If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Californians approve massive tax hike for the wealthy, anyone who still has a job, home or car   (money.cnn.com) divider line 133
    More: Followup, Californians, Department of Finance, state sales tax, Economic Calendar, Legislative Analyst's Office, personal incomes, LCD TV, Apple iPad  
•       •       •

1946 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 03:36:55 PM  
ecx.images-amazon.com

/"Is this a sign?"
 
2012-11-09 03:37:03 PM  

badaboom: CPennypacker: badaboom: pacified: So a guy making $500,000 pays $5,000 more a year. BOO FARKING HOO.

Over 26 pay checks, that amounts to $192 a pay period.

So from his $19,200 pay check, $200 more is taken.

They won't even notice.

All Republicans are a sad joke.

If only it were that simple. That guy does not take that $5000 and stuff it in his mattress. He renovates his bathroom ($$ for the plumber), he goes on vacation($$ for the baggage handlers, $$ for the hotel staff), he buys a new TV ($$ for the guy who cleans the store), or he even gives it to charity.

Actually he probably just buys stocks with it.

Which then makes stocks go up which helps the TIAA/CREF and pension funds.......


Yeah that $5,000 is a real market mover.
 
2012-11-09 03:41:38 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Oh no! A MASSIVE TAX HIKE!!!

Oh my god, they finally went and did it. What did they do, raise the top bracket to 50% or something?

When you stop to consider that, the only reason California is raising the rate is because they have so many social programs handing out money and free services that they are going bankrupt, it really doesn't matter if it was a 50% hike or at 0.1% hike - it is still taking money from hard-working capitalist to fund unnecessary social programs.


Lucky LaRue: Kibbler: ONE POINT ONE PERCENT. MY GOD.

How about before you take 1.1% of anyone's income, you stop spending public money to feed, educate, and provide medical insurance to illegal immigrants?


I was wondering when the mentally retarded were going to weigh in on this issue.

/my apologies to anyone with mental deficiency for debasing you with this comparison
 
2012-11-09 03:42:27 PM  

Lucky LaRue: It's about spending it to fund inefficient systems...


Which inefficient systems are you referring to? Are these 'inefficient' offices state and local offices?
 
2012-11-09 03:42:45 PM  

CPennypacker: badaboom: CPennypacker: badaboom: pacified: So a guy making $500,000 pays $5,000 more a year. BOO FARKING HOO.

Over 26 pay checks, that amounts to $192 a pay period.

So from his $19,200 pay check, $200 more is taken.

They won't even notice.

All Republicans are a sad joke.

If only it were that simple. That guy does not take that $5000 and stuff it in his mattress. He renovates his bathroom ($$ for the plumber), he goes on vacation($$ for the baggage handlers, $$ for the hotel staff), he buys a new TV ($$ for the guy who cleans the store), or he even gives it to charity.

Actually he probably just buys stocks with it.

Which then makes stocks go up which helps the TIAA/CREF and pension funds.......

Yeah that $5,000 is a real market mover.


X 100,000 people?
 
2012-11-09 03:45:58 PM  

un4gvn666: I was wondering when the mentally retarded were going to weigh in on this issue.

/my apologies to anyone with mental deficiency for debasing you with this comparison


I think that someone who seems willing to hand over their hard-earned money to their government without the expectation of accountability or fiscal responsibility should be more introspective about how they use accusations of mental deficiency.
 
2012-11-09 03:46:41 PM  
Silly Jesus: Conveniently, a non-partison CBO study came out today on this exact topic. Guess what it said. Go on, guess.
That raising taxes on the wealthy won't affect growth.
So take more from him because, hey, it's just a rich guy, screw him?

No. Because he actually 'can' be taxed more. "You can't squeeze blood from a rock." The bottom three quarters of the country has little, if anything, to give. That's the concept behind a progressive tax system. The more you make, the greater percentage you pay. It worked during the boom years of the 50's, and 60's, and no reason it won't work again.
Touche.
Personally, I'd take it further. But baby steps are in order here.
 
2012-11-09 03:47:57 PM  

Lucky LaRue: MadHatter500: Lucky LaRue: Kibbler: ONE POINT ONE PERCENT. MY GOD.

How about before you take 1.1% of anyone's income, you stop spending public money to feed, educate, and provide medical insurance to illegal immigrants?

Ok. Hey all you illegals, please line up over here and get your naturalization. Simple process. Raise your right hand... say I agree to be a US citizen. Now please fill out your forms over on the table over there. Thank you.

