Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Gubernatorial/State Elections => Topic started by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 14, 2009, 01:08:29 PM



Title: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 14, 2009, 01:08:29 PM
Thanks to the bipartisan compromise being floated. Of course it'll only get a handful of Republican votes anyways. Republicans are such a joke. I was in favor of some sort of pragmatic compromise, but this is ridiculous.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget-taxbreaks14-2009feb14,0,1807568.story?track=rss


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 14, 2009, 01:26:02 PM
Thanks our disgusting proposition process where people vote on individual laws based off of 30 second sound bytes, it's impossible to pass any sort of bill without eighty thousand individual compromises and perks to reach that sixty-six percentage mark, usually with education suffering the most.


Are the tax cuts temporary
Ah, they're permanent so they require a three fourths, two thirds majority or whatever to reduce in the future?

I might support these tax cuts depending on how they interact with our deficit and our stimulus package, too lazy to look up


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 14, 2009, 01:33:07 PM
Quote
Under the proposed changes, companies would no longer be required to pay state taxes based on a formula that includes the size of their workforce, the amount of property they own and their total California sales. Instead, they could pay based on total state sales alone. The idea, supporters say, is to stop penalizing companies for expanding their workforces and building new facilities in California. Under current law, the companies' state tax bills grow when they do those things.

I don't know about property, but that makes sense to reduce the cost of hiring new workers.

but then you have this:
Quote
He said that in California the technology industry has been far slower to rebound from the dot-com bust earlier this decade than it has in states that have made the changes lawmakers are considering.

But a study by the Center on Budget Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank, concluded that the cost of the tax break has far outweighed the job-creation benefits in states where it has been instituted. The center researches how tax policies affect low-income Americans. The study said many companies were using the tax formula to lower their tax bills without doing anything they wouldn't normally do to create new jobs.

Other experts have said the change could also mean that companies that put a heavy burden on -- and extract substantial benefit from -- state services won't be paying their full share for them.

A study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, released in 2005, found that most companies decide where to locate based not on tax breaks but on factors such as the availability of a highly educated workforce. California's proposed plan would cut spending on higher education by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sigh


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 15, 2009, 01:49:36 AM
I might support these tax cuts depending on how they interact with our deficit and our stimulus package, too lazy to look up

I'm pretty sure it would be better for the economy if the sales tax was increased by $1 billion less a year.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sam Spade on February 15, 2009, 02:45:51 AM
This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 15, 2009, 02:47:26 AM
Better than the Rustbelt even if we are politically impotent


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 15, 2009, 03:02:19 AM
I think the legislature is still trying to pass a budget RIGHT NOW. Well, I guess it only makes sense that they'd be meeting at midnight on a weekend on Valentines Day when they're 7 1/2 months late.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Sam Spade on February 15, 2009, 03:04:28 AM
Better than the Rustbelt even if we are politically impotent

Nope.  You have too many illegals and people dependent on the state government (among other problems).  That's just a powder keg waiting to go off.  Rustbelt states don't have either of those problems as much. (e.g. Michigan)

When TSHTF, you want to be in a fairly homogenous society with shared values, above all.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2009, 03:05:47 AM
This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sam Spade on February 15, 2009, 03:25:39 AM
This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 15, 2009, 03:29:16 AM
See, the lack of compromise and the 2/3rds budget requirement (which is pre Prop 13) is really a problem. You just said a bunch of things that would piss of the left, but guess what, you said "REPEAL PROP 13". The Republican party is threatening to primary any member who even votes for one tax increase, so saying "REPEAL PROP 13" is like saying 'I'M A COMMUNIST MEMBER OF AL QAEDA" to them.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2009, 03:50:12 AM
This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.

Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is. I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich. And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates. And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any. As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay. And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything. Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 15, 2009, 05:19:35 AM
Everyone sane hates Prop 13 and it is 99.99% of the reason why California is impotent/sucks/is lame/has a bad economy.

too bad propostions are so populust

Better than the Rustbelt even if we are politically impotent

Nope.  You have too many illegals and people dependent on the state government (among other problems).  That's just a powder keg waiting to go off.  Rustbelt states don't have either of those problems as much. (e.g. Michigan)

When TSHTF, you want to be in a fairly homogenous society with shared values, above all.

