal. Since you can't, I'll point out how you are inventing straw men again.

Look, Ive been a democrat for a LONG TIME- my whole life.

Good for you.

Since when did being a democrat mean that you must never question a tax increase or how money is spent or a politician who threatens to raise your taxes? Since when did such talk automatically inspire the wrath of others, like you, to vilify my moderate views on money?


Another straw man? I never said anything like that. You are not being honest here. You haven't been arguing about whether or not a Dem can ever question a tax cut. You've been arguing that tax cuts, ALL TAX CUTS, lead to business flight and tax revolts.

I don't want to join the republican party, their views are not my views on MANY issues, except perhaps on matters of economics

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that your position on this matter is identical to the RNC's, and Schwarzenegger's, and Bush*'s

[AP]

28. CA is going to have a better economy if it makes taxes progressive

You can fix the budget with reallocating taxes progressively. But why do that when you can create a progressive tax scheme which makes CA a better, more efficient, more competitive economy?

You can't have teh Keynsian ideal by giving huge taxes to the super rich, and then expecting the working and middle class to bear the entire burden of paying for a society which isn't working for them.

[TAH6988]

34. California doesn't

have a "progressive" tax system?

[AP]

45. It needs one.

That's my point.

[TAH6988]

49. I thought it had one N/T

[AP]

52. When you have big commercial property owners who

pay taxes on property at 20 year-old valuations, and you're average middle class person paying tax on a property valued any time in the last 8 years, you do not have a real progressive tax system. And, what about the Bush tax cuts on the rich?

The rich are getting a free ride.

[TAH6988]

55. I thought we were talking income taxes

here, not property taxes...

Free ride? The rich pay NO taxes in California?

[AP]

60. You can't look at one without looking at all.

Look at how CA raises it's money. So what if it has a slightly progressive income tax structure, but then turns around and rips of the low income tax bracket residents with ridiculous car, property and sales tax?

[TAH6988]

63. Hey you guys

vote in the people who do that. You have only yourselves to blame

[AP]

67. No. People like you spend a lot of money convincing people

that tax redistribution/progressivity is a tax increase.

Your days are numbered though. Cruz, just today was taking this issue head on.

[AP]

72. And I believe the Prop 13 idea was manipulated by Republicans

and rich people with little interest in the tax burden on low and middle income people.

[TAH6988]

76. Prop 13

helped low and middle class homeowners.

[AP]

80. Not any more. If you bought a house in the last 8 years

as many people who are middle income, or ar moving up do, you are paying taxes on valuations that are very high. Commercial property rarely changes hands and pays taxes at valuations last time it sold. Lots of commercial property is paying taxes on valuations on the day prop 13 was passed. That's outrageous. That doesn't help the middle class at all.

[TAH6988]

75. People like me?

I know what a tax increase is: if I pay more in taxes tomorrow than I do today, that is a tax increase, no matter what you may think it is.

[AP]

82. Give me something to work with here.

Yeah. This is what I'm saying. Many people are paying way more taxes on less income today because they don't understand how taxes work, and that's reflected in for whom they've been voting for the last couple decades (which is now changing).

They don't understand how progressive taxation works. They don't consider how sales taxes and fees work. They don't understand how Prop 13 works to shift tax burden from big, wealth corps and individuals to the middle class. They don't understand that the government needs a certain amount of money to work (and to help people make more money) if they don't get it from a progressive system, they're going to have to get it in a way that makes the economy less efficient and reduces the amount of wealth teh government can create, and shifts whatever wealth there is to the extremely wealthy.

[knight_of_the_star]

37. We could

Increase the taxes on the top bracket, lower them everywhere else and increase the sales tax. That would boost revenue by increasing how much the rich are paying, increasing how much everyone else is spending becasue they have more to spend, and then because they are spending more the sales tax increase will bring in more. That should work, now we just run into the problem of pulling it off.

[AP]

44. Increasing sales tax is regressive, and shifts the burden to

people who spen a higher percentage of their income on taxed goods. Lots of middle class people go into deeper debt each year, so sales tax is like taxing income you don't even have. The rich, however, get richer every year because their income far exceeds their outgo. Sales tax for them is a flat, inconsequential tax.

[knight_of_the_star]

47. True

So what do we do then to deal with the problem? The rich have the money to run ads that would sink any effort to seriously run up their taxes. I still think though that if we raised the taxes on the rich and lowered them on the middle and lower classes that would improve things. I think that was how Clinton pulled off his economic boom in the 90s. That and if we lowered taxes on businesses that would encourage them to come back here and improve the economy, thus increasing tax revenue.