Now no illegal immigrants are getting benefits. Happy?

Be as dismissive about the problem as you like, but it doesn't solve anything. You feel warm and comfortable in your smugness as you hand out money and free services to the rest of the world, but I have no doubt you will be full of concern and angst the next time the government raises defense spending.


What money and free services are we handing out?
 
2012-11-09 03:49:03 PM  

Lucky LaRue: MSFT: The ten most educated states voted for Obama while 9 of the 10 worst educated states voted for Romney.
Thoughts?

I think your smarmy attitude is a perfect example of why this phenomena occurs. Uneducated people don't like to be reminded they are dumb, and they really resent people like you - who are better off than they are - speaking to them in condescending tones about why they, their political opinions, and their values are inferior. That they stand in opposition to everything you represent shouldn't surprise you, it should make you ashamed that the kind of "help" you offer elicits that kind of reaction.


Maybe you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and read a book. They even have socialist book stores where you can check out books for free.
 
2012-11-09 03:49:22 PM  

badaboom: CPennypacker: badaboom: CPennypacker: badaboom: pacified: So a guy making $500,000 pays $5,000 more a year. BOO FARKING HOO.

Over 26 pay checks, that amounts to $192 a pay period.

So from his $19,200 pay check, $200 more is taken.

They won't even notice.

All Republicans are a sad joke.

If only it were that simple. That guy does not take that $5000 and stuff it in his mattress. He renovates his bathroom ($$ for the plumber), he goes on vacation($$ for the baggage handlers, $$ for the hotel staff), he buys a new TV ($$ for the guy who cleans the store), or he even gives it to charity.

Actually he probably just buys stocks with it.

Which then makes stocks go up which helps the TIAA/CREF and pension funds.......

Yeah that $5,000 is a real market mover.

X 100,000 people?


If you think a $500,000,000 increase in investment capital over the course of a year across the entire market is going to have enough of an impact to justify incurring debt to pay for it then you should probably keep quiet in threads where adults are talking about the economy.
 
2012-11-09 04:03:52 PM  

bookman: Insatiable Jesus: Silly Jesus: [stratoserve.typepad.com image 225x292]

Conveniently, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a study today showing that raising taxes on the evil rich slows the growth of the economy. Good job California.


Yeah, good on them. Since the way it works now is that an expanding economy benefits mostly the rich.

Yes, the poor that starve to death are acceptable collateral damage for sticking it to the rich.

Envy, how does it wurk? LOL!

Actually, this is great news. Seriously. Exactly according to the model.


What's funny is that the study Silly Jesus was referring to shows nothing of the sort.
 
2012-11-09 04:04:19 PM  

Lucky LaRue: un4gvn666: I was wondering when the mentally retarded were going to weigh in on this issue.

/my apologies to anyone with mental deficiency for debasing you with this comparison

I think that someone who seems willing to hand over their hard-earned money to their government without the expectation of accountability or fiscal responsibility should be more introspective about how they use accusations of mental deficiency.


So what is your opinion of ridiculous amount of military spending we do? The DoD is neither accountable nor fiscally responsibie. It is also unlikely that their results are even quantifiable.
 
2012-11-09 04:04:43 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Oh no! A MASSIVE TAX HIKE!!!

Oh my god, they finally went and did it. What did they do, raise the top bracket to 50% or something?

The wealthiest 1% of Californians -- those with annual incomes of $533,000 or more -- will shoulder nearly 79% of the tax increase, according to the California Budget Project, a research group that endorsed the proposition. They will see their taxes rise by 1.1% of their income, while the bottom four-fifths of the state's residents will see an increase of between 0.1% and 0.2% of their incomes.

[nofactzone.s3.amazonaws.com image 610x405]


I have no problem whatever with that. And to those who complain about a slanted tax increase being "unfair," I got news for you. Taxes aren't about being fair, they're about raising money. And obscenely wealthy people are where the money is.

Hey, a couple hundred years ago, in Britain, they taxed the number of windows in your house -- so some people boarded them over and sat in the dark. Then they taxed the number of fireplaces -- so some people bricked them up and froze while they sat in the dark. There are always going to be people who don't think they should have to contribute to running the country.

Perhaps we should institute a tax on the number of football games and NASCAR races people watch on television. Or a special federal tax on fast food. Maybe a tax on every pound you weigh over the national average for your height. Isn't that fair?
 
2012-11-09 04:06:25 PM  

HeartBurnKid: bookman: Insatiable Jesus: Silly Jesus: [stratoserve.typepad.com image 225x292]

Conveniently, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a study today showing that raising taxes on the evil rich slows the growth of the economy. Good job California.