Well, you're basically right with your additional posts.  At least Prop 13 has an infinitely higher chance, however small, of  being reversed, than some company like Chrysler becoming successful.

I try not to be too dismal on our state, but yes, I'm trying to figure out how to bail ASAP


Prop 13 is the very reason why California's economy sucks.  It is the most prevalent demonstration in Earth as to why direct democracy is not a viable alternative.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 12:32:29 PM
Proposition 13 is the most retarded proposition to ever come up in our state.  As Lunar said, everyone sane hates this proposition.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 15, 2009, 12:42:56 PM
Proposition 13 is the most retarded proposition to ever come up in our state.  As Lunar said, everyone sane hates this proposition.

Everyone who knows anything hates it, but thanks to the John Birch Society and probably other crazies, it's impossible to repeal. 

It's the reason why many of our inner city schools are failing (the only way for counties to fund themselves is to collect property taxes on new development, can't do that in the inner city), the reason why we can't pass a budget or, when needed, raise certain taxes (hopefully at the expense of other taxes).

Warren Buffet's $500,000 home in Omaha had its property taxes increased by $1,920 in 2003. Meanwhile, the levy on Buffett’s $4-million house in Laguna Beach, which he bought for less than $100,000 in 1971, rose by just $23.  How does that make sense? But the public likes knee-jerk ideas like "never raise taxes" and "cap property taxes" while at the same time they love to vote for propositions that require 40% of the state budget to be spent on education and %X to be spent on that, to the point that our budget is completely nonsensical before you even factor in that we need 2/3rds to pass.

I mean, the dumbest proposition on the ballot in 2008 was this one requiring chickens have enough space to turn around in their cages.  It's a law that makes complete sense, but not as a state law, since some segment of our egg marketshare will now move to neighboring states and Mexico.  Yet it's also the law that passed with the higher percentage.  I think all but like one proposition passed (correct me if I'm wrong) and in Berkeley every single one of our some dozen little measures passed.  I really think the public, especially in California, just likes to vote for stuff and it's destroying our state.

/rant




Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: rob in cal on February 15, 2009, 12:59:57 PM
   Concerning Prop. 13 I agree it is a crapshoot. My house is assessed at 2000 dollars in tax per year. If I sold it to someone else they'd now pay about 4,000.  Still, with all the new development over the years, plus the normal buying and selling of houses that goes on, I wonder how many people there are who are paying ridiculously low levels of property tax. I can think of a few people I know off hand, but lots of others who bought homes in the 90's and 2000's who are paying close to their assessed value.
    Personally, I'd be up for closing the school year a few months early, as my son who goes to public school would like to be home schooled which we do now with our daughter.  Of course I realize that would be a huge disaster for many people.  Also, what about emptying California's prisons of non-violent drug offenders, anyone in for sports bookmaking, things like that. Probably not many of them, but thats a little start.
    Agreed that its disturbing to have people vote on proposition issues when they know so little about whats involved.  I often ask co-workers and friends about what they are doing with propositions and am actually relieved that many who do vote actually take some time to study whats on the ballot, and many who are clueless don't vote anyway. I always tell people that if you know what you are doing on some issues but haven't studied up on all candidates or props to just vote what you know about.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 15, 2009, 01:16:39 PM
I actually like the proposition system for narrow areas, notably things the legislators won't do themselves - things like government transparency, term limits, salary caps, etc.  Even though I did of work for the No On 8 campaign, I don't mind that we lost because the overall campaign was so inept and inclusive and couldn't relate to what real people were thinking about the issue.

But how many people actually read the bill in question? How many people understand what a bond is?

