Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA If California taxes amusement parks, I'm going on a hunger strike. No more churros, popcorn, turkey legs, or mint juleps. See how Disney likes that!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Terrific. Just what our country needs as a President. Another old white guy.<< Aren't you better off today than you were seven years ago? Hello? Anyone?
Originally Posted By DAR <<Terrific. Just what our country needs as a President. Another old white guy.>> It was a response to deleted post you see above my original post. There's a few posts that just have random things said today.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Aren't you better off today than you were seven years ago? Hello? Anyone?>> I'll be honest and not sound cocky or anything but I really can't say too much is changed. I have a home and a very good job. I do have a second job, but I do that so I can get into the Brewers games for free. I realize I'm one of the luckier ones but I won't ever apologize for that.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Any time there is an addition to or an increase of a consumption tax, the entire amount of the tax is rarely passed on to the customer -- at least initially. Such a dramatic price increase would decrease demand and therefore total revenues for the product. So the tax would be split between the producer and the consumer (though the consumer's share would increase over time). Bottom line is that California needs the revenue. Over the past 15 years they have had strong revenues due to the technology and housing booms, but that is over for the foreseeable future. With their huge budget deficit, constitutionally locked-in spending (based on past revenues) and a lagging credit rating, they really don't have any option but to increase taxes.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Aren't you better off today than you were seven years ago? Hello? Anyone?>> Yes, but I don't credit the president with that at all. I have busted my donkey and am reaping the rewards.
Originally Posted By SFH >>Really? I understand it would be an increase, but Disney usually raises ap prices every year anyway.<< That's fine. If I choose whether or not I want to support Disney. I still do. I also choose whether or not I want to support another tax. I don't. And if theme/amusement parks don't keep the pressure on via their lobbyists and they let it happen, Disney will lose, too. I pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, and a whole range of other taxes. I am not going to pay taxes on Disneyland admission. Enough already. Actually, I could probably deduct those. But it is the principle. SFH
Originally Posted By dshyates "Aren't you better off today than you were seven years ago? Hello? Anyone?" No. No, I'm not. Seven years ago I lived in in a small house in Denver with my wife and 2 kids. Now, I am divorced, live in my parents garage in WV, and as of now I'm unemployed (but that is a recent development, and won't last long. which will solve some of the other problems). But I'm a news photographer and I'm going to have to move at least several hundred miles away from my kids to make enough money to live on. No, I'm not better off now.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Now, I am divorced>> I'm sorry to hear that but you can't really blame that on this administration.
Originally Posted By dshyates Well, The divorce happened about a year after the foreclosure and we had moved back into my folks house. And what happened in Denver wasn't cause by W. It had to do with the boom and bust of the cable industry there. When the national TV and communication center opened there it became the cable hub of the planet. Every cable channel in America opened a shop there and the need for industry pros was fantastic. I was already there, but watching it was very interesting. So people flooded in to get all these new shops up and running. They hired like crazy. And for about 2.5 years it was a great place to be. After they got up and running they started to slash their operating staff. Hallmark would lay off 750 people at one time. HBO 500. Things like that. The shop I was at went belly up because of some mismanagement problems in the face of the quickly changing market. Suddenly I found myself unemployed in a bad market for TV guys. And the downward spiral began.I found a new job but I was making a lot less. Nothing in my situation was the administrations fault, but what else was happen around me certainly didn't help. Like when it came time to sell the house, while I wasn't locked into a toxic mortgage some of the other 1600 houses in foreclosure in my zip code were. Recently at my job, because of the sluggish economy, my boss wanting to cut my hours below full time to on-call. I would lose my benis and still be committed to going and shooting video 5 nights a week (if needed). She knew I would walk. Now I'm going to go south in search of more money. The Democratic leadership here isn't helping anything. The UMW has a straggle hold on the labor laws therefore it is not a right to work state. They shoot scabs here. Things for me would simply be a lot better if this isn't where my Ex choose to plant the kids. And that's not W. fault either. I was working for nothing here just to be near my kids, but when I lost my job, it has forced my hand. I have resumes out from Columbus, OH to Miami. With 15 years experience I am confident that I can find a job without having to shoot live shots in the snow in Buffalo. So while my personal slide wasn't W.'s fault it felt like he was greasing the slide and removing things to grab on to like needing to sell a house in a collapsing home market and now being unemployed in a softening jobs market. I may be wrong I just feel I would be in better shape if I had encountered these speed bumps in life under some other administration. Sorry to bore you guys with my pathetic story.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As fdar as California taxes are concerned, post 35 is a decent assessment. People can complain about not wanting to pay more taxes all they want, but costs increase for governments just like they do for the people, and it isn't just workers' salaries. Gas costs more for the state too, as do rents, utilities, phones, food, everything that you pay for, same goes for cities, counties and states. If the public wants services, there's a price. And not to derail the topic, but in California, undocumented workers are killing the system.
Originally Posted By RC Collins Our government is supposed to be representative - in other words, of, by, and for the people. When the people have to cut back their own spending, so should our government. Yes, in California, there are requirements for certain budget percentages to be spent on certain things (40% for education, I think). However, the actual dollar amounts are not mandated. So, you simply cut across the board. There is very little that the state government does that could not be handled by either local government or the private/volunteer sector. Another problem is that the system in California is largely a socialist one intended to serve all of the citizens and immigrants and tourists. However, it is being partially strained by illegal aliens (different from immigrants) who do not contribute enough in taxes/goods/services to offset what they are taking in public services (financial assistance, education, use of infrastructure and utilities, involvement in the judicial/correctional system, medical care). No, I'm not blaming illegal aliens for all of the problems - just their share of the problems. The state government does not need to raise taxes. It needs to limit spending. If the schools are strained, people will just have to help the schools directly. If the roads get worse, the state should allow more privately owned roads. We can't keep punishing the productive and coming up with new taxes without driving ourselves further into a problem. I can't wait until we have a lottery, Indian gaming, bonds, and cigarette taxes so California won't have these budget problems! ;-)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "There is very little that the state government does that could not be handled by either local government or the private/volunteer sector." This is one of those things that sound great to the people that espouse them, but the concept works only in theory. In fact, quite the opposite is true. There is very little the government does that COULD be handled by the private sector. Accountability is one of the primary reasons. Greed another.
