here's the facts ... the government overpromised, and when the free-economy underperformed, the government underdelivered ... MORE TAXES!
Ca gets sales tax. One of the highest in the nation.. AND income tax, AND property tax. So you want to take away Prop 13 from all the old people that lived in their houses, worked, and paid them off? Toss the old folks under the bus? If Ca doesn't have enough money who gives a fuck? Most morons don't have enough money, the public sector is just another collective moron.... I'm living in Ca, the government is heading for a complete shut down, I don't see anybody around here that gives a shit really.. the public sector is not the culture, it is not the lifeblood of the economy, it's just another big parasite like crime...
whats your data? You do not think California brings in huge dollars with a 1.2 percent property tax, 8. something sales tax and hefty corporation taxes - in addition to a massive income tax. How could they not be taking in enough money on property taxes. We spend 10 billion a year educating the children of illegal aliens. Our shortfall is 24 billion. I bet at the end of the day if you look at all the numbers half our short fall is related to educating feeding and providing social services to the children of illegal aliens. Which is fine. Lets just tax the shit out of the illegal aliens too. Thats all I am saying. Raising property taxes on the people already paying taxes is the worst idea I have ever heard. The tax burden here is already really heavy.
If a person really thinks that Socialism is the answer then taxes simply cannot ever be too high and government spending cannot ever be enough. There are two different natural limits. Free market people will see a natural limit when the economy suffers due to government, Socialists will see a natural limit when government has to shrink because the taxpayers are all on welfare :eek: The California Legislature is way to the left and is Spanish speaking.. they argued the issue of driver's licenses for illegals in Spanish a few years ago.. that is the Hispanic idea of "reaching across the aisle"... they probably are intellectually and philosophically aligned with Chavez of Venezuela way more than the Constitution of the US.. it should be interesting to see what they come up with... so far they have turned all of the territory from the American southern border to Tierra del Fuego into a barbaric shithole, now they are bringing their way of thinking to California...
I never said that I advocated raising taxes. My point goes to the NARROWNESS of the TAX BASE and why that puts California under a lot of fiscal stress during economic contractions. California is ranked #10 in the nation in its state and local tax burden, and also #10 nationally when you take into the overall revenue burden; including the ability to raise revenues from fees, charges, special assessments, and other sources. My economic point is that the State already relies far too heavily on a progressive personal income tax code, as well as corporate taxes which are both volatile, and economically sensitive. For example, in 2006, the top 15% of state taxpayers, those with adjusted gross incomes over $100,000, paid 84% of all personal income taxes. Now try and follow me further here . . . The state's BASE is NARROW because it exempts some goods ( such as food and utilities, tickets to sporting and entertainment events, pet care, dry cleaning, auto repair, and most other services ). http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_TaxBurdenJTF.pdf http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/nellen_a/TaxReform/Report2a_21stCenturyTaxation_SUTBase.htm For example, the State Sales Tax ( which provides 27% of the state's revenue ) imposes too high of a rate on TOO NARROW of a base. "A sales tax is supposed to be a broad tax on consumption, but California's hasn't kept up with changes in the economy. We're spending less on "tangible personal property" -- the 1930s terminology that's still in place -- and more on services and intangibles. For example, if you buy a CD at Amoeba Music, it'll be taxed. Download the same album from iTunes, and it's not. Buy a computer game at Best Buy and it's taxed; download it online and it isn't. Similarly, California taxes home video rentals but not movie tickets, lawnmowers but not gardening services, pet supplies but not dog grooming. These changing consumption patterns have eroded the sales tax base. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that from 1990 to 2003, the percentage of sales subject to sales tax in California dropped by 13.4 percentage points (states' median decline was only 8 points). In 1981, 48% of consumption was subject to the California sales tax, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office. By 2005, that amount dropped to 38%. There is no economic rationale for taxing some forms of personal consumption while exempting others. For example, why tax washing machines but not laundry and dry cleaning services? Why tax a game in a box but not one played online?" http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/18/opinion/oe-nellen18
Cost estimates for education and adult incarceration of illegal aliens back in fiscal 1994 came to $2.35 Billion. Current numbers put the educational cost at $3.2 billion, alone - - - not counting several more billion from the American born siblings of these illegal aliens. I believe that in November of 2006, INS estimated that the illegal alien population in California was 2.7 million. For education, health care, and incarceration . . . some studies suggest that the annual cost to the State comes in at roughly $10.1 billion. That comes out to $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/he95022.pdf
Wag's, the problems you describe-revenue fluctuations and excessive cost for illegals-are not exclusive to California. Per capita Cal has no more of an immigration problem than Arizona, Texas and Florida. Hence, California spends too much on services and education, regardless if granted to illegals or taxpayers. The single most volatile tax-believe it or not-is sales tax. And no, most STATES do not tax concert tickets or services, etc. I'm quite sure if you go to a Staples Center event, the city of L.A. has their grubby hands on a few dollars of that ticket price. Why the fuck should Sacramento get duked by a local amusement tax? This is a battle between the elites who work in government vs the under pensioned, private sector. One guy sweeps floors at a restaurant in Van Nuys for minimum wage, no insurance and a retirement equal to his social security check. Another guy sweeps the floors of the DMV and makes $17 an hour, full benefits and retires at 80% of income as a 50 year old. Why would tax payers allow ONE ADDITIONAL CENT to leave their depleted pocket and finance the salary and retirement of someone who struck it rich by winning the employed by Big Brother lotto? The media (union members themselves) can HIDE THE DEBATE but that's it in a nutshell.
Government workers don't deserve pensions. Let them live off of SS like everyone else when they "retire". Too bad if they have to work to 65.