bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to sholling
Re: Do your own CA budget
I didn't see an option for raising taxes on ordinary people, other than ones who use too much gas, smoke and drink too much. 
--
bobrk |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| said by bobrk  :I didn't see an option for raising taxes on ordinary people, other than ones who use too much gas, smoke and drink too much. You could volunteer to pay more rather than trying to find other people to pay the bills. Nothing is stopping you.
We have a choice of reducing spending by $25 billion or driving the economy down so low that it makes the Great Depression look like a party by raising taxes. California has an 11.5% official unemployment rate.
»www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c···92.story
»chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=943
The real number when you add in the $80k software engineer that's delivering pizza for $150/wk because he/she can't find a job and the number is closer to between 18 and 20%. About 2 percentage points over the national average of 16.5%
quote:
It should be noted that the 11.2% unemployment rate that was posted in March is the U-3 rate - some have publicly stated that they believe that the U-6 unemployment rate is approaching the 20% mark in the state. The U-6 rate is a broader measure of unemployment, and includes people who want full-time work but have given up the search, as well as people who want full-time work but are forced to accept part-time jobs due to "economic" reasons.
»www.davemanuel.com/2009/04/18/ca···n-march/
»activerain.com/blogsview/1106707···ent-rate
»www.opednews.com/populum/linkfra···id=92203
»www.mybudget360.com/real-unemplo···sappear/
My question is why would we want to drive that higher by raising taxes and driving out businesses?
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA
·SONIC.NET
| Do you have the chart showing the rich people paying nothing in taxes? The ones that get the benefits of all the Bullshit loopholes and tax dodges put in by their cronies in the legislature? While regular Joe pays his fair share and doesn't get any breaks? Are you the regular Joe or the fat cat with the tax breaks?
--
bobrk |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| said by bobrk :Do you have the chart showing the rich people paying nothing in taxes? The ones that get the benefits of all the Bullshit loopholes and tax dodges put in by their cronies in the legislature? While regular Joe pays his fair share and doesn't get any breaks? Are you the regular Joe or the fat cat with the tax breaks? Please promise me you're too smart to believe that socialist bullshit. Because that's what it is.
Here is the federal breakdown for who is paying the bills. I'll look for the state versions, But I've seen it before and it's similar. The rich pay a huge amount in taxes. At the federal level the top 1% "fat cats" pay 40% of all income taxes. Lucky "fat cats". 
--
"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
| said by sholling : note: if you don't know what AGI is, or if you think threshold is at all related to mean or median, then you may be misinterpreting the stats.
what you want is the effective tax rate ranked by AGI, not the volume of what they pay in.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA | reply to sholling
You got a link for that chart? |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| said by bobrk :You got a link for that chart? »www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
»usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometax···most.htm
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| reply to jig
said by jig :said by sholling : note: if you don't know what AGI is, or if you think threshold is at all related to mean or median, then you may be misinterpreting the stats. what you want is the effective tax rate ranked by AGI, not the volume of what they pay in. Thank you but the assertion was that the wealthy don't pay taxes. This chart proves that the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes and that the top 5% pay 60%. It did precisely what I wanted it to do and blew that assertion out of the water. 
--
"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
| 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.
i'd like to know for sure how they are specifying "percentiles ranked by AGI". is that on your linked page? Basically, they're saying that half the US who report personal income make less than 32K a year. That doesn't jibe with other numbers I've seen.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| 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.
--
"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
| 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. |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| 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
| 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. |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| 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. |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| 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-- |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| 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. |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| 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. |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| 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-- |
|
