Originally Posted By cmpaley First, this whole thing about the DMV is ridiculous. Cutting service hours at the DMV will do absolutely NOTHING to deal wit the budget deficit. DMV is funded by fees collected by...the DMV. EDD, where people go for unemployment benefits, is funded by the Federal government as are certain aspects of the Department of Social Services. In fact, a lot of agencies are neutral in terms of the revenue they generate and the cost necessary to operate them. Others are actually revenue positive (and I'm not talking about the Franchise Tax Board or the Board of Equalization). Cal-OSHA is a good example of this: 50% Federal funding plus about 33% special funds and the remaining 17% funding from the General Fund, but Cal-OSHA generates more than it receives from the General Fund. And state employees...compensation (everything) is about 18% of the total budget, but that's not taking into account the funding source for those employees' pay. That pay comes from the budget for each department, much of which has nothing to do with the deficit. I agree with consolidating some boards and departments. Heck, I'd like to see the Legislature reduced in size to one house instead of the current bicameral (two house) system we have now. I understand the need for the Congress to have two houses, but the state has no such need. It's not as if California Senators represent counties (akin to U S Senators representing the various states). I'd also like to see a reduction of what is called CEA's (Career Executive Assignments) which are a back door way to re institute the old, corrupt spoils system. There is no reason for this. It adds additional layers of highly paid managers who do nothing but politic and make terrible decisions.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting to note, here are the comments placed on pages 2 and 3 of the Orange County Register Today.... (And while the state voted about 2 to 1 against the first five props, in Orange County, it was more like 3 to 1). <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/photos/ballot-state-morning-2417980-coin-polls/pid2419336" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/phot...d2419336</a> >>"I don't believe in them. I think they are a waste of taxpayer money. ... I think it's Sacramento from the governor on down.'' -- Noreen Peadick, 56, of Rancho Santa Margarita "I think this election is stupid. They should just let the state go bankrupt and fire all the politicians. I voted for Schwarzenegger twice, and now I'm sorry."-- William Buskirk, 72, Anaheim Hills "I'm against any tax increases. When you compare state employee salaries across the nation, California is paid highly. ... I pretty much blame all the special interest groups. When you work in government, you are going to be swayed by who pays you most.'' -- Q. Do, Irvine "Basically, they're trying to borrow money that's not theirs ... to solve a problem they can't solve. ... I hold responsible overpaid bureacrats who, you know, vote themselves pay increases rather than look at the big picture.'' -- James English, 43, of Rancho Santa Margarita "I do not favor the propositions. It seemed to me the government just passed the buck to the voters for a bad budget. ... I would have to blame the Legislature. Two or three years ago, we had a surplus, now we are millions in the hole. That is just bad long-term planning.'' -- Andrew Costley, Irvine John Farinacci, 60, leaves after voting at the City Plaza / Council Chambers polling place for District 41611 in Dana Point, Tuesday, May 19, 2009. "It's a sad state of affairs that we have to be in this position in the first place," said Farinacci, "Because there has been a lot of fiscal mismanagement." "What's worst is voter apathy," added Farinacci, "People complain but they won't be here to vote their opinion." "I do not favor the propositions. It's a patch, not a solution. ... Just the general government. If they had just kept up for the rate of inflation, we would be fine.'' -- Peter Michali, Irvine Art Kochman, 79, of Mission Viejo, steps into his polling place as the third voter at Precinct 47630 and signs in to cast his ballot at the Montanoso Recreation Center polling place in Mission Viejo, Tuesday, May 19, 2009. "I think this election is a waste of money," said Kochman, "It's the legislators responsibility to make the laws of this state. I've never trusted propositions, I feel they are structured to benefit special interests groups and not the public." William Smith, 64, leaves the polling place after his ballot is cast at the City Plaza / Council Chambers polling place for District 41611 in Dana Point, Tuesday, May 19, 2009. "I'm upset this (voter initiative) was necessary," said Smith, "There doesn't appear to be any winners in this situation." "This is a sad set of circumstances we're in," Smith added, "Voter initiatives take 50% plus one vote to pass and takes spending away from legislators." "They don't balance the budget, they just borrow and spend. ... I feel the entire Assembly and the governor are to blame. They don't have the fiscal health of the state in mind.'' -- Venkat Krishnan, Irvine "I voted no on everything. Why should we have to do their jobs? They aren't a part-time Legislature." -- Layne Fant, San Clemente "After four months of unemployment, I blame the economic situation on someone not stepping up. I'm a good carpenter, and I've lived here my whole life. Employers hiring illeagal workers aren't paying taxes and the government gets screwed twice -- they don't just pick fruit anymore, they are working in every job sector."