good for them. don't let yourselves get rolled

albo: good for them. don't let yourselves get rolled

Yeah! Burn the whole thing down, wooo!

Fu*king anarchists.

Good. It'd be easy to balance the budget without $14B (per year) in new taxes.

albo: good for them. don't let yourselves get rolled

Yeah! Good for them! To Hell with actually doing your farking job and looking out fior the people who elected you! God damned douche bags.

I was damn happy as hell when I heard about this early this morning. Taxpayers can't afford to have their taxes increased. Especially right now. An extra $1,400/year avg per family of four. Caluculated mine last night and it would be an extra $1,800.

There are plenty of cuts that can be made. And I'm not talking about the cuts that they are proposing where it's just a cut on an anticpated increase in the budget. Real cuts. Like $13B that goes to illegal aliens.

Or, better yet, California should file bankruptcy and force the renogotiations on all the union contracts.

Hell, we in California already have:

The highest Income tax
The highest Gas tax
The highest Car tax
The highest Business tax in the west

This is squarely the fault of the California Democratic legislature for pushing so much damn spending. Every damn year, they spend-spend-spend.

And the union contracts, you know, the ones that have been the priciest contracts in the nation, bought with bribes to the state dems. Thos are killing us, as well.

And if you want to find out how much the proposed budget plan would increase your taxes:

SacBee Tax Increase Calculator (new window)

The fiscal problem, at its heart, will not be solved unless something is done about state worker retirement benefits/pensions.

... I'm not paying my state taxes until they have a budget.

DeCypher44

This is squarely the fault of the California Democratic legislature for pushing so much damn spending

Actually, the main reason for the shortfall is lower tax receipts because you whackos outlawed any property tax hikes. And then there's the spending, of course.

I'm probably off by a category above (I'm stressed out - not tax related). But I know that California is the highest in tax rates on 4 categories. Someone correct me where I may be wrong.

Marcus Aurelius: DeCypher44

This is squarely the fault of the California Democratic legislature for pushing so much damn spending

Actually, the main reason for the shortfall is lower tax receipts because you whackos outlawed any property tax hikes. And then there's the spending, of course.

FAIL. The California government has doubled in size in 10 years with no appreciable increase in services. The state already takes in around $120B/yr in revenues. If they can't make that work, there are serious, structural issues that need to be addressed. But the shortfall is NOT due to a lack of revenue, but overspending.

Marcus Aurelius: DeCypher44

This is squarely the fault of the California Democratic legislature for pushing so much damn spending

Actually, the main reason for the shortfall is lower tax receipts because you whackos outlawed any property tax hikes. And then there's the spending, of course.

Prop 13 has been in effect since 1978 (new window). Come on, man. That's 31 years ago!

I don't even live in California but I took the challenge. Being broke-ass, having a crappy car, no kids. A whopping 71 bucks. Maybe you other people should consider your life choices before complaining.

KaponoFor3: The fiscal problem, at its heart, will not be solved unless something is done about state worker retirement benefits/pensions.

Putting aside the lack of merit of the view that PERS is the cause of the budget deficit, you're a lawyer, aren't you? So how is it that you don't understand that vested employment benefits cannot be changed after the fact? You can't legally have someone work under contract for 20 years in reliance on the contractual obligation that their retirement will be X, and then after they've already invested 20 years of their lives say "Oops, just kidding, your retirement will actually be X minus Y."

Retirement benefits could be modified on a going-forward for new employees, but everyone--the legislature, Ah-nuld, and everyone else--fully understands that it is impossible to change the deal for existing employees whose pension rights have already vested.

Cyberluddite: KaponoFor3: The fiscal problem, at its heart, will not be solved unless something is done about state worker retirement benefits/pensions.

Putting aside the lack of merit of the view that PERS is the cause of the budget deficit, you're a lawyer, aren't you? So how is it that you don't understand that vested employment benefits cannot be changed after the fact? You can't legally have someone work under contract for 20 years in reliance on the contractual obligation that their retirement will be X, and then after they've already invested 20 years of their lives say "Oops, just kidding, your retirement will actually be X minus Y."