Also, about your house, when do you think most people who own apartment buildings or towers bought their property?  And considering that property taxes is a key way to fund local schools.... and considering that also applies to megagiant CosCo's and Walmarts....  I'm not pro-tax, but I'm in favor of something sensible for property taxes if those are to be a key way our educational system functions -- as of now, the areas with constant development (suburbs) can fund the best schools.  Prop 13 dealt with a very serious issue -- seniors being taxed out of their homes they've lived in since forever.  But it dealt with that issue with a hatchet that destroyed California, instead of the scalpel that was needed.

I mean, California's legislature needs a check to avoid raising taxes.  I took a college class on the history of California a while back and my professor was explaining how they were once sending dollars to various corners of the state legislature room as a model to try and explain how the budget worked and no one could understand it.  It's a complete mess.

The public is never going to vote down more money for firefighters, veterans, chicken cages, or blind orphans who need love, but they're sure going to vote in favor of mandatory reduced taxes every time.  The basic desire of the public to have reduced taxes but increased social services in manifested in California's clusterf*** thanks to direct democracy :P


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 15, 2009, 02:19:06 PM
Still no budget. Our legislature is a total joke.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Lunar on February 15, 2009, 02:21:11 PM

They could pass one if we were a normal state


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 15, 2009, 02:22:20 PM

They could pass one if we were a normal state

True, the 2/3rds requirement is ridiculous. Well, not my fault, I was one of the 34.3% to vote for Prop. 56.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 15, 2009, 03:56:34 PM
The California Republican party is bent on destroying California. Even this crappy plan was way too much compromise for them.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Beet on February 16, 2009, 12:21:22 AM
This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.

Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is. I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich. And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates. And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any. As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay. And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything. Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?

If what Sam says is anything close to right, we could see a re-institution of the draft just to enforce martial law at home. Basically it'll be the end of this country as we know it.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sbane on February 16, 2009, 01:08:55 AM
This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.

Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is. I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich. And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates. And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any. As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay. And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything. Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?

If what Sam says is anything close to right, we could see a re-institution of the draft just to enforce martial law at home. Basically it'll be the end of this country as we know it.

Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Beet on February 16, 2009, 01:23:02 AM
Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?

Well it did on a smaller scale, if you look at the Bonus army disaster. But it's true that Americans were awfully quiescent during the Depression-- and maybe we'll be again. There was a good deal of ethnic diversity back then as well, and Californians have been living with each other for a long time-- even the illegals.

Anyway, I'm not predicting that we'll need that, but it seems like Sam is. Especially if he thinks it'd be easier to deport millions of illegals than allow them to stay. The former action itself would practically require a domestic military deployment.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sbane on February 16, 2009, 01:25:11 AM
Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?

Well it did on a smaller scale, if you look at the Bonus army disaster. But it's true that Americans were awfully quiescent during the Depression-- and maybe we'll be again. There was a good deal of ethnic diversity back then as well, and Californians have been living with each other for a long time-- even the illegals.

Anyway, I'm not predicting that we'll need that, but it seems like Sam is. Especially if he thinks it'd be easier to deport millions of illegals than allow them to stay. The former action itself would practically require a domestic military deployment.

I don't see why illegals would cause problems for no reason. They came to California to work and if there isn't any work, they will leave. It's those people who think society owes them something who are more dangerous.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Beet on February 16, 2009, 01:26:47 AM
Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?

Well it did on a smaller scale, if you look at the Bonus army disaster. But it's true that Americans were awfully quiescent during the Depression-- and maybe we'll be again. There was a good deal of ethnic diversity back then as well, and Californians have been living with each other for a long time-- even the illegals.

Anyway, I'm not predicting that we'll need that, but it seems like Sam is. Especially if he thinks it'd be easier to deport millions of illegals than allow them to stay. The former action itself would practically require a domestic military deployment.

I don't see why illegals would cause problems for no reason. They came to California to work and if there isn't any work, they will leave. It's those people who think society owes them something who are more dangerous.

I would tend to agree.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 16, 2009, 11:51:05 PM
The stalemate continues.