Yeah, good on them. Since the way it works now is that an expanding economy benefits mostly the rich.

Yes, the poor that starve to death are acceptable collateral damage for sticking it to the rich.

Envy, how does it wurk? LOL!

Actually, this is great news. Seriously. Exactly according to the model.

What's funny is that the study Silly Jesus was referring to shows nothing of the sort.


As I pointed out in that thread, the study actually does say that the economy will grow more slowly, although slightly, if taxes are increased on the rich. I think that's where the confusion comes from.
 
2012-11-09 04:20:50 PM  
"It's only 1%, what's the big deal?"

Because they've been "only 1%" so much that we now have the 4th highest taxes in the country (behind NY, NJ, and Connecticut). It's not a farking revenue problem. It's a spending problem. The people of this state don't understand the concept of living within your means.
 
2012-11-09 04:24:04 PM  

Lucky LaRue: I think that someone who seems willing to hand over their hard-earned money to their government without the expectation of accountability or fiscal responsibility


Oh, you're just FULL of bullshiat assumptions today, aren't you?
 
2012-11-09 04:32:22 PM  

Lucky LaRue: un4gvn666: I was wondering when the mentally retarded were going to weigh in on this issue.

/my apologies to anyone with mental deficiency for debasing you with this comparison

I think that someone who seems willing to hand over their hard-earned money to their government without the expectation of accountability or fiscal responsibility should be more introspective about how they use accusations of mental deficiency.


Gosh, what a smarmy attitude. Do you really expect to win people over like that?
lol
 
2012-11-09 05:02:32 PM  

CPennypacker: badaboom: pacified: So a guy making $500,000 pays $5,000 more a year. BOO FARKING HOO.

Over 26 pay checks, that amounts to $192 a pay period.

So from his $19,200 pay check, $200 more is taken.

They won't even notice.

All Republicans are a sad joke.

If only it were that simple. That guy does not take that $5000 and stuff it in his mattress. He renovates his bathroom ($$ for the plumber), he goes on vacation($$ for the baggage handlers, $$ for the hotel staff), he buys a new TV ($$ for the guy who cleans the store), or he even gives it to charity.

Actually he probably just buys stocks with it.


As someone who will get hit with this tax, you are correct. This will amount to less money going to the retirement savings in my brokerage account. It kinda sucks, but the happy go lucky part of me is just thankful I make the money I make so it's hard for me to be bitter. One of my business partners however is entirely greed motivated so he's all burnt up about it (and he keeps saying it's going up to a rate of 14% for everything over 250k, so he's angry and misinformed).

I am going to do that minor bathroom upgrade anyway (the wife really wants one of those fancy Kohler robo toilets) we are really just waiting for Christmas time when we're assuming the price of the unit to come down a lot. We're still going on vacation, we'll be spreading the wealth to Central America over the holidays and next year we're going to help out the depressed Euro economies for a couple of weeks regardless of this tax increase passing. I'm going to buy a new car soon regardless of these taxes (to replace my current 21 year old 180k+ mile car, hey, you don't get rich by spending money no matter what the taxes are). The only thing affected is going to be my retirement savings since a retirement is the only thing I really want that I can't afford yet (well, some days I want a boat but I'd rather save for retirement so one day perhaps I can have the boat and the time to enjoy it).

On another tangent, It's not quite $5000 for a guy making $500,000. Marginal rates and all that. For a single person it's an extra one percent for income between 250,000 and 300,000, an extra two percent for income between 300k and 500k. So the guy making 500k gets hit with; the first 50k at 1%, which is $500, plus the next 200k at 2% which is $4000, carry the one, and so if my jet lagged lack of sleep addled brain isn't failing me it would be another $4500.

However if it were a married couple making $500,000 the total additional taxes would be $0. For singles people it's an extra one percent on each bracket with the brackets at 250k, 300k, 500k for couples it's an extra one percent each at 500k, 600k, 1m. See Fig 2 on page 13 for the rate increase details.
 
2012-11-09 05:17:55 PM  
Why should I care about the problems of the rich? They don't care about my problems, so why should I care about theirs? A guy making 1/2 a million a year having to pay $200 more per paycheck is a perfect opportunity to play the world's smallest violin.
 
2012-11-09 05:40:28 PM  

OgreMagi: "It's only 1%, what's the big deal?"