Retirement benefits could be modified on a going-forward for new employees, but everyone--the legislature, Ah-nuld, and everyone else--fully understands that it is impossible to change the deal for existing employees whose pension rights have already vested.

I honestly don't know, but would a bankruptcy solve that problem? Serious question.

goddamn republicans. The budget cuts are gonna affect a lot of students.

mandingueiro: goddamn republicans. The budget cuts are gonna affect a lot of students.

Gosh damn democrats. The tax increases are gonna affect a lot of families.

DeCypher44: I honestly don't know, but would a bankruptcy solve that problem? Serious question.

Under the law, states cannot file for bankruptcy.

If the state were to go insolvent in some other manner--in other words, stop paying its bills and be unable to borrow money--it would be a worse situation than post-Katrina New Orleans. Think about it. Schools, police, fire, road maintenance, flood control, water delivery, mental hospitals, prisons, and every other government operation would not have the capital to operate and would shut down entirely or partially. It's simply not an option in a civilized society.

dj_bigbird: FAIL. The California government has doubled in size in 10 years with no appreciable increase in services.

That is simply false. Obviously the population has increased by millions over the past 10 years, and obviously there has been inflation growth, but in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, per-capita expenditures have been flat.

Cyberluddite: DeCypher44: I honestly don't know, but would a bankruptcy solve that problem? Serious question.

Under the law, states cannot file for bankruptcy.
....

Thanks. I honestly didn't know. I know counties can, but wasn't sure about states.

Cyberluddite: Under the law, states cannot file for bankruptcy.

No they can't, but they can eat macaroni and cheese and walk to work until they dig out of the hole..:)

Fu*king anarchists.

Yeah! Good for them! To Hell with actually doing your farking job and looking out fior the people who elected you! God damned douche bags.

Politics would be a lot easier if people just agreed with each other on solutions to problems.

maybe if there was just one political party without opposition. that'd be awesome

Cyberluddite: Putting aside the lack of merit of the view that PERS is the cause of the budget deficit, you're a lawyer, aren't you? So how is it that you don't understand that vested employment benefits cannot be changed after the fact? You can't legally have someone work under contract for 20 years in reliance on the contractual obligation that their retirement will be X, and then after they've already invested 20 years of their lives say "Oops, just kidding, your retirement will actually be X minus Y."

Oh, I know, I totally understand that. I'm just saying that those benefits are what is the real drain on the budget, and will continue to be so until something is done about it, even if that only applies to new employees going forward. I wouldn't be surprised if some current employees would be willing to renegotiate their retirement benefits that haven't vested yet in exchange for keeping their jobs (if the only other alternative is to fire them or furlough them). Either way, its a huge, huge drain on the public coffers.

KaponoFor3: Either way, its a huge, huge drain on the public coffers.

in PA, it was suggested that new state and teacher employees get a defined contribution plan (401k) instead of the defined benefits plan state employees have now.

which may be a good idea, as the two state pension funds lost 30 percent of their value last year

DeCypher44: Hell, we in California already have:

The highest Income tax
The highest Gas tax
The highest Car tax
The highest Business tax in the west

I'm probably off by a category above (I'm stressed out - not tax related). But I know that California is the highest in tax rates on 4 categories. Someone correct me where I may be wrong.

Income tax: Yes, California's top rate is the highest in the nation (by about .8%), though some states (New York, for example) also allow city or local income taxes that make the total tax rate higher than California's. This budget proposal is for an across-the board surchage of 2.5%--not 2.5 of income, but 2.5% of the tax owed (so, for example, if you currently pay $1000 in income tax, you would pay another whole 25 bucks next year.

Gas tax: Not. Even. Close. As you can see here, California is in the middle of the pack.

Car tax: Again, not even close. If you're talking about actual tax part of registration--the part deductible on your federal income taxes (there are CHP fees, etc. added that total another 25 or 30 bucks a year), I pay $140 in annual tax on my 4-year-old BMW, and six bucks in taxes on my 20+ year old Mercedes. Just ask people in other states what they pay.

The highest Business tax in the west: I don't know for sure, but I assume this is probably correct. Though the budget bill up for consideration now offers some significant business tax cuts.