Replacing Davis with Arnold is looking stupider and stupider by the day.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Sam Spade on February 17, 2009, 09:48:05 AM
Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is.

I don't know what "many of your ideology" means.  I follow the tune of my own drummer.

Quote
I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich.

Part of the problem in recent years has been this idea that we can fund government based on the backs of the insanely rich.  It can't work long-term and since the long-term is now, it won't work now either.

Besides, the incomes of the insanely rich are going to be (and are) declining at a rapid pace.  There was a recent article about this that I'm not going to look for, but basically it said that, well, we've lost a ton of income over the past year, but the giant drops were among the insanely rich.  It's not exactly surprising, but you need to keep in mind what these means for tax receipts.

However, I'll go on the record and say that I've never opposed a surtax on those who make over $1 million a year (with increases in the underlying taxed amount over time).  Just keep in mind that rich people often move and often have the means to do so.

Quote
And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates.

Maybe so, maybe not.  Certainly the rich weren't going to leave when times were good, but now...  Don't make the same assumption that these same presumptions that applied in the past are going to applynow.

And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any.
[/quote]

California can't.  For now.  But they should be kept in mind.

Quote
As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs
don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay.

Of course the jobs will be there, in some form or another, probably lessened.  Problem is, when things get bad enough, which is right around the corner, if not here already, the high and minded folks looking for service sector jobs will eventually move down to that level.  That's what happens when you have to eat.

Right now, we are facing massive, massive oversupplies of everything.  It's one of the classic symptoms of a debt-deflation.  This problem hasn't exactly trickled down to everything just yet, and employment is usually the last place to be hit, but it's there.

It's there in housing, cars, CRE.  And it's there in labor too.  It's the reason why wages will decline heavily, why full-time workers will be pushed to part-time work, and why those people will, in the end, be laid off.

In such an over-supply of labor as we have and will have (i.e. it'll get worse, much worse), we should try and eliminate the supply as much as possible.  An easy first step is going after the illegals, many of whom can only perform menial work anyway.

Times change and so should our policies.  We need to limit immigration and emphasize allowing immigration mainly from those more highly educated immigrants (regardless of where they come from).  We did the same thing in the 1920s and 1930s during similar times.

Quote
And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything.

The amount they pay in taxes in no way makes up for the amount they take up in state services.

Quote
Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?

Because, even though I said menial work will still exist, it will dry up in a great part.  And other folks from higher income levels will start to trickle down to take up those jobs (it takes time - be patient).  So, the illegals will either go back to Mexico (questionable, since I think Mexico will probably fare much worse) or be unemployed.  Unemployed non-citizens sucking off the government tit are giant problems in terms of civil unrest, especially when these benefits are cut back (which they will be - they have to be).


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Verily on February 17, 2009, 09:51:50 AM
At least everyone acknowledges that all of California's budget problems of the last few decades stem from Prop 13. (Admittedly, they'd probably be in a deficit without it, too, but so is everyone else.)


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporati
Post by: Sam Spade on February 17, 2009, 09:55:55 AM
At least everyone acknowledges that all of California's budget problems of the last few decades stem from Prop 13. (Admittedly, they'd probably be in a deficit without it, too, but so is everyone else.)

All of their problems?  California would still be screwed even if Prop 13 didn't exist because of the massive social services/public employment sector.

It just might take a while longer for it to occur (in other words - they would be New York or New Jersey-like).


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Torie on February 17, 2009, 03:52:19 PM
I am financially hooked on Prop 13. It sucks.


Title: Re: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
Post by: Beet on February 17, 2009, 05:43:47 PM
Part of the problem in recent years has been this idea that we can fund government based on the backs of the insanely rich.  It can't work long-term and since the long-term is now, it won't work now either.

There is no choice but to fund a huge portion of the budget on the backs of the very rich (depends how you define insanely) depending on the distribution of income. The portion of income taxes paid by the top 1% has always climbed when income inequality has climbed, and vice versa. In reality, taxes can come from whereever income comes from in the economy. In a more egalitarian economy economically, the portion of the tax base composed of the very rich will naturally decline. A larger problem than whether the higher or lower incomes bear a greater tax burden is the share of taxes that are dependent on highly cyclical money streams such as capital gains or property.

