California's Brown planning to take tax hike to voters

[kpete]

Source: McClatchy

California's Brown planning to take tax hike to voters
By David Siders | Sacramento Bee

Gov.-elect Jerry Brown will propose a ballot measure to extend temporary tax hikes set to expire next year, while pressuring fellow Democrats to consent to billions of dollars in spending cuts in virtually every area of state government, sources said.

The tax package, planned for the June ballot, would extend higher vehicle, sales and income tax rates. It likely won't include additional new taxes, such as an oil severance tax.

Voters in May 2009 rejected Proposition 1A, a measure that similarly sought to extend the higher tax rates. To make the June proposal more palatable to voters, Brown's proposal would direct a significant part of revenue to local governments, while also shifting to local agencies responsibility for some services the state now provides.

While observers have for months expected Brown to propose a tax measure once he takes office next week, this is the first definitive indication that he will. The budget deficit is estimated to be as much as $28 billion over 18 months.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/30/106010/californias-brown-planning-to.html#ixzz19dYnsZWy

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

2. Let's hope he targets, the out of state and out of

country wealthy. I don't think Californians will care if they are taxed and they can't vote. People like John McCain who own prime vacation property here and all the Saudi Sheiks, who own mansions in Beverly Hills and elsewhere should pay for the privilege of being allowed to live here. Actually, Warren Buffet, who owns property in California, suggested this to Arnold as a way to bail the state out and Arnold told him to do push ups. I also think we should put state tariffs on all foreign goods coming through our ports.

[former9thward]

7. State tariffs are prohibited by the Constitution.

[Cleita]

8. Oh, we don't have to call them that.

How about additional sales tax for imports?

[former9thward]

12. Article I, Section 10, Part 2 is pretty specific in not allowing

a state to have "any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports". Congress can consent to a state doing this but that is not going to happen. This section of the Constitution even says if a state were to do this to pay for inspection the extra money would have to go to the U.S. Treasury and not the state.

[DBoon]

13. local property taxes are OK

maybe (hypothetically) amend the old prop 13 to allow higher assessed values for property owned by non-residents - extending the protection of lower rates to residents only

[right2bfree]

82. Good idea!! nt

[Le Taz Hot]

43. So is Gerrymandering

but it doesn't seem to stop them from doing it.

[Cleita]

62. Bingo!

They are going to do it again, too.

[CreekDog]

80. Gerrymandering is not illegal

the redistricting provisions passed mainly changed who could do the gerrymandering thereby making it less likely.

[dkf]

17. Tax the rich is another way of saying you don't want to pay any more taxes yourself.

I am beginning to understand the real meaning behind things.

[starroute]

19. The middle class needs better wages before they can pay more taxes

The wealthy are the only ones who have gotten ahead since 1980, while everybody else has either fallen behind or barely kept even. So it's not that people don't *want* to may more taxes -- it's that they quite literally can't. The rich are the only ones with anything to spare.

I hope that's part of the real meaning you're beginning to understand.

[Patchuli]

26. Hear Hear!

Good and truthful response...

[Yupster]

22. Yes it is rare to find someone call for more taxes on himself

Mostly is taxes need to be higher for someone else.

Me? I need more stuff.

[JDPriestly]

23. The problem is that California attracts many of the billionaires of the world.

They live here, drive prices up and used to use our labor.

It costs a lot more to live in California than to live in some of the other states. Housing still, in spite of the crisis, is very expensive. Compare prices to Florida for example and you will see a huge difference.

Ordinary Californians cannot afford to pay a higher property tax rates. This is especially true of people like us who bought our houses for far less than they would sell for today but don't want to and probably cannot move to some other state at our ages.

So, that is the bind. It is not such a simple thing to raise property taxes.

Personally, I think we should raise sales taxes on items other than food, services (because it is unrealistic to try to collect the taxes on services) and on children's clothing, books and other necessities. In return for that, we should help businesses that really employ people in the state of California either through subsidies of some sort or tax deals.

That's what I would recommend to Jerry Brown.

[Cleita]

39. Exactly and they aren't paying enough taxes to

justify our putting out a welcome mat for them. We still are the seventh largest economy in the world and it's time that some of that money ends up in the State Treasury to pay for the services those people demand and expect.