Of course, what about property taxes, though? Thanks to Prop 13, and thanks to the fact that I bought my home 11 years ago when prices were much lower, on a home that's probably worth--who knows given the current depreciation, but I'm gonna guess still about $475,000--I pay annual property taxes of $1600. Is there anybody here from some other state who can claim that they would pay less than that for a home of that value in their state? Of course, my neighbor--who bought her house much more recently, pays over $4000, even though her house is smaller and worth less than mine, but the majority of California homeowners are in my boat, not hers.

Well, although I'm not entirely on board with the Republicans on this, it's very good to see at least part the GOP concentrating on taxes and spending again -- because sometimes they actually make sense on these issues, and my fellow Dems do have a pronounced tendency to turn temporary revenue increases itno permanent spending obligations.

Considering that Republicans for the past decade have generally talked about little else than the need for torture, the existential threat posed by those evil homosexuals, why we need to fight lots and lots of wars against random countries, the innate superiority of evangelical Christians, why gays are evil and dangerous, creationism, how gays want to rape your kids, why due process of law is an outdated concept, and don't forget those damn gays, I'm downright pleased to see them returning to their obstructionist anti-spending roots.

The entertainment industry rakes in money hand over fist and you people can't figure out a way to have Mel Gibson pay police salaries and for Steven Spielberg to cover the state's school budget?

Cyberluddite: I pay $140 in annual tax on my 4-year-old BMW, and six bucks in taxes on my 20+ year old Mercedes

Dude, you have a BMW and a Mercedes? You rich bastid!

Cyberluddite: Gas tax: Not. Even. Close. As you can see here, California is in the middle of the pack.

That is from 2005. Check here for the latest. California is WAY up there. Fuel Taxes (new window)

GaryPDX: Cyberluddite: Under the law, states cannot file for bankruptcy.
No they can't, but they can eat macaroni and cheese and walk to work until they dig out of the hole..:)

Well, that's what's happening now. Ah-nuhld has suspended various construction projects (roads and prisons, among other things), as he had to do, because there are no budget funds allocated to it. So who will bear the brunt of that? Private contractors, and their employees who will now be laid off and will instead have to collect unemployment benefits (paid for out of--you guessed it--state budget funds). And, of course, those laid off construction workers won't be buying any new trucks or TVs or going out to dinner, etc., so the retail industry suffers too. And it continues to trickle down from there.

For a very quick lesson in how this works, take a trip to downtown Sacramento right now--on a "furlough Friday" or any other day. Since the furloughs/layoffs were announced, every downtown business is waaay down. The restaurants are empty. You could shoot a cannon through the downtown mall stores and not hit anybody. State workers aren't spending money (and the state is the largest employer in Sacramento), the businesses that rely in part on state workers are losing money and laying off employees, those employees also have less money to spend and businesses they patronize are affected, and again it trickles down to every sector of the economy (but to say "trickle" suggests it's slow--it's much faster than that).

You'll see.

Oh, here is where I was wrong:

California Highest Sales Tax Rate (new window)

I wonder if the budget constraints will combine with the upcoming teacher crisis resulting in significantly lowered teacher pay.

DeCypher44: That is from 2005. Check here for the latest. California is WAY up there. Fuel Taxes (new window)

That table includes sales tax. Gas taxes, which apply only to gas, are charged on a flat per-gallon basis regardless of the pump price, while sales taxes, which apply to everything, are charged as a percentage of the pump price--so it's disproportionately high on a gallon of gas when the price is high. At a price of $3 gallon, which seems to be about what figure was used on that table, that would be about 22 cents more per gallon at 7.25%, but only about 11 cents in a low sales tax state that charges only 3.5% sales tax. Of course, if gas is $1 a gallon, there's only a 4 cent difference between those two states, while their per-gallon gas taxes don't change regardless of price. So when gas is high, California's total combined tax on a gallon of gas is much higher than the national average, but when gas is low, the combined tax is lower than those states that put higher flat-rate, per-gallon taxes on gas.

