Californians Are Asked for $6.9 Billion in New Taxes

[alp227]

Gov. Jerry Brown called on California voters Thursday to approve $6.9 billion in temporary new taxes, including a surcharge on big earners, as part of yet another bad-news budget proposal, this one for 2012. He warned that without those tax increases, California would be forced to impose severe cuts in public schools that could reduce the school year by three weeks.

Mr. Brown said that California was in significantly better shape than it was a year ago when he took office, pointing both to very gradual improvements in the economy and to cuts put in place in the current budget. The state still faces a shortfall of $9.2 billion next year, compared with a $26.6 billion shortfall last year.

But his latest budget proposal made clear that California has not emerged from what has proved to be the most difficult and destructive fiscal storm in its history.

Even if voters approve the taxes Mr. Brown proposed as part of the $92 billion budget for 2012 — which is far from certain — this budget still contains a new round of $4.2 billion in cuts, mainly to welfare and home health care. Last year, the state imposed over $5 billion in spending cuts.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/jerry-brown-asks-california-voters-to-pay-6-9-billion-in-new-taxes.html

[Dawson Leery]

1. Mark Warner asked for temporary tax increases to pay for

infrastructure improvements. The program was quite popular.

[Politicalboi]

2. Just legalize it Jerry

Put a tax on it and reap in the benefits. Also tax lotto tickets 10 cents on the dollar. If you can afford to gamble, you can afford to pay it.

[24601]

5. Sounds good on paper but in reality, the tax on lottery tickets if far higher - 100% for every non-

winning ticket. Also, there are myriad folks playing and paying this voluntary tax that can't afford it but spend the money anyway.

[cosmicone]

7. Lottery is already a tax on people who flunked statistics. n/t

[sarcasmo]

25. +1

[Cleita]

3. Tax increases are the only thing that will save California.

The problem is that those who should be paying the most aren't paying anything. If Jerry can catch those guys in his net, then we might get somewhere. I would start with the oil company barons and their foreign cohorts. Many of them have homes in California. Tax them 10% on their properties and frankly every time they fart. They have been getting a free ride on their estates and mansions at the 1% tax rate.

[Snake Alchemist]

8. I believe Warren Buffet has an estate in California.

Start at the top.

[Cleita]

15. He actually once suggested to Arnold, when he was governor, that people from out

of state like himself should be paying more in property taxes. Arnold told him to do push ups for even suggesting such a thing. I think Buffet would agree.

[Snake Alchemist]

16. I wonder if you could charge out of staters more.

I wonder if there isn't a law preventing that. It would have to all be in property taxes though because the true 1% make very little income.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Doubtful it would be legal

[Cleita]

23. It can be made legal. If banks can charge 30% interest on credit cards legally, (once it wasn't

legal to charge more than 18%) the people of California can make it legal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Courts have already squashed taxing non-residents at a higher rate

Also your example is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with the issue

[Cleita]

56. I could respect your opinion but you

regularly twist the issue to contradict me so I can't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. Stooping to ad hominems again?

[Cleita]

63. Ad hominems again?

You must have me mixed up with yourself.

[cstanleytech]

47. Dont see why unless there is something in the state constitution?

[nebenaube]

51. equal protection clause

Wisconsin used to do this to out of state property owners, people in Chicago sued and won.

[cstanleytech]

58. Did that case go to scotus though?

If not then California might get away with it.

[Cleita]

21. I think you could charge everyone who has excessive "home".

For instance anything that is bigger, has more bathrooms, bedrooms, swimming pools, square footage, etc. than the average family home, or extra homes like vacation homes, should pay more than 1% in property taxes. That would grab in the net in all those Arab princes and other foreigners and out of staters, like John and Cindy McCain and Oprah Winfrey who have second homes here. It also would force those really wealthy residents too to pay more taxes. That alone would bring in millions if not billions in revenue because there are so many really wealthy areas and people in California. I believe they are actually more than 1% we have so many rich people here. Yet our streets are full of homeless without even a room to call their own. Time to repeal Prop 13 and put new property tax rates in place.

[Snake Alchemist]

27. Sounds like good ideas

I just don't know enough about tax law to know if you'd run into problems with federal laws.

