California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:34:37 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations  (Read 3726 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 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.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,569


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2009, 11:51:05 PM »

The stalemate continues.

Replacing Davis with Arnold is looking stupider and stupider by the day.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is.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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this 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).
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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.)
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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).
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2009, 03:52:19 PM »

I am financially hooked on Prop 13. It sucks.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.