But you weren't talking about sales taxes, which apply to all purchases. You were talking about per-gallon gas tax, so you're comparing apples and oranges. And the bottom line is that the gas tax in California is in the middle of the pack as compared to other states.

cyberluddite, I agree with your tricle-down. Absolutely. However, the way I look at it is if you take MORE tax money out of consumers pockets, purchases will drop. When purchases drop, companies start to lay off. Those former employees will have LESS money and make even fewer (if no) purchases. Companies lay off more workers. The cycle continues.

The feds understand this. Obama is stimulating the economy by putting MORE money ion consumers wallets. This, in theory, will lead to stabilized growth (or even flat-not descending)in purchases. this would lead to larger profits for companies, who in turn will be able to hire more employees, and in turn create more money for individuals will spend.

Of course, there are two very different ways of looking at this, and you can see it by looking at the Democratically controlled state and the Democratically controlled Fed.

Cyberluddite: But you weren't talking about sales taxes, which apply to all purchases. You were talking about per-gallon gas tax, so you're comparing apples and oranges. And the bottom line is that the gas tax in California is in the middle of the pack as compared to other states.

My point is that we, in California, pay 3rd highest in "taxes" per gallon. To me, it doesn't matter what area the tax money goes to, it all comes from the same wallet.

DeCypher44: Oh, here is where I was wrong:
California Highest Sales Tax Rate (new window)

Well, not exactly, because some states that appear to have lower tax rates also extend the tax to food and services, while California only applies it to non-food retail merchandise. For example, according to that table California's sales tax rate is 7.25%, but even a low-service state like Mississippi (which is, as they say, one of those states that's last in everything you want to be first in and first in everything you want to be last in) charges 7% of everything, including food. I guarantee that they pay more sales tax as a percentage of income than Californians do.

But your point is still valid, California places way too much of its tax burden on sales tax, which is probably the most regressive form of tax out there. Sales taxes should be reduced and the burden should be shifted to other forms of taxation. Ah-nuld's demand to raise sales taxes as part of this budget compromise is the worst part of the deal.

DeCypher44: Hell, we in California already have:

The highest Income tax
The highest Gas tax
The highest Car tax
The highest Business tax in the west

This is squarely the fault of the California Democratic legislature for pushing so much damn spending. Every damn year, they spend-spend-spend.

And the union contracts, you know, the ones that have been the priciest contracts in the nation, bought with bribes to the state dems. Thos are killing us, as well.

According to NPR yesterday, you're not correct on either account. As Cyberluddite pointed out, Prop 13 has drastically reduced your ability to pay for things. But, another interesting consequence of your easy to pass ballot measures is that most state spending is tied up outside of the legislatures hands.

DeCypher44: My point is that we, in California, pay 3rd highest in "taxes" per gallon. To me, it doesn't matter what area the tax money goes to, it all comes from the same wallet.

When gas prices are high, yes. When gas prices are lower, no. The table you linked happens to take a snapshot of total taxes from a time when gas prices are high--when gas prices aren't so high most states that base all of their taxes on per-gallon calculations rather percentage-of-price calculations will generally be higher.

Yes, but the Dem legislators in California want to extend our already high sales tax rate to services as well. See, it just never stops. Spending has been out of control for far too long. We over-extended ourselves when revenue increased in the late 90s. Instead of being fiscally conservative, the Dem-controlled state legislature went on a spending spree and locked us into crazy obligations.

When Arnold was running for Gov, he repeated the statement that Californian's are "taxed, taxed, taxed". He was going to do something about it. He knew the spending was too high, that the taxes were too high. yet, after, what, 6 years, he's done nothing. And becuase of the districting, there will not be any shifts in representatives. So the dems will always have a near-stranglehold on policy and spending in California.

And in case anyone actually cares, my frustration is with the California Democratic Sate Legislators. I'm not a "right-wing" fanatic. I am registered as a Republican, but more because of fiscal policies. Heck, I voted for Obama! =)

sloppy shoes: But, another interesting consequence of your easy to pass ballot measures is that most state spending is tied up outside of the legislatures hands.