Because they've been "only 1%" so much that we now have the 4th highest taxes in the country (behind NY, NJ, and Connecticut). It's not a farking revenue problem. It's a spending problem. The people of this state don't understand the concept of living within your means.


In other news, half of the states in the US have a higher tax rate than the average.
 
2012-11-09 06:25:04 PM  

Attention, wingnuts! What raving commie pinko liberal wrote this?

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.


If you said "Karl Marx", then click here to claim your prize, and then here for the quote in context.
 
2012-11-09 06:52:52 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: In other news, half of the states in the US have a higher tax rate than the averagemedian.


The average(mean) and median are only the same for distributions that are symmetric about the median.
 
2012-11-09 07:27:10 PM  
San Francisco is preparing to become the first U.S. city to provide and cover the cost of sex reassignment surgeries for uninsured transgender residents.- MSN NEWS

And...done.
 
2012-11-09 09:09:53 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: OgreMagi: "It's only 1%, what's the big deal?"

Because they've been "only 1%" so much that we now have the 4th highest taxes in the country (behind NY, NJ, and Connecticut). It's not a farking revenue problem. It's a spending problem. The people of this state don't understand the concept of living within your means.

In other news, half of the states in the US have a higher tax rate than the average.


So? Did you fail to notice the "4th highest" part? Our taxes are way out of line with the "average".
 
2012-11-09 09:11:45 PM  

clowncar on fire: San Francisco is preparing to become the first U.S. city to provide and cover the cost of sex reassignment surgeries for uninsured transgender residents.- MSN NEWS

And...done.


And this is why California is broke. Yes, it's a city thing, but they'll beg the money out of the state because San Francisco is also broke. The state will give them the money to avoid being called poopie-head and other mean names, then push for yet another tax increase.
 
2012-11-09 09:22:50 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: YoungSwedishBlonde: In other news, half of the states in the US have a higher tax rate than the averagemedian.

The average(mean) and median are only the same for distributions that are symmetric about the median.


Thank you, I left for work before noticing that.

OgreMagi: So? Did you fail to notice the "4th highest" part? Our taxes are way out of line with the "average".


And in any data set, you're going to have a highest and lowest. Despite this "massive" tax hike, you're still not the "worst" in the nation taking you at your word about it being 4th. And it also ignores measuring those tax rates versus the benefits it provides to the citizenry. There's a reason why the states you mentioned, California, NY, NJ and Connecticut are among some of the most populated states in the nation and have the highest concentrations of business clout while presumably lower/"better" taxed states are not as populated and have less in the way of jobs/opportunities. That is because the citizenry see value in what those taxes provide and act accordingly.
 
2012-11-09 10:17:05 PM  

OgreMagi: And this is why California is broke. Yes, it's a city thing, but they'll beg the money out of the state because San Francisco is also broke. The state will give them the money to avoid being called poopie-head and other mean names, then push for yet another tax increase.


It's broke because of a symbolic gesture because the city doesn't have the expertise, capacity or protocols to do it anyway? Also SF isn't broke; it's actually rebounding and expects to close it's projected deficit.
 
Ehh
2012-11-10 12:15:50 AM  
Lotta rich people from around the world want to buy in California right now. They're buying land and green cards. Howl away, zillionaires who live on the California coastline. If you sell and leave, others will take your place.

The state is beyond broke. Local governments are beyond broke. Yet there's fantastic private wealth in California. Hmmmm.
 
2012-11-10 01:57:08 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Monkeyhouse Zendo: YoungSwedishBlonde: In other news, half of the states in the US have a higher tax rate than the averagemedian.

The average(mean) and median are only the same for distributions that are symmetric about the median.

Thank you, I left for work before noticing that.

OgreMagi: So? Did you fail to notice the "4th highest" part? Our taxes are way out of line with the "average".

And in any data set, you're going to have a highest and lowest. Despite this "massive" tax hike, you're still not the "worst" in the nation taking you at your word about it being 4th. And it also ignores measuring those tax rates versus the benefits it provides to the citizenry. There's a reason why the states you mentioned, California, NY, NJ and Connecticut are among some of the most populated states in the nation and have the highest concentrations of business clout while presumably lower/"better" taxed states are not as populated and have less in the way of jobs/opportunities. That is because the citizenry see value in what those taxes provide and act accordingly.