[AP]

50. Big businesses already pay really low taxes.

If you put individuals and the rich and big business on the same footing -- equalized the burdens through progressivity -- you could create wealthier consumers and more competitive small businesses, and the there'd be more wealth, and so long as there were democrats in office protecting people from having it stolen from them by, for example Enron, then things would be cool.

[knight_of_the_star]

66. But

The reason businesses are leaving here is because of how high tax on commerce is in California. That isn't helping us.

[AP]

74. If businesses are leaving, it's because there aren't many consumers

who have any disposable income after they pay their taxes.

And, are businesses leaving?

I just read that the entertainment industry is now the US's biggest export industry. If you're very big, and very rich, California is a great place to do business. If not, it sucks.

[shanti]

31. at this point

i don't think so...

[VermontDem2004]

51. hell no

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. We can only do it by further cutting services

so the ball is in your court. Which services would you rather see cut? Police, fire, schools, hospitals, social services?

[sangh0]

68. You're not going to get an answer, nsma

You are just going to hear more about how bad taxes are. And maybe "waste". You might hear something about "waste"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Given that businesses have fled in spite of tax breaks and reforms

to wokers compensation laws that resulted in a 500 billion dollar wind fall profit to insurance carriers in the mid-90's, I would then counter that it appears tax breaks and reform laws are a waste...they fail to produce the intended results.

[sangh0]

79. Get with the program, nsma

Even though Clinton raised taxes with result being the longest peacetime expansion of the economy and his re-election, Hunaman will tell you that tax hikes inevitably lead to tax revolts, and corporate flight.

It's a wonder any business exists at all in CA!

[myomy]

69. Randi Rhodes just said,simple legalize pot and tax it. Money galore.

.

[Aaron]

83. Deregulating marijuana eliminates the budget deficit - If my math is right

http://www.cbc.ca/davinci/safe_printable.html
Re: Safe injection facilities
"Since the program's inception, the Frankfurt Police Department's drug squad reported a drop of nearly 40 per cent in the number of first-time users of hard drugs; a reduction of 36 per cent in theft from autos; 13 per cent in apartment break-ins; and 19 per cent in assaults causing bodily harm."


http://www.mpp.org/CA/news_2747.html
"The annual marijuana crop in California is worth about $4 billion"
"If the almost 53 percent tax now levied on cigars and other tobacco products were applied to a $4 billion marijuana crop, this would result in $2. 1 billion in revenue."

"Sumner speculated that as much as a 1,000 percent tax on marijuana might be levied"

So if safe injection facilities are cheaper than police that may be worth looking at. I'm pretty bad at fiscal math so don't jump on me if I mess this up but wouldn't a 1,000% tax on a 4 billion dollar crop create 40 billion in revenue? Maybe I'm wrong :) It's been known to happen.

I didn't include figures for taxation from a california hemp industry because I couldn't find any recent figures. The best I saw was an estimated 600 million in sales worldwide for hemp in 2001 but IIRC the hemp market has been experiencing huge growth the over the last decade (double sales annually) so I didn't want to use such an old figure.

Edited to add: SacBee says the deficit is $38.2 billion. So $40 billion from deregulation of marijuana, allowing it to be sold through state liquor stores or something, would eliminate the budget deficit with a little room to spare. If my math is right of course.

[Dookus]

87. well...

if that 4 billion is calculated by street value, then a 1,000% tax on it would bring the price to about $3,000 per ounce. I doubt much would sell at that price. It would simply create another black market.

[Jack Rabbit]

88. Taxes must go up and spending cut

No, I don't like that solution, but anybody saying otherwise is selling snake oil.

Bustamante gets my respect for leveling with the voters. I will now feel a lot better about voting for him.

[Undemcided]

89. We pay enough

Why do we need to raise taxes in California even further? Prop 13 passed with 65% of the vote so it was hardly sneaked into California. It was challenged in court after passing and lost by a 6-1 margin.

In 1992 the USSC in an 8-1 decision upheld the constitutionality of Prop 13 with the comment that there was a States interest in preserving neighbourhoods and protecting existing home owners who had purchased property with certain tax expectations.

So basically leave Prop 13 well alone.

Now as for cuts how about starting with the massive pension entitlements being handed out which will burden the State for years to come. My friend is a policeman and can expect to retire on 90% of salary! Do you know how much I would have to put away to retire on 90%? A f*cking lot! Never mind the free healthcare, dental, etc that he enjoys.

Why is it that the number of State employees keeps rising, whilst companies are having to lay people off right and left?

California paid $280 million in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims in 2003 up 400% percent.

Local governments workers comp costs are over $1 billion a year and there is rampant fraud.

Estimates of fraud in the Medi-Cal program, which costs $29.2 billion range from a low 10% to a high of 35%.