This is also a huge problem. Any special interest group--state-connected or otherwise--willing to throw enough money around to get a ballot initiative before the voters and run a bunch of misleading TV ads can get the idiot voters of this state to lock in funding for their pet projects at fixed levels forever, with no flexibility for the Legislature or the Governor to alter the calculation whether times are good or bad. That, together with Prop 13 and the 2/3 vote requirement to pass the annual budget, is a big part of why California is in the mess it's in.

sloppy shoes: But, another interesting consequence of your easy to pass ballot measures is that most state spending is tied up outside of the legislatures hands.

I agree with you there. Every damn election, more bonds are put on the ballot. My guess is that many voters in California don't understand what a bond is. Also, when voters see "schools", "children", "teachers", etc, they get all weak in the knees and pass measures for increases.

It has to be that. It just has to be. I just refuse to believe that people are ruining their own economy on purpose.

DeCypher44: Yes, but the Dem legislators in California want to extend our already high sales tax rate to services as well.

You need to get your facts straight. Actually, it was Arnold who was pressing for that (he wanted to extend it to certain services, including tickets for sporting events but not, surprise surpise, for movie tickets), but the Dems (and most Republicans as well) were pretty solidly opposed and Arnold eventually dropped the demand. Which is fortunate, because it was a stupid idea.

I have to say, this has been a very healthy debate here. It's been a while since we've had a "Politics" thread with such civility. That is, until 3:21 pm. ;)

/ducks

DeCypher44: When Arnold was running for Gov, he repeated the statement that Californian's are "taxed, taxed, taxed". He was going to do something about it. He knew the spending was too high, that the taxes were too high. yet, after, what, 6 years, he's done nothing. And becuase of the districting, there will not be any shifts in representatives. So the dems will always have a near-stranglehold on policy and spending in California.

I'm under the impression Arnold got hit with a hard dose of reality when he was elected. The out of control spending is due to bond issues that are outside of the State's direct control.

DeCypher44: Yes, but the Dem legislators in California want to extend our already high sales tax rate to services as well

PA did this during the 1991 recession, and it was a total failure--it's precisely the wrong thing to do during a business recession. the taxes were quickly repealed.

Cyberluddite: DeCypher44: Yes, but the Dem legislators in California want to extend our already high sales tax rate to services as well.

You need to get your facts straight. Actually, it was Arnold who was pressing for that (he wanted to extend it to certain services, including tickets for sporting events but not, surprise surpise, for movie tickets), but the Dems (and most Republicans as well) were pretty solidly opposed and Arnold eventually dropped the demand. Which is fortunate, because it was a stupid idea.


I thought there were some Dem leaders who proposed it to Arnold when he asked for all ideas and that everything was on the table.

That kinda sums up the modern GOP. Someone is willing to negotiate, so they kick him out and go back to being obstructionist.

DeCypher44: And becuase of the districting, there will not be any shifts in representatives. So the dems will always have a near-stranglehold on policy and spending in California.

Well, with the 2/3 vote requirement for budgets, the Dems have nothing like a stranglehold, as we're seeing right now. Some Repubs have to get on board as well. But the minority Republicans seem to feel that because they're few in number, they need to be much louder, and yet their inflexibility continues to cost them elections, to the extent that the Dems are only 3 votes shy of having 2/3 of both houses all by themselves.

One proposal that Arnold has made that I kind of like the sound of is to make the Assembly and Senate non-partisan races. That may be a good idea. There is way too much--among both Dems and Republicans--of this "my caucus says this, so that's how I'm gonna vote" shiat. Accordingly, the Dems elected to office in California seem to be take up the knee-jerk "liberal" view whether it's a good idea or not, while the Republicans elected to office tend to be way, way more right-wing than the average Republican voter who put them in office. All of these retards, Dem and Repub alike, need to think a little more about what's right for the state rather than what the official party line is, and making the office nonpartisan may help accomplish that.

DeCypher44: I thought there were some Dem leaders who proposed it to Arnold when he asked for all ideas and that everything was on the table.

Other way around, I think. But anyway, it never made it into any of the budget bills actually offered by the Dems, it was only in the Governor's proposals, which never got put in a bill. And it was pretty roundly criticized by the legislators in both parties when Arnold proposed it--everything from the concept itself to absurdity of the fact that the former action movie star was careful to exempt movie tickets, of all things, from the proposed tax.