-- David Abelsen, San Clemente "I'm not in favor of them. I think we spend too much money that we don't have as it is. ... The malaise begins with society not wanting to earn a living for themselves, and thinking they are entitled to something."-- John Stecker, 57, Huntington Beach "I have mixed feelings. I voted for them. Some of it is self-interest, because I work for a community college." -- Penny Gabourie, 65, Orange "I voted no on all the propositions except the last one. They need to run the state like a business and reduce their own expenses before they continue to ask for more funding. The economic mess shows irresponsible behavior on the part of the state legislature. It's not a governor problem." -- Leonard Driver, 56, Fullerton "I voted no on all of them. We've spent an awful lot of money the state didn't have, and I don't support things that cost a lot of money. I hold Californians as a whole responsible for the economy. Just because a star says something is good, doesn't make it so."-- Sue Denison, San Clemente "I don't favor propositions, because it's my understanding that they will raise taxes without controlling spending. The economy is a mess due to a combination of overspending by the state Legislature and the governor." -- Rick Hentschel, 49, Fullerton: "I think they are ridiculous. They were written to mislead the voters." -- Lee Reader, 53, Orange "I don't support the propositions because, we've got too big a government and they don't know how to stop spending. We have to maintain our own budget, so why shouldn't they? The economic mess has been building over time. Everybody wants something from the government." -- John Jackson, 71, Fullerton<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Ah yes, let's quote senior citizens ans a few people over 50 fromrather affluent south Orange County who don't want to pay any more taxes. Geniuses, all of them. The gross misconception is that California has the highest taxes in the nation. We don't. We're 18th, yet we're one of the richest states in the union. Reform Prop 13.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Well, says who... <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html" target="_blank">http://www.taxfoundation.org/r.../15.html</a> >>California's State/Local Tax Burden Above National Average Estimated at 10.5% of income, California's state/local tax burden percentage stands at 6th highest nationally, above the national average of 9.7%. Californians pay $5,028 per capita in state and local taxes. << >>California's Top Individual Income Tax Rate Is the Highest in the Nation With seven brackets and a top rate of 10.3 percent for those earning over $1,000,000. California's individual income tax has the second-highest rate and one of the most highly progressive structures in the nation. In 2006, California's individual income tax collections were $1,418 per person, which ranked 6th highest nationally. Since most small businesses are S Corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships, they pay their business taxes at the rates for individuals. That makes California's taxes on small businesses some of the most burdensome in the nation.<< >>California's Corporate Income Tax Rate is the Highest in the West Corporations looking to relocate, or even establish, a business in the West may shy away from California, as the state's 8.84% flat rate is the highest corporate tax rate in the West. Nationally, only eight states have a higher top corporate tax rate than California. In 2007, state-level corporate tax collections (excluding local taxes) in California were $307 per capita, which ranked 6th highest nationally. << >>Property Tax Collections Slightly Below Average Despite Proposition 13, California ranks in the middle of the pack when the states are ranked on combined state/local property tax collections. Proposition 13 favors people who have owned the same property many years by only permitting re-evaluations at resale. As in most states, local governments in California collect far more in property taxes than the state does. California's localities collected $968.01 per capita in property taxes in fiscal year 2006, the latest year for which the Census Bureau has published state-by-state data. At the state level, California collected $62.59 per capita during FY 2006. That brought its combined state/local property taxes to $1,030.60 per capita, ranked 28th highest nationally.<<
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones ">>California's Corporate Income Tax Rate is the Highest in the West" It should be. They benefit immensely from doing business in California. Corporate income growth have risen way above individual income growth rates.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html" target="_blank">http://www.census.gov/govs/sta...ank.html</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer OK, based on the link placed by SPP in post number 106, in regards to the 2005 taxes from 2005, California is number 10, NOT 18th as he claimed in post 103... And he has also claimed things liek classes ssizes between 50 to 100 students per classroom... Basically LYING about his facts! Multiple times!