Quote
Besides, the incomes of the insanely rich are going to be (and are) declining at a rapid pace.  There was a recent article about this that I'm not going to look for, but basically it said that, well, we've lost a ton of income over the past year, but the giant drops were among the insanely rich.  It's not exactly surprising, but you need to keep in mind what these means for tax receipts.

Of course, but that does not mean taxes on the very rich could not (or will not) be raised further. It was in 1932 under Hoover that the maximum tax bracket began its upward surge, at first from 25% to 63%. This was one of the largest tax increases in modern history. And it was not repealed by Roosevelt, who had his own budget protection concerns.

Quote
However, I'll go on the record and say that I've never opposed a surtax on those who make over $1 million a year (with increases in the underlying taxed amount over time).  Just keep in mind that rich people often move and often have the means to do so.

Well, there is a difference between actually moving your life, your activities, and your family to another country and changing one's place of income or residence for legal purposes, yet still spending a large amount of time away from one's 'legal residence'. The latter could be called tax evasion. With regard to movements between states... well, that is one of the advantages of federal action over state action. One commenter during the debates on the stimulus mentioned that states should not use the money they receive to try and attract businesses if that would only mean businesses moving away from other states- it would not serve national purposes.

Quote
In such an over-supply of labor as we have and will have (i.e. it'll get worse, much worse), we should try and eliminate the supply as much as possible.  An easy first step is going after the illegals, many of whom can only perform menial work anyway.

Hardly 'easy'. Going after a massive group of people, even illegals, would be extremely costly and almost certainly mistaken. In the 1920s anti-immigration legislation was passed, but in the 1930s a sharp drop-off in net immigration occured without any additional xenophobia from the government-- for obvious reasons. I think this is what sbane is saying. If the jobs aren't there "they'll leave." That's exactly what happened in the 1930s-- millions left (some for the Soviet Union, of all places), millions simply never came.

Trying to forcibly remove people from the labor force on the basis of social class (which, basically, legal status is one form of) is also a pretty dangerous precedent, particularly in depressionary economic times. There are always some people at the bottom of the totem pole. Mass deportation is a recipe for complete meltdown of civil order, and it only possibly (emphasize possibly) makes sense if you assume civil order is going to melt down anyway-- but there is no evidence that such an outcome is inevitable right now.

Quote
Quote
And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything.

The amount they pay in taxes in no way makes up for the amount they take up in state services.

Which is a function of both their illegal status and their low income. Due to the former, they pay taxes at a much lower rate than the general population. And due to the latter, they are in lower brackets, have less money to spend, and are less likely to have preexisting health insurance or a cushion for other social services. But trying to remove them would be even more costly in the states where they actually represent a substantial enough portion of the population to make a significant impact on state expenditures. The 'solution'- though it is really only the least bad of many bad options- bring them into some sort of legalized status so that they may pay taxes at higher rates, and impose a fee for this legalization to give a one-time boost to revenues (and still allow those unwilling to pay the fee or unable to, to return to Mexico of their own volition if they cannot find work).

Quote
Because, even though I said menial work will still exist, it will dry up in a great part.  And other folks from higher income levels will start to trickle down to take up those jobs (it takes time - be patient).  So, the illegals will either go back to Mexico (questionable, since I think Mexico will probably fare much worse) or be unemployed.  Unemployed non-citizens sucking off the government tit are giant problems in terms of civil unrest, especially when these benefits are cut back (which they will be - they have to be).

Why should the difference between being a citizen and being a non-citizen be the difference between a rioter and a bum? Try to drag them out of their dwellings and dump them across the border would guarantee massive unrest. Not doing so, I fail to see how such unrest would necessarily occur, particularly only within the illegal populations. If things really got that bad, you would see unrest spread among legal populations too.