Sorry for the rant but I work very hard, pay a lot of taxes and now some c*nt up in Sacramento says he needs more. How about they take care of what they already get and stop pissing it down a black hole? I’m lucky to be working at the moment but if my tax burden increases much further I will be leaving the State.

</rant>

[AP]

91. Do you want to leave the part of Prop 13 alone which...

...results in rarely sold commercial property pay taxes based on 20 year old valuations, while middle class and working class home buyers pay according to valuations at the time of much more recent sales?

Do you think it's OK that very valuable commercial property is barely taxed, whereas homes for middle class people with no savings pay much more in property tax?

You don't want to change that?

And I can't believe you're complaining about policemen in CA -- who are out there getting shot at for a living -- getting a decent pension. If you don't give them a decent pension, you're just going to have to double their salaries to get anyone to do that job. That's the free market for you! I'd rather pay have now and half later, then pay it all up front. But I'm cheap that way.

And all that 'fraud' you're complaining about -- it's a pittance compared to the fraud committed by energy companies, and by the fraud of regressive taxation. At least with workers comp, I can rest assured that people who actually need money are getting a little of it. Perhaps if workers didn't get ripped off by all the flat taxes and the regressive taxes, they wouldn't feel the need to cheat on workers comp.

[Undemcided]

93. Pittance?

So your idea is to increase taxes on businesses that are already leaving California in droves? Extra business costs get passed down to the population in the form of higher costs for goods and services and lower wages and/or reduction in employee numbers.

I have nothing against policeman but I do have a problem with State employees getting very generous pay on my dollar. How is that whilst everyone who doesn’t work for the State is worried about the future we can afford to burden us further?

Daniel Weintraub: Cozy state pension deal costs taxpayers billions
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/7198610p-8145436c.html

I notice you puts quotes around the word fraud. That’s a good way to make to it go away, let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist. I’m one of the workers who get ripped off by all the flat taxes and the regressive taxes too. Do I have the right resort to fraud? Theft is theft. Lets not talk about needing more money whilst we’re wasting what we already take from people. I don’t think it’s a pittance.

Misused and Abused Tax Dollars (March 2003)
http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/Mar2003/3.2003.FraudAndWaste.02.htm

California Taxpayers Continue to be Ripped Off by Fraud and Reckless Government Spending
http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/jan2003/1.2003.FraudWaste.01.htm


As for energy since you’re fan of the free market what are you complaining about?

How can someone tell if the politician is engaging in this blame-shifting strategy? Look for hypocrisy. Is the politician asking someone to do something that politician is not willing to do? For instance, did you know that government-run electricity providers, the so-called municipal utility districts, sold their excess electricity into the state’s grid at prices double that of the so-called gougers from Texas? In fact, the Texas guys only sold California about $100 million worth of power since January. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) sold us $331 million of power. On average, the price LADWP sold its electricity was $100 per megawatt more than the Texas guys were charging. LADWP is in California. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) charged the state almost double the cost of the Texas guys, a total of $90 million worth of power. The average LADWP rate for wholesale electricity to the state of California was $292 per megawatt. SMUD charged $338 per megawatt. Enron, described by Governor Gray Davis as the “gouger” in chief, charged the state an average of $181 per megawatt. Davis could order LADWP and SMUD to return that excess money right now. He has not.

Government Does It Again
http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/oct2001/10.2001.Haynes-EnergyCrisis.06.htm

[Rebellious Republican]

90. I have the answer, I posted it earlier....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=206577

:kick:

[Yupster]

94. It depends on the stock market

Since the California budget is based heavily on icome taxes, and since the California income tax is heavily progressive, it depends on how much money rich people make this year.

Since rich people derive much of their income from the stock market, if the stock market surges, rich people will get lots of capital gains income, and the state will have enough money.

Most states derive a much larger percentage of their money from property taxes, and therefore don't have the giant swings in income that California has, when it has to depend on the stock market.

[slackmaster]

95. Spending cuts, tax increases, and restructuring of debt all needed

I've been trying to peer into the guts of the budget to see if I can identify anything that looks like "waste", but the thing is fucking HUGE and the details are buried in the larger categories. There has to be some waste in there somewhere. I can't believe every penny is being spent productively.

Does anyone have a link to a detailed but READABLE copy of the California state budget?

[Undemcided]

96. Try these links.

http://www.cbp.org/2003/bwvol9no2.pdf
http://www.cacities.org/userfiles/godoc/7625.Aug1PFArticlev2.pdf

[leftofthedial]

98. it's not just CA, it is impossible for AMerica to survive

as a modern nation without raising taxes.

We have a third-world power infrastructure, a chaotic telecommunications infrastructure, the roads are rotting into the ground, etc., etc.

We need a MASSIVE investment in infrastructure if the country is not to become a third-world nation of peasants.