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Lets try that again, with spell check this time... OK, based on the link placed by SPP in post number 106, in regards to the 2005 taxes from 2005, California is number 10, NOT 18th as he claimed in post 103... And he has also claimed things like classes sizes between 50 to 100 students per classroom... Basically LYING about his facts! Multiple times! And once again, it is what way you look at tax rates, and why I spelled out many different view in post #104...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You got me, I'm lying. 'Cept, I'm not you. <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-here-s-why-california-is-in-such-financial-trouble-r-1242858883" target="_blank">http://www.opposingviews.com/a...42858883</a> And how about that Prop 13, huh Darkbeer?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yup, 18th. <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=531" target="_blank">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...ocid=531</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Could swear I posted this already. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik21-2009may21,0,4354063.column" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/busines...3.column</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.hjta.org/studies-and-reports/after-30-years-prop-13-still-winner-california-voters-poll-shows" target="_blank">http://www.hjta.org/studies-an...ll-shows</a> >>A just-completed survey of California voters shows that Proposition 13, Howard Jarvis' landmark tax limitation measure approved by two-to-one in 1978, has overwhelming support today. The survey of 801 voters, conducted by Arnold Steinberg and Associates, Inc. reveals that about 48 percent support Proposition 13 while 20 percent are opposed and about 32 percent are undecided. When provided with information about what Proposition 13 does — placing limits on annual property tax increases and requiring voter approval of new local taxes — support swells to landslide proportions with 60.4 percent in favor, 26.6 against and 13 percent undecided. These results are consistent with a recent Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) survey that showed 59 percent of respondents thought Proposition 13 was good for the state while 27 percent disagreed. The survey, conducted between May 15 and May 22, represents a statistically valid cross-section of the California electorate and gave respondents the option of being interviewed in Spanish. "Voters clearly recognize that Proposition 13 benefits all homeowners, whether they bought 20 years ago or last week, by making taxes predictable," commented Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association president Jon Coupal. "By limiting increases to no more than 2% each year, property owners no longer have to fear the nasty surprises the tax bill could bring under the 'no limit' system in place prior to Proposition 13."<< <a href="http://www.hjta.org/pdf/2813_CalFinalAGG.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hjta.org/pdf/2813_C...lAGG.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-coupal3-2008jun03,0,2158158.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op...58.story</a> >>Bill Stall calls for a "face-lift" of Proposition 13 on its 30th anniversary, but to most Californians, it looks very good just the way it is. Howard Jarvis, the leader of California's most famous tax revolt, passed away more than 20 years ago, but over the last year his name continually popped up in newspaper articles across the United States. Property tax troubles were brewing throughout the country, and Jarvis' legacy, property-tax-cutting Proposition 13, was remembered by beleaguered taxpayers as something to be emulated to protect against out-of-control taxation. As Proposition 13 reaches its 30th anniversary on Friday, there have been no protests over high property taxes in the Golden State. Proposition 13 still has opponents and critics, but in recent polls, voters still support the measure by the same 2-to-1 margin it passed by three decades ago. Under the provisions of Proposition 13, California taxpayers enjoy a sense of security, knowing what their property taxes will be year to year. The same cannot be said for taxpayers in other states. Over the course of the last year, from Florida to Indiana to Arizona to Washington, the shock over dramatically rising property taxes led residents to swamp tax officials with appeals for lower assessments, to organize protests and to prepare initiatives to overhaul state property tax systems. Meanwhile, in California, taxpayers seem satisfied. Proposition 13's acquisition-type property tax system set the tax assessment when a property is purchased and capped future increases. Placed in the state Constitution by initiative in 1978, Proposition 13 stated that property tax rates could not exceed 1% of the property's market value and, absent a sale or major remodeling of the property, property value increases were capped at a maximum of 2% per year. If a property were purchased, the property could be reassessed at 1% of the new market value with the 2% cap put in place for yearly increases. Despite Proposition 13's initial tax cut, property tax revenue has been the most reliable of any tax revenue source in the state. It has not ebbed and flowed like the sales tax or, particularly, the income tax. California is currently facing a severe budget shortage because of the downturns in sales and income taxes coupled with legislative spending that exceeds revenue collection. However, because of the 2% yearly factor and change-of-ownership reassessments under Proposition 13, there has even been a steady increase of property tax dollars exceeding the inflation rate year in and year out. That is true even in difficult economic times. Because most properties are taxed at acquisition value plus 2% yearly increases, a property's value on the tax roll is usually much lower than current market value. So when the current market value drops, most properties, unless recently purchased, continue to pay the same taxes plus the 2% inflation increase. Property tax revenue in California counties has generally increased. Since 1980, Los Angeles County's property tax revenue has gone up by an average of 7% a year. Last year, the increase in revenue was over 9%. And even with the housing market taking a hit with the subprime loan crisis, officials indicate that the county will still show a positive property tax revenue flow of about 5% this year. As to Stall's recommendations of increasing property taxes on business and lowering the two-thirds vote to raise taxes, both are bad ideas. Efforts to raise property taxes on business property will only hurt the economy. Small businesses would suffer most, as many of their leases require them to pay any tax increase levied against the property. Without a two-thirds vote requirement for taxes, California taxpayers would be buried under a deluge of new taxes. The voters overwhelmingly rejected this idea in 2004. While local governments have enjoyed reliable property tax revenue under Proposition 13, taxpayers have enjoyed something they rarely, if ever, had under subjective property tax reassessments -- something taxpayers in other states are yearning for: tax certainty. The beauty of Proposition 13 is that it not only makes taxes predictable for property owners, which allows them to budget for taxes, it stabilizes revenue to those government agencies that depend on the property tax. Looking out across the property tax landscape, the trail blazed by Howard Jarvis still beckons others to follow.<<