[valerief]

27. Might as well let those who can afford to carry the burden carry it.

Doesn't do much good to make those who can't carry the burden carry it. Then nothing gets carried.

Goodbye forever!

[No Elephants]

53. Actually, its another way of saying our tax system should be equitable.

[CreekDog]

73. is that what Warren Buffet said?

he wants the rich to pay more so he doesn't?

:crazy:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[No Elephants]

52. If folks own real property, don't they pay real estate taxes? Massachusetts taxes your residence

differently than other real property. Don't know if California does?

Of course, Massachusetts residents are subjet to the same rules: If I owned two homes in Massachusetts, I would pay lower taxes on my residence and higher taxes on the other home.

If you live in California, maybe you could make some suggestions to Brown and your state reps.

[Cleita]

61. California doesn't.

Prop. 13 made all residential property 1%. That's my beef. I think vacation homes and people who own residential property from out of state or out of the country should pay at least 4% for the privilege of owning property and doing business in California. Those people are wealthy people. Also, I think anything more ostentation than your average three bedroom family home should also pay extra taxes. Any home that qualifies as a mansion and is valued at millions should pay more percents in taxes too.

[Raine]

71. I don't have a problem with residences regarding prop 13

because eventually most of those change hands. Prop 13 will then no longer apply. What I do have a problem with is business and industries like Moble Oil Refinery (which is in my neck of the woods). They get those benefits and probably will always have them. How often do places like ever change hands ... probably never. x(

[Cleita]

72. I want those corporate welfare queens to pay their

fair share too. There is plenty of untaxed money to levy taxes on in California that would set the State on a course of prosperity for all. Cutting services and squeezing the benefits from government workers is not the way to balance the budget. It also has less money being spent on goods and that makes the economy tank as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

86. Commercial owners play a shell game. As long as they don't sell more than 50% interest

they retain the tax basis. While that threshold makes sense with single unit residences (where most people do not hold on to the property for more than 20 years) it's a massive gift to corporations.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. I concur...they will not support additional taxes

[xchrom]

3. Californians are relentlessly anti-tax because the middle and working

Classes wind up getting punished and the wealthy avoid
Paying their fair share.

Tax proposals have often been designed that way.

[slackmaster]

5. Californians already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation

I don't believe Jerry will be successful in this effort.

[cali]

42. well, it's up there, but there are quite a few states

ahead of them in that dept:


Showing latest available data.
Rank States Amount
# 1 Hawaii: $3,050.03
# 2 Wyoming: $2,973.87
# 3 Connecticut: $2,941.21
# 4 Minnesota: $2,890.90
# 5 Delaware: $2,862.03
# 6 Vermont: $2,844.96
# 7 Massachusetts: $2,628.26
# 8 New Jersey: $2,415.82
# 9 California: $2,391.65
# 10 Michigan: $2,381.34
# 11 New York: $2,376.77


http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita

[slackmaster]

48. I believe those figures only cover state income tax

Not sales tax which is over 8% in California, fuel taxes which are about at the top, or property tax, which is about in the middle when expressed as a rate but is actually high due to elevated property values.

[cali]

51. no, I think it covers those taxes as well.

[right2bfree]

75. I shop in a county two over from mine. 9% in mine and 8,.25% there. nt

[CreekDog]

79. why? you are shopping two counties over to save .75%

with the cost of traveling consuming more than you'd save?

terrible idea.

and for big ticket items, the tax is based on your home address, not the county you're in.

[right2bfree]

81. I work there so there is no trans. cost. As for big ticket items, I just bought a

"46" inch HD TV from Sears at a 10 percent discount, at the 8.25 percent county tax rate , so I dont know
what you are talking about.

[CreekDog]

84. no not a tv --i'm talking about a car

which the sales tax is based on your home county.

[right2bfree]

87. I have my PO Box on my DL and its in the cheaper county!!!nt

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[liberation]

6. And when the California voters turn the tax hike down. Then what?

But by all means, let's waste more money on yet another proposition. Not like California has any budget issues to worry about...