[Cleita]

28. Property taxes are levied on a state level usually, or even a municipal or county level.

I don't think the feds have a dog in this fight.

[hack89]

30. Don't all those things already factor into the valuation of the property? nt

[Cleita]

31. Nope. Valuation of the property is not what we are talking about but the percentage of taxes paid.

Barbara Streisand pays only 1% on her Malibu mansion with an ocean view. Every oil Arab Sheik in Beverly Hills only pays 1% on their mansions. When Warren Buffet suggested this to Arnold, he said he was paying 5% on his mid-west home (forget which state) and only 1% on his California second home.

[hack89]

32. So raise the property tax rate for everyone. nt

[Cleita]

33. Nope. This is what brought Prop. 13 about to begin with.

Property values at that time were escalating. So every year, old people, who had paid off their mortgage, and who were on a fixed income, found themselves unable to pay the higher property taxes from the valuation and were losing their homes. The Republicans cleverly framed this issue as saving those old people, when in fact they knew that the new 1% tax rate would cause a real estate boom. Sure, at first people were getting three to four times the value of their homes when they sold them. A home that was worth $70,000 suddenly became worth $400,000. Many people, me included, suddenly found ourselves without the capital to buy a starter home. I have never been a homeowner as a result of that. My window of opportunity was yanked right out from under me.

So taxing working class single family residences more is not a solution. Now another solution would be to freeze the valuation of a property once the owner turns sixty-five and retires, so that he doesn't lose his home cause he can't afford the property taxes, or you can tax the single family home at the 1% rate. But to tax everyone at a higher rate is not a solution. It was done before and didn't work so why go back to programs that have been proven not to work?

[Snake Alchemist]

35. I always wanted to find a way to allow more working class people to find a way to own property in

places like San Francisco and NYC. Maybe government grants or something similar. Something eventually has to be done. Working class people are being completely priced out of the Bay Area.

[Cleita]

37. I believe shelter should be a human right, like access to food and health care.

We need to do better as a nation to provide this.

[Snake Alchemist]

41. You are right.

Shelter and food should not be denied anyone seeking it.

[hack89]

36. So what exactly is the plan?

different property tax rates based on income levels? Good luck getting that through the courts.

[Cleita]

38. It's going to be a hard uphill battle, that and getting the rich to agree to

a progressive income tax rate like we used to have. Remember we do outnumber them. We just have to put relentless pressure on them until they do it.

[Snake Alchemist]

40. While a great idea, we have to also make properties in nice areas affordable to the working class.

I don't see places like the Bay Area or Redmond without some sort of grant system. Unfortunately, these places are becoming monolithic in who is able to afford property.

[Cleita]

44. There should be low income housing, probably subsidized somehow in every neighborhood, even the

super rich one. After all shouldn't the domestic servants and gardeners, who work for the rich, have the right to live close to their jobs?

[Snake Alchemist]

45. Very good point. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. They have the right to live anywhere they chose and can afford

Most localities also have mixed housing requirements for new developments. Retroactive is just not going to happen.

[Cleita]

57. So sayeth the oracle who seems to know all and who does not want to

entertain even the thought that other things are possible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Just being pragmatic

As other have pointed out, there are so many other more important things that need to be done

[Cleita]

62. Really? What is more important than bringing what has been called

a failed state by political scientists back from the brink? It will take more taxes and those who won't miss the money really are the ones who should be taxed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. What you are arguing for in the specific was mixed housing in all areas

And there are clearly more important things than that in the near term.

Your vision for a more egalitarian society is a good one, and it starts with the steps that many of us discussed and supported.

[Cleita]

66. So you find one thing you don't like in my comment and you argue about it?eom

[cstanleytech]

49. I do not believe that its possible for the

government to provide affordable homes instead providing a fast mass transit system that would allow people to get around would probably be a better place to spend money not to mention it helps reduce traffic on the roads which reduces emissions and also saves gas.

[hack89]

43. It is not that simple

tax revenue as a percentage of GDP doesn't appear to be linked to tax rates - when the top individual tax rate was lowered in 1982 from 70 % to 28 %, individual tax receipts as a percentage of GDP remained constant. The percentage actually went down when the top rate was raised to 39% in 1993.