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's an idea. Why doesn't the state of California charge DB $1.00 every time he just copies and pastes from links? The deficit would be fixed in about two weeks.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/20/MNL717O4J6.DTL&type=politics" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...politics</a> >>Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta (Riverside County), said the budget gap will have to be closed without taxes or borrowing. But he did not detail how he would do that. Hollingsworth, who opposed some of the key ballot measures in Tuesday's special election, said voters have lost "faith in the institution of government." That was the sentiment of Jim Wunderman, president of the Bay Area Council, a business group, who announced a formal effort calling for a constitutional convention to revamp state government and its budgeting process. "Our government has failed us," he said. "It's clear voters no longer trust Sacramento."<< >>Pay cuts The California Citizens Compensation Commission, which sets pay for state officials, took a step further Wednesday, voting to slash the pay for lawmakers and constitutional officers by 18 percent beginning December 2010. With the measures' failure on Tuesday, there's little choice for state leaders in solving the state's huge deficit, the governor said. "I think that the message was clear from the people. Go all out and make those cuts and live within your means," said Schwarzenegger, who has maintained he won't support new taxes to close the latest deficit, although he backed the February budget plan that included more than $12 billion in temporary tax increases.<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ">>Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta (Riverside County), said the budget gap will have to be closed without taxes or borrowing. But he did not detail how he would do that." Which only proves once and for all that Darkbeer doesn't have a freaking clue what he posts. Since he rarely interjects thoughts of his own, we can only conclude that his mind is devoid of original thought. Here, he copies a quote from a Republican who says he wants to close the budget gap without taxes BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW HE IS GOING TO DO THAT. And that is the problem with people like this and our Copy and Paste Poster. They DON'T HAVE A CLUE, AND YET THEY ADMIT IT. Here's a big clue for you, Darkbeer- IT CAN'T BE DONE. You can't just blabber on about cut cut cut without any idea whatsoever. Moreover, the Republicans in this state are a tiny minority. You DON'T get to dictate what happens. I've posted numerous things that should be done, reform Prop 13, eliminate the 2/3's majority needed for budget approval, eliminate terms limits, yet all you have is "cut, but we don't kow a damn thing after that". Your type is the exact reason this state is where it is right now. There's nogetting around. Your side, if you even know what your side wants to do, in detail, needs to come to the table with some actual ideas, or get the hell out of the way and let the grown ups do the work.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As for post 112, it also proves you don't read things. REFORM, not abolish, is what I've bheen saying. Any article that quotes Jon Coupal loses credibiity immediately. He's an idiot, and living 30 years in the past.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Prop 13 is absolutely screwing this state, and it is hurting school children the most. Funding for education has been chaos ever since it passed. And yet people who defend Prop 13 are okay with that. The hell with kids. Be proud, be very proud.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You DON'T get to dictate what happens.*** Apparently he does though (or, "they" do is more like it). You claim he is in a small majority, and yet the "no taxes" folks voted in great numbers. Which is it?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting to note, the State Lawmakers 18% cut is really deserving.. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget21-2009may21,0,3817104.story?page=2" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...y?page=2</a> >>Republican lawmakers also spoke of moving quickly but said they had drawn from the voters' ire a longer-term mission to fashion a drastically more limited and less costly state government. They said they would propose capping the number of days lawmakers spend in Sacramento, reducing pensions for state workers and shifting traditional state jobs to the private sector. "The people have clearly spoken, that they want to see the way Sacramento does business change," said Senate GOP leader Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta). The Citizens Compensation Commission wasted no time getting started with its vote to cut the salaries of the governor, legislators and other state officials elected next year. In the meantime, salaries for those positions will be frozen. "They should share in the sacrifices that everyone else has had to encounter," said Commissioner Kathy Sands -- a former mayor of Auburn, near Sacramento -- after the panel's 5-1 vote Tuesday at a meeting in Burbank. Schwarzenegger does not accept his salary of $212,000, but whoever is elected governor next year will receive only $173,840 -- meaning California's top position will no longer be the highest paid in the nation. New York's governor gets $179,000 a year. State lawmakers will remain the best-paid in the nation even with the scheduled wage cut from $116,208 to $95,291. They also retain paid living expenses of $35,000 a year.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Here's an idea. Why doesn't the state of California charge DB $1.00 every time he just copies and pastes from links? The deficit would be fixed in about two weeks.<< aaaaahahahahahaaaaa!!!!