We're (California) rated #4 based on 2010 data, the most recent available. It's easy enough to look up with google. But it's not just taxes. They've upped fees for just about everything, e.g. motor vehicle registration, etc. And while they are upping the fees, they are reducing service (the department of motor vehicles has been running under reduced hours for the last few years). I understand the need for cutting service and perhaps raising fees, but when you are suffering from a fiscal crises as we have for years, you have to stop spending like drunken sailors (with an apology to drunk sailors who only spend their own money) and reassess your priorities.

California is also considered one of the most business unfriendly climates in the country (I'm sure NY beats us out on that as well). The higher business taxes and fees may seem like a good idea in the short term, but when they get too high any business that isn't geographically bound will seriously consider moving elsewhere -- which has been happening. The state just passed Proposition 39, which taxes out of state businesses based on their in state sales. I'm not sure that is even legal (interstate commerce, etc) and I expect that to be challenged in the courts. It was pushed as a way to punish businesses for moving out of state. The smart thing would have been to examine WHY businesses are moving out of state in such numbers that it is seriously impacting tax revenues.
 
2012-11-10 02:27:56 AM  

mgshamster: Kazrath: This pisses me off. And I don't mean the tax hike.

"Proposition 30, which Governor Jerry Brown has lobbied heavily for, captured 54% of the vote. Its approval prevents massive budget cuts to the state's public schools and universities. "

This politicking of holding the education of our children hostage pisses me off. Why not perform major cuts in some other Bullshiat sector like I dunno government administration. Or some other nearly purposeless governmental organization. No, they go for something we actually need in hopes to lobby their support of the tax hike. Everyone of these MF'ers need to be strung up on the nearest tree.

/And I don't even live in California.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to what is going on in California. We've been experiencing spending cuts in all sectors. This tax hike is to relieve the spending cuts in education.


You =

farm9.staticflickr.com


Seriously. How farkING RETARDED ARE YOU????

The tax hike (which hits everyone), goes into the general fund, NOT ANY EDUCATIONAL FUND YOU GODDAMN RETARD.

Jesus H. Christ tap dancing on a Saltine cracker, you're one dumb ass fricking retarded retard.

27.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-10 03:03:02 AM  

Anonymocoso: So how do you raise taxes on rich people in California without them becoming rich people in Nevada or rich people in Florida? Or rich people in Singapore?


Ties to the region and the fact that California is a nice place to live.
 
2012-11-10 03:47:47 AM  

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: The tax hike (which hits everyone), goes into the general fund, NOT ANY EDUCATIONAL FUND


That seems to be the point everyone missed in that stupid ballot initiative. "Please think of the children! *snicker*" People fell for it.
 
2012-11-10 01:03:57 PM  

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: mgshamster: Kazrath: This pisses me off. And I don't mean the tax hike.

"Proposition 30, which Governor Jerry Brown has lobbied heavily for, captured 54% of the vote. Its approval prevents massive budget cuts to the state's public schools and universities. "

This politicking of holding the education of our children hostage pisses me off. Why not perform major cuts in some other Bullshiat sector like I dunno government administration. Or some other nearly purposeless governmental organization. No, they go for something we actually need in hopes to lobby their support of the tax hike. Everyone of these MF'ers need to be strung up on the nearest tree.

/And I don't even live in California.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to what is going on in California. We've been experiencing spending cuts in all sectors. This tax hike is to relieve the spending cuts in education.

You =

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 600x615]

Seriously. How farkING RETARDED ARE YOU????

The tax hike (which hits everyone), goes into the general fund, NOT ANY EDUCATIONAL FUND YOU GODDAMN RETARD.

Jesus H. Christ tap dancing on a Saltine cracker, you're one dumb ass fricking retarded retard.

[27.media.tumblr.com image 850x936]


Ha! Those images are hilarious.

Anyways, I know you're just being a retarded troll, so I'll respond just in case anyone else is still reading this.

First off, I was originally responding to the idea that Prop 30 was using a scare tactic, and that we have not actually been cutting funds from education or any other services. That is flat out wrong. We've been cutting funds for services across the state. While I would love to see administration costs cut, it doesn't change the fact that services across the state have reduced funding.

Secondly, you are absolutely correct that the revenue goes into the General Fund. In fact, the General Fund is exactly what pays for all public education in California, from local schools to universities. What you may not be aware of is that Prop 30 specifically creates a new sub-account in the General Fund, called the Education Protection Account, for which the funds from the new taxes goes into, according to Section 4(e)(1). Written into the bill is a specific clause that states the funds can only be used for education, and not administrative costs, and any misuse can result in criminal prosecution (and the account is subjected to a yearly audit). It also provides funds for police training, jails, mental health, and preventing child abuse.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report