[shanti]

34. then what?

he has said that there will be severe cuts. i'm taking him at his word.

[liberation]

41. Funny...

... he's not taking the sever cuts to be decided by the voters, is he?

[shanti]

63. does he have a choice?

:shrug: the people have spoken; what comes next is the outcome.

[No Elephants]

54. If the issue is presented properly, maybe California voters will finally face reality.

Goods and services cost; the state's deficit is already huge; and Rumpelstiltskin has left the building.

[demosincebirth]

9. We Californians want the best schools, the best roads, the best law enforcement, etc, etc...but...

we want someone else to pay for it. So...whats new? Once they start shutting down more schools and laying-off more cops and the crime rate soars, then we might consider it. Don't count on it, though.

[slackmaster]

11. The voters had a chance to save a bunch of money by legalizing cannabis

But we blew it.

[demosincebirth]

33. That would have helped, but it would have only put a small dent in the

deficit. Maybe our court system wouldn't be as crowded.

[abelenkpe]

35. Exactly nt

[Le Taz Hot]

44. It came within 7% points.

We'll keep introducing it until it passes.

[No Elephants]

55. Maybe legalizing cannabis should be on the same ballot as raising taxes.

Might do better.

[JDPriestly]

24. One of our problems is that we pay a disproportionate share of

federal taxes and those taxes flow to states like Louisiana and Mississippi that are poor and pay a disproportionately small share of the federal taxes. So, we support people in other states, and we can't use that tax money to help balance the budget of our state.

[KansDem]

60. That is so true...

Tax Foundation

In 2005, California got back 78 cents in federal funding for every dollar paid in taxes.

Check out the chart: Blue states pay for red states to exist...

[right2bfree]

76. We dont need more traffic police. Make cuts in the PD's, not the Fire Dept's. nt

[Cleita]

10. That was one of his campaign promises. No new

taxes without voter approval. Brown is a smart guy. I think he has something up his sleeve that voters will approve of.

[sweetapogee]

14. Brown=smart guy

Plan A- raise taxes
Plan B- cut spending
Plan C- raise taxes and cut spending
Plan D- Rob the Bank
Plan E- None of the above. The details are Top Secret and we probably wouldn't understand them anyway. But it is the obvious plan that will solve CA's financial troubles.

Hope you are right and hate to be negative, but I see storm clouds on the horizon.

[Tempest]

18. If A is rejected by the voters

Then Brown isn't responsible for B, D or E.

Plan C is an impossibility if A is rejected.

[Cleita]

38. I remember when he was Governor the first time

and he did a good job in spite of the ghouls who tried to discredit him and make him fail.

[tishaLA]

15. He needs to apply pressure to Obama

to get a more equitable return on federal tax dollars. We only get ~72 cents back per federal tax dollar paid. Meanwhile, red states reap the benefits at our expense.

[sweetapogee]

21. it is

Congress, not the President that decides how federal tax money is spent.

[JDPriestly]

25. tishaLA, you are so right.

The worst of it is that we for a disproportionately large share of the federal budget and then get criticized by people in conservative states who pay a disproportionately small share of that budget.

In 2004, New Mexico received $2 in tax money for every one dollar it paid to the federal government in taxes.

In that year, California received 79 cents for every one dollar it paid to the federal government in taxes.

Is it any wonder that California is broke?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Read down the page to see a chart comparing states' receipt of tax revenue v. payment of tax revenue to the federal government.

New Jersey was given even less than California -- it was No. 50 on the list and received only 55 cents per dollar it paid.

Everyone likes to criticize New Jersey for its lack of money too.

New Mexico received the highest return on its tax dollar in 2004 followed by Alaska.

[Psephos]

40. In other words, you think that wealthier people shouldn't be helping poorer people so much.

:shrug:

Kind of goes against the whole idea of progressive taxation, if you think about it.

[No Elephants]

56. No. Apples and oranges. You can approve of progressive taxation of individuals while

wanting states to get back only what they put in (respectively). It does, however, seem to go against the notion that everyone in the U.S. is in this together. However, that does seem to be the attitude of the Rethugs anyway. Maybe, at least for a while, they should have to live with the reality of what they say they want.

