 81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | reply to jig
Re: Do your own CA budget here is my try at budget
»www.latimes.com/news/local/la-st···43/53/1/
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet |
|
 jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to sholling
said by sholling:said by jig:what it doesn't state is what percentage of income those earners pay. if the guy on the bottom pays 100% (a true salve) and the the guy on the top (threshold) pays 1%, the guy on top is making a bigger contribution, but feels it a whole lot less. All that matters is that he is paying a larger percentage of his income for the exact same same services. 1) you aren't reading what i wrote. 2) they aren't the exact same services.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
 shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by jig: 1) you aren't reading what i wrote. 2) they aren't the exact same services. They both rich and poor have equal access to the police, fire and paramedic services. Both have equal access to the courts. One chooses to make a success of him or her self and the other did not. The state provided no advantage to either. The state did not provide materials or customers, did not provide the land or building, did not provide workers. One chose to get off his ass and succeed and the other did not. But the state did not provide anything extra to the successful one and the state has no claim on his success.
If anything the successful one was provided society a service besides his labor, expertise, and/or product. The successful one created jobs, products, and services that drive the economy. Far from a drain on society - that's a huge bonus to our society.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to 81399672
surprised you chose all the one time fixes, the ones that we have to eventually pay back. with interest.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | said by jig:surprised you chose all the one time fixes, the ones that we have to eventually pay back. with interest. Yes but i did it because us economy is starting to recover..with any luck our state economy will pick up that we will be able to pay it back. It's judgment call, i didn't really want to cut health much as it will result in other problems that will cost state even more money.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to sholling
said by sholling:They both rich and poor have equal access to the police, fire and paramedic services. Both have equal access to the courts. One chooses to make a success of him or her self and the other did not. The state provided no advantage to either. The state did not provide materials or customers, did not provide the land or building, did not provide workers. One chose to get off his ass and succeed and the other did not. But the state did not provide anything extra to the successful one and the state has no claim on his success. If anything the successful one was provided society a service besides his labor, expertise, and/or product. The successful one created jobs, products, and services that drive the economy. Far from a drain on society - that's a huge bonus to our society. well, they certainly don't have equal access to the courts, but aside from that, the poor people live packed into small neghborhoods that cost a lot less in gas to patrol. the poor don't have mansions out in the brush that need 747 tankers to come in @ $3m/drop or whatever to protect their homes. the poor don't call an ambulance when their kid gets a skinned knee (you laugh, but it's happened). what the state did was provide the roads and the various free health services that allowed the rich folks to cut health benefits to their employees so they could get that extra 5% return on their sweatshops. oh, and the state provided the cal grants and the higher education system that probably supported both the high earner with his education and the education of his lowly workers. that's probably especially true if the high earner bootstrapped himself up - i'm sure he had state help of some kind. oh, and the poor don't require police patrol of their businesses.... because they don't own any. and they don't have house and biz alarms that go off and require a police roll when billy forgets the code every 5th thursday.
and what about the services? the high earner has created some jobs, but maybe he used an SBIR grant to get started, or some state version. i bet he got a bunch of deductions for starting and running the biz, and i bet there's been a few under the table tax dodges... the poor don't fly to Oregon to buy their cars. and i bet the high earner waters his lawn every day of the week, because he can pay - screw the pleebs that will eventually also have to pay more when the shortage gets worse.
the high earners draw more to make more. it's just how it is. if they don't draw it directly, then their client's do. or their employers do.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| You'll have to do better than that because none of your argument holds water. Roads are paid for by developers and gas taxes. Believe it or not sweatshops are rare in California and nobody holds a gun to your head to work a particular job. Everyone has the opportunity to improve their lives. All it takes is making a few good decisions and working your ass off as many hours as it takes. That's how most highly successful people got where they are.
Your argument about higher education is also off the mark. The employee that improved their lives by getting an education is the primary beneficiary of the state higher education system. If that bothers you then reduce the subsidy. The fact is that that high earner/business has provided the most important service of all - employment for the people of the state of california. He/she also provided goods and services desired by the people of california or he wouldn't be in business. In other words businesses and high earners are an asset and not a burden on society.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
|
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | tell it to cal trans, and gas taxes haven't paid the bill in a long time.
it's not about people being forced into jobs, its about employers (high earners) benefiting from state services.
you can make as many good decisions as you want, you still earn less if you live in N. Dakota.
who said i had a problem with education benefits? i'm just saying the money came from somewhere, and employers benefit from it. every business is part burden and part benefit - the corps just try to wave their hands and make people forget about the burdens.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by jig:tell it to cal trans, and gas taxes haven't paid the bill in a long time. Then why is the state constantly raiding gas taxes to prop up the general fund.
it's not about people being forced into jobs, its about employers (high earners) benefiting from state services. To no greater degree than anyone else - and they benefit society by providing jobs. That's a good thing! Would you prefer to live in a state without private employers?
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
 helioxNot at the table Carlos.Premium
join:2000-11-28
Irvine, CA
4 edits | reply to jig
It will be tight...but it has to be done.
