Poizner says that his tax cuts will increase revenues for California

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

California Republicans are amazing.

http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2185733.html?mi_rss=State%2520Politics

[Lunar]

isn't that always the argument?

[Sam Spade]

I wish everyone good luck in trying to increase revenues, regardless of method, short of going "hat-in-hand" to the Feds (already been done).

[Lunar]

my favorite idea is California legalizing drugs and then selling them to the other states

[Sam Spade]

my favorite idea is California legalizing drugs and then selling them to the other states

Could work for a bit of revenue.  I like the potential lawsuit-friendly aspect.

[Gravis Marketing]

I wish everyone good luck in trying to increase revenues, regardless of method, short of going "hat-in-hand" to the Feds (already been done).

Does this mean every state is at the top of its own personal Laffer curve, at whatever share of tax it is currently taking?

Massachusetts just raised the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. That should increase revenue smartly.

I think we would all agree that if not for Prop 13, California would be able to raise revenue pretty easily, if not nearly enough to fix its overall budget problems. People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt." But it's an academic question.

[Badger]

I wish everyone good luck in trying to increase revenues, regardless of method, short of going "hat-in-hand" to the Feds (already been done).

Does this mean every state is at the top of its own personal Laffer curve, at whatever share of tax it is currently taking?

Massachusetts just raised the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. That should increase revenue smartly.

I think we would all agree that if not for Prop 13, California would be able to raise revenue pretty easily, if not nearly enough to fix its overall budget problems. People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000/year house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt." But it's an academic question.

^^^^^^^ this.

[Χahar]

This would be hilarious if the voters weren't so retarded.

[Meeker]

I wish everyone good luck in trying to increase revenues, regardless of method, short of going "hat-in-hand" to the Feds (already been done).

Does this mean every state is at the top of its own personal Laffer curve, at whatever share of tax it is currently taking?

Massachusetts just raised the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. That should increase revenue smartly.

I think we would all agree that if not for Prop 13, California would be able to raise revenue pretty easily, if not nearly enough to fix its overall budget problems. People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt." But it's an academic question.

Lucky bastards.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I wish everyone good luck in trying to increase revenues, regardless of method, short of going "hat-in-hand" to the Feds (already been done).

Does this mean every state is at the top of its own personal Laffer curve, at whatever share of tax it is currently taking?

Massachusetts just raised the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. That should increase revenue smartly.

I think we would all agree that if not for Prop 13, California would be able to raise revenue pretty easily, if not nearly enough to fix its overall budget problems. People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt." But it's an academic question.

Lucky bastards.

LUCKY BASTARDS!

[Meeker]

I wish everyone good luck in trying to increase revenues, regardless of method, short of going "hat-in-hand" to the Feds (already been done).

Does this mean every state is at the top of its own personal Laffer curve, at whatever share of tax it is currently taking?

Massachusetts just raised the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. That should increase revenue smartly.

I think we would all agree that if not for Prop 13, California would be able to raise revenue pretty easily, if not nearly enough to fix its overall budget problems. People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt." But it's an academic question.

Lucky bastards.

LUCKY BASTARDS!

Irresponsible, greedy bastards who any real "progressive" wouldn't at all be supportive of.

[cannonia]

People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt."

ORLY???

http://www.burbed.com/2006/04/11/600000-940-sqft-home-with-free-mud/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt."

ORLY???

http://www.burbed.com/2006/04/11/600000-940-sqft-home-with-free-mud/

Bay area housing prices are insane. That is partially due to Prop. 13. Oh, and that was from 3 1/2  years ago.

[paul718]

Poizner's right on the ball, in my opinion, but I don't think he'll be able to do it.  Precise tax cuts will increase revenue, but in order for the increased revenue to be realized, spending must be held at a constant (allowing for inflation).  This was where Bush failed.  The increased revenue was spent before it was realized, to the point where forecasted surpluses were turned into deficits.  After two terms of Schwarzenegger and his fruitless campaign for fiscal-restraint, I'm not sure that California can handle such an idea.

[Scam of God]

Stupid. Cut taxes to cut taxes and follow it with a strict and exactly identical decrease in spending, not to adhere to the Reaganist supply-side religion that has as much to do with real life as an utopian scheme.

[cannonia]

Stupid. Cut taxes to cut taxes and follow it with a strict and exactly identical decrease in spending, not to adhere to the Reaganist supply-side religion that has as much to do with real life as an utopian scheme.

The California constitution requires a balanced budget, so in theory any tax cut would be paired with a spending cut.  In reality, spending has far outpaced tax revenues, in adherence with the Democrats' tax-and-spend religion.

[Χahar]

Stupid. Cut taxes to cut taxes and follow it with a strict and exactly identical decrease in spending, not to adhere to the Reaganist supply-side religion that has as much to do with real life as an utopian scheme.

The California constitution requires a balanced budget, so in theory any tax cut would be paired with a spending cut.  In reality, spending has far outpaced tax revenues, in adherence with the Democrats' tax-and-spend religion.

What?

[Sibboleth]

Stupid. Cut taxes to cut taxes and follow it with a strict and exactly identical decrease in spending, not to adhere to the Reaganist supply-side religion that has as much to do with real life as an utopian scheme.

The California constitution requires a balanced budget, so in theory any tax cut would be paired with a spending cut.  In reality, spending has far outpaced tax revenues, in adherence with the Democrats' tax-and-spend religion.

What?

You are young and may not fully understand these grave matters. When something is seriously wrong, it is always and entirely the other lot's fault. With time it will come to you.

[Senator Sbane]

People paying $150 in property tax a year on a $600,000 house do have the capacity to pay a little more without "going Galt."

ORLY???

http://www.burbed.com/2006/04/11/600000-940-sqft-home-with-free-mud/

What is your argument? Someone who would buy that house today would have to pay the full property taxes on that valuation. The problem lies with those who bought houses for cheap 20-30 years ago and are just sitting on their overpriced properties without having to pay their fair share of property taxes. This of course leads to an inflation in house prices since people don't have to pay higher taxes when the value of their home goes up and thus they face no pressure to sell their house when prices go up. If property taxes went up with property valuations, many would be forced to sell their house which would in effect "correct" the inflation in house prices we saw in California.

[© Tweed the Younger]

tax marijuana.  if not then stop enforcing all drug laws and save a few billion off the top that way.