I am 44 years old and a 4th generation Californian whose Aunt was Governor Ronald Reagan's secretary while he was our fair Governor. I was actually voting for him as our 40th President while you were still in grammar school learning the Pledge of Allegiance. As for California being a socialist state . . . I really doubt that a socialst state would recall Gray Davis and on top of that, elect a Republican! As for your absurd comments regarding me being pissed that I have one less hero to worship . . . you are obviously a very demented soul.
Mike, I have friends that say they are republican and some that even consistently vote republican yet I think they are liberals living under a republican shell. Do you find it that hard for someone to be a liberal and vote republican? I don't care who the hell your aunt is or what your voting record is. Hell I voted for Ross Perot in 92 what does that make me, am I any less a republican? Does someone that Voted for Nader in 2000 mean they are less a democrat then someone that voted for Gore? Why do you associate someone's voting record with their identity? Some people I know are very very liberal But they vote for whoever they thinks has the most character. So your statements mean nothing to me. I asked you in a previous thread if someone makes a million dollars in FL and a million in CA, what do you get for that 120k that the CA gov't takes from you? In FL I wouldn't pay a dime to the state gov't out of that income. I asked you this question many times and you never had an answer. The schools are just as good in FL, the police are just as good, the roads are just as good, so what the f*ck do I get for that 120k check I write to the state of CA? Can you answer me or are you going to post some more of my old quotes without having a point. Why don't you just call me names. That works sometimes. I think you smoked too much weed in the 70's out there man, you need to come back to reality. I would love to hear where that 120k goes and what I get for that money.
Listen carefully, you might actually learn something: 39 States in the United States of America have both state income tax and a state sales tax. In your book, I guess that makes 78% if our country SOCIALIST. Once again, you are incredibly ignorant about our country. Where did you go to college, anyway? :eek:
Tough on illegal aliens and sapping State budgets with granting 8 - 12 million illegal aliens AMNESTY! Gee, no wonder why States have to have income taxes! Duh. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031211-120505-1795r.htm
Do those 39 states charge the highest income earners 12% of their income? No, they don't. Most states tax their citizens between 2% and 8% not the 12% CA does. So why the disparity? So no, 78% of the country is not socialist.
Mike you have to give them amnesty. What the hell do you propose we do to them? Get the gestapo to go after them and break into people's homes? What are you a nazi now? Look they are here, nothing we can do about it now. If I ran the state I would penalize anyone who hired illegal aliens. If you take away the incentive they won't come. That simple. But the ones that are here the best bet is to just make them legal citizens.
I would never live there either but if they take 11% of my money and redistribute it to the poor and to big gov't state run social programs then yes they are. What is so hard about this for you to understand. My argument here is about income redistribution. Do you have a f*cking clue or are you just trying to be difficult. I don't want free education, free healthcare, social welfare and other safety net programs ok? Do you get it? I don't want to pay for that shit with my money. If you want to pay for that stuff fine, write them a check and you can pay my portion and your portion ok?
I'm done with you. Calling me a Nazi and a Saddam Hussein sympathizer is the last straw. Your Arrogance and Ego obviously keep you from thinking with what God gave you. In the meantime, I will very much enjoy our lovely weather out here in the Golden State - - - looking forward to a high of 66 degrees mid-week.
The State of Taxes The Wall Street Journal September 2, 2003 No matter how California's recall turns out, the state's voters have already benefited from one healthy byproduct: a long-overdue public debate about the Golden State's tax climate, which is the opposite of its weather. While Arnold Schwarzenegger complains that Californians are taxed from the moment they flush their toilets in the morning, Democrats and media liberals insist they're not taxed enough. Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante is proposing as part of his campaign to squeeze an additional $8 billion a year in what he calls "tough love" levies out of taxpayers to repair his and Governor Gray Davis's record budget deficit. Before they let Mr. Bustamante and the Los Angeles Times raid their wallets even further, however, Californians may want to consult a recent study of state tax climates by the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation. The study found that California boasts the second most onerous tax system for business among the 50 states, second only to that great role model of Mississippi. With the exception of property taxes, which voters limited through Proposition 13, just about every tax Sacramento levies ranks among the highest or most burdensome in America. Start with the individual income tax, which has six brackets and is steeply progressive. Its top marginal rate of 9.3% is among the nation's highest but, worse, it kicks in at just $38,000 of income. This means that the likes of nurses and janitors already pay to the state a dime of every $1 in higher salary they receive; of course in return they get Mr. Bustamante's "love." It's just as bad if you form a business, with most small business owners paying at the onerous individual rate. As for bigger business, the state's 8.8% corporate tax rate is the highest in the West and the 10th highest in the country. Some states will make up for high income-tax rates with lower sales taxes, but not California. Voracious Sacramento hits consumers with a state and local sales tax rate that peaks at 8.75% -- again, among the nation's highest. There's also a complex and expensive tax compliance arrangement that involves determining what's subject to double- and alternative minimum taxation. Add it all up, say Tax Foundation analysts, and "statistically speaking, every aspect of California's tax system is antagonistic to business development and economic growth." No wonder employment in California has lagged the rest of the country in recent years. High tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and make it difficult, particularly for small businesses, to obtain the capital necessary to expand operations and create more jobs. As the nearby chart shows, California seems to have a structural jobless rate that is at least half a percentage point higher than the national average. Even during the Internet-tech boom of the late 1990s, the state couldn't close that jobless gap. The problem is exacerbated by the state's tax-friendlier neighbors. At $3,670 per capita, California's state and local tax burden is sixth-highest in the nation. That's far higher than neighboring Nevada ($2,742), Arizona ($2,677) and Oregon ($2,682 and no sales tax). Among Western states, Texas, Utah and New Mexico are even better bargains. Not only are California's people leaving for these other shores -- the years between 1995 and 2000 saw an exodus of more than 600,000 -- but so is its industry. And apparently no relief is in sight. In a recent California Business Roundtable survey of 400 companies, 20% of them said they were planning to move or expand out of state. As the Journal's Steven Vames pointed out in a story last month, even far-off Indiana, having eliminated its corporate income tax and cut property taxes by 23%, is making a play for disgruntled business owners on the left coast. The higher taxes being pushed by California Democrats today will do no more to reverse these dismal trends than they did the last time they were tried by California Republicans -- which wasn't that long ago. In 1991 then-Governor Pete Wilson signed off on a $7.3 billion tax package designed to close a budget gap. Temporary 10% and 11% income tax brackets (historic highs) were instituted. The state sales tax was increased by more than a penny and expanded to include snack foods and newspapers. The result, as GOP candidate Tom McClintock likes to remind voters, is that the tax hike produced less than half the revenue projected, the state's general revenue fund dropped by $1 billion and retail sales fell off a cliff. Over the next three years, personal incomes in the state fell by more than 5%, even while the rest of the nation was enjoying a recovery. In sharp contrast, when these temporary tax brackets expired in 1995, California's general fund revenue grew by 80% over the next six years. Mr. Bustamante apparently thinks Californians are lemmings, ready to follow him off the tax cliff one more time. If they do, look for another increase in property values -- in Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and Idaho.