My budget has a $175M surplus
Surplus: $175M Cuts: $19.5B. New Taxes: $4.6B
»www.latimes.com/news/local/la-st···/2/8/32/
[Edit - it keeps throwing in the gas tax...I am NOT advocating that. It's probably what the LATimes wants]
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to sholling
said by sholling:To no greater degree than anyone else they do... talk to some of the services guys who've tried to run things out of mexico, for contrast. even the manufacturing side. it may cost a little less to run in TJ, but you trade off for other problems.
all citizens in CA get benefits from the state. the high earners, whose earnings are dependent on the larger economy (though often still the CA economy) take a chunk of each of their employee's benefits, or their client's benefits. to first order, the only benefit they give the state is through direct taxes. through second order, they purchase services locally (hopefully) that create collateral taxes, but those other businesses exist because the state provides or had provided them benefits as well. there is very little you can do to earn $$ while living in the state without involving a state benefit to yourself, your employer, your clients. point being, the more you earn, the more your earnings depend on and are proportionate to the benefits provided by the state..
and that's just a bland justification for a progressive tax structure, not a pass on mismanagement at the congressional and executive level.
i think in general i'm unhappy that the state enters into contracts that go beyond any reasonable election limit 9regardles of what you think about the limits as they are now). there is some benefit to some long contracts - you can lock in a cost and plan around it. the problem is that the state seems to have locked in rates (not overall costs) that were always unsustainable, and they didn't limit the potential damage - this is poor negotiation.
there is a contract doctrine that allows one to back out when the cost is just too great to continue. it's not an easy standard to meet, but it's there. i guess a problem with backing out of the labor K's is that the whole budget is a huge mess, and counsel for the labor unions can probably always make a good argument that the "fault" lies with the state, not some external act of god. that, and i bet most juries are made up of pensioners. so, you'd have to win as a matter of law (so only a judge would look at it), and the apellate courts, and even the supreme court would have to sign off on it.
i guess what i'm saying is that at least GM, in making it's rediculous mistakes, can still file bankruptcy and get out from under some of it's more stupid obligations. states, however, do not seem to be able to file bankruptcy (i still need to figure this out - i think they could consent to being under the Jx of a bcy court), and so they have no recourse when they make stupid mistakes.
so, if a state can't fix a mistake by hitting the economic reboot, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to enter into long term contracts. labor or otherwise. hard choice, though, because sometimes those long term contracts are worth their weight in gold, when you can lock in the low price (though, of course, businesses have an easier time arguing extreme difficulty and changed circumstances).
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I agree with you about contracts longer than 4 years being a bad thing. I'd even say 2 years is a good number. But the state isn't going to be able to get out of long term contracts. Heck we're still over paying for electricity thanks to Grey Davis. The answer though is pretty simple. Outsource the functions. The civil service job is eliminated as the function is transferred to a private company. It's not difficult to negotiate a contract that ensures a set service level at a fixed price that's both affordable and sustainable.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | you can't outsource those decisions. |
|
shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by jig:you can't outsource those decisions. You can outsource labor and expertise. That's what companies like ADP bring to accounting, child support collections, and corporate taxes, they can bring that same expertise to vehicle registration, title transfers, etc. Companies like Prison Corporation of America (etc.) bring expertise to cutting prison costs. There are companies specializing in HR that can take over HR and benefits for those jobs (courts and law enforcement) that aren't outsourced. There are hundreds of companies specializing in contract management that can handle overall administration, and an army of engineering and construction businesses that can easily and cheaply replace Caltrans. All it takes is an expert writing the request for proposals and a solid set of service level agreements that vendors have to meet to avoid penalties.
The only thing blocking the economic salvation of California is the legislature's addiction to union money and it's about time that they got up off of their knees, wiped the union goo off their lips and stated looking out for the taxpayers.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | Hey, there are some pretty good computer consultants around who'd be happy to help too  |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to sholling
said by sholling:There are companies specializing in HR that can take over HR and benefits for those jobs (courts and law enforcement) that aren't outsourced. There are hundreds of companies specializing in contract management that can handle overall administration, and an army of engineering and construction businesses that can easily and cheaply replace Caltrans. All it takes is an expert writing the request for proposals and a solid set of service level agreements that vendors have to meet to avoid penalties. you see, it's entering into those agreements that's a big problem (at least one of them). if we had the expertise to do that, then we wouldn't need them in the first place.
also - HR is a really screwed up biz. i'd say there are at least 9 completely irresponsible companies for every one that can actually get a job done right. and out of those 1 in 10, maybe half are affordable. there's NO way i'd want a fly-by-night corp doing HR for the court system. i don't think it's needed much for the cops, either, but the review commission needs some teeth (that's a union lobby issue).
here's an example on your side: the management of the colleseum. it's done by a bunch of community leaders that... are idiots. they've never managed anything worthwhile, and they draw a salary, so they're going to drag it down kicking and screaming all the way. all they need to do is label it some kind of protected historical monument (or a portion of it, anyway) and then sell it to USC. That's one thing i'd like the governator (or the mayor) force through.
but the DMV.... i don't know about you, but my experience with the DMV (driver's and MC license) has been great. other than those thieves that were stealing private info (which has the same potential to happen no matter who does it), i haven't heard a complaint in a decade. have you had some problem? as a department, are they paid too much?
steve - what they need you for is auditing/compliance automation with automatic public reporting. wouldn't it be cool to see when an outside contractor missed their completion dates? (well, other than the guy maintaining the reporting system  )
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