[right2bfree]

83. Yeah, eve though the rich use our infrastucture to make s### loads of money. nt

[kestrel91316]

16. We do NOT need higher sales taxes. We already pay 9.75% here in Los Angeles.

Raise income taxes on the wealthiest, Gerry.

[devils chaplain]

28. Good grief...

9.75%? If you order something off the internet, is that taxed? And if not, why would anyone ever buy anything in LA?

And talk about a regressive tax. Anyone making a large purchase will most definitely find a way around it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. I always go to a low tax area for major purchases

Can't for cars, but other than that...

[abelenkpe]

36. Yes you still pay taxes with online purchases

Why would anyone buy anything in LA?

Maybe cause they live here and don't want to drive an hour away for groceries?

[itsrobert]

49. Most Groceries items are not tax

Food in general is not taxed at the groceries.

[David__77]

30. I pay as little sales tax as possibe.

I order clothes online, electronics, everything that I can. And why would anyone not do so? "Tax evasion" is perfectly logical and makes sense, provided it is not illegal.

[kestrel91316]

37. Hey, at least we don't pay tax on food in grocery stores or farmer's markets. Yet.

And since that's about the only thing I can afford to buy anymore in this economy, I'm good.

:sarcasm:

[roody]

47. That is understandable, but I want to support my local economy.

[No Elephants]

57. Online, one often pays taxes AND shipping and handling.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. Depends where you go

Tiger Direct and Amazon do not charge taxes and for larger orders do not charge shipping. YMMV

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. Depends on the state

In most you are supposed to declare untaxed purchases and pay the equivalent

[David__77]

69. "Supposed to?" Ha...

There is no enforcement mechanism, so of course people do not do that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. You brought up the legality question....

Some states have tried to get records for major retailers, I want to recall NYC sending people to NJ malls at one point (may or may not be true).

I will admit to not tracking my online purchases and I have no local stores to speak of. Also been known to buy things in low tax counties here in Socal. It can vary by 2% or more.

[right2bfree]

77. Me too. Ebay is my friend. nt

[ProgressOnTheMove]

20. Messaging has to be strong on this one.

[David__77]

31. If the solution isn't progressive and doesn't close business deductions, I'll vote no.

It had better be a good plan. Honestly, it is probably doomed from the start.

[No Elephants]

58. You may want to suggest things to Brown and your state legislators.

[David__77]

65. I will definitely be doing in the coming days.

There are a lot of revenue-raising opportunities that would be relatively low risk when it comes to capital flight. They would be unpopular among the "business community," but they would deal with it ultimately. There's a lot of money to be made in California, even with more "adverse" tax policies.

[Dappleganger]

85. Corporatists always hit the little people first.

[Big_Mike]

32. I can't help but think what is needed is a top to bottom review of

expenditures within departments. We burden schools and businesses with multiple requirements for the same information, reports from one state organization prepared for another, etc.

The governor should look at the reporting requirements and unnecessary time and money wasters required by the current state regulations, and rid ourselves of most of them. They should drill down and figure out what information is relevant and necessary, rather than simply good to have. I know that there are some employees in district and county school offices whose sole function is to stay on top of reports to the next higher level of bureaucracy. Are these positions relevant to educating our children, or do they simply satisfy some strange need for statistical information?

[No Elephants]

59. Pls. see Reply 58.

[Politicalboi]

45. Jerry

Part of the solution was there, but YOU were against it. Prop 19 would have taken a big burden off Ca debt, created more jobs, and made a lot more people happy. :hippie:

[itsrobert]

50. 10 cents a troll post tax

by Right wing astroturfers. Budget problems solved.

[Ter]

64. He should have said this during the election

Of course he didn't, because he might have lost.

[CreekDog]

78. He did say it, please don't suggest he didn't

he said no tax increases without voter approval. and his plan is exactly in keeping with that statement which was in at least half of his commercials.

and he won handily saying that too.

[Taverner]

66. TAX ME MORE!!!!

I am dead serious - as a Californian I ask to be taxed more - we all depend on this state and we have to pay for it

And the state is nearing bankruptcy

tax me more