Look at table 2.2 from the White House website

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[Cleita]

46. What is now and what could be in a future

functioning and egalitarian society are different. If not, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. In Eisenhower's administration, the top tier tax rate was 92%, yet the middle class had it pretty good back then. The rich still lived like the rich and didn't want for anything even with the high tax rate. The working class were home and car owners and were able to send their kids to college. I went to college because of free tuition available in the fifties. My father finished the fifth grade before having to go to work (before child labor laws) and my mom only went to high school until she was fifteen in South America before she had to go to work. I not only finished high school but went to college for two years to learn a job skill because of how the government ran in the fifties.

Sure there were other problems, like civil rights and sexism in the workplace. We worked on those and made a difference but we certainly never thought we were going to go back to the turn of the twentieth century, which seems like it's happening. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of an elite few you have Middle Ages feudalism. We are better than that. Taxing the rich and spending the revenue on social programs and infrastructure is the solution.

[Snake Alchemist]

48. I will correct a few things here.

The top tier under Eisenhower was 92%, but there were a lot more tax deductions and credits. Remember when we could write-off credit card debt?

Also, we were the only game in town after WWII. Japan, China, Europe were all in shambles. Much of the rest of the world was undeveloped. We were just lucky that no battles had hit the mainland. That was why there was a golden age after WWII.

Not saying I don't agree with much higher tax rates (assuming effective collection), but we need to look back at history realistically.

[Cleita]

50. Well, I lived through it all, both the war years and the decades after up to the time Reagan came

scene. Then things steadily started going downhill. I really think we could recoup a lot if we can ever start prosecuting and sending the white collar criminals and corrupt politicians to prison.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Even Brown is afraid of Prop 13 and Prop 4

And is not proposing eliminating it

[Cleita]

22. Well, then the OWS movement in California is going to have to push him to do it. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. I am not sure $DIETY, let alone OWS could make that happen

Way too many Californians depend on a well defined real estate taxes. They have also shown a serious distrust of the pols in Sacramento. Brown will have a major fight on his hands just to get the changes he is asking for during the next elections.

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. Almost every celebrity owns property in CA but pays very little income tax there

...because their accountants make sure they don't stay there more than x days a year and
maintain "primary" residences elsewhere.

[Cleita]

29. Exactly, It's time to end that.

I also worked for a guy who claimed his house as a business expense because he threw a party there a couple of times a year for employees and clients. He was able to do this legally. He also had his son on the payroll to write off his allowance. Son only needed to show up for work one day a year.

[msongs]

4. start cutting services to districts represented by republicans. there ya go nt

[MichiganVote]

6. The long hiatus of low taxes for high earners will now end. So it begins...

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. Um, WHAT?

Are you aware that you can make as little as $45K in CA and pay 10%?

On TOP of federal taxes?

[MichiganVote]

42. I did say "high earners".

[Survivoreesta]

9. Good!>

Brown's a responsible Governor.

[Mojeoux]

10. You say this like it's a bad thing. NT

[alp227]

11. you mean the ny times title was negative?

[taught_me_patience]

12. Hell no.

We already have some of the highest taxes in the nation. I'd prefer the government to cut back. Start by cutting the bloated prison system and institute pension reform.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. It is far from clear it will pass

It is well set up as a poison pill, but that will not assure passage here in California

[KamaAina]

52. That's not gonna feed the bulldog

Agreed on the prison system, but even that's a drop in the bucket compared to the yawning budget chasm. Ditto for the widely reported pension abuses ("spiking" or working all the OT you can the year before you retire, as your pension is based on that year's salary; "double-dipping" as in the case of the retired San Jose police chief who promptly took a similar $200K-plus job in San Diego; and so on.)

We may have some of the highest taxes in the nation, but our corporations do not. Fair share! Then there's the alcohol tax, which hasn't been raised since the '60s (!), the tobacco tax (less than NJ's!) and the like.

[dana_b]

59. maybe those options are what you

would prefer however they would slash education and social services even more than what has already been done. That is unacceptable as far as the options that I would prefer.

[JDPriestly]

13. I'll vote for it.

[itsrobert]

14. Looks like three less weeks of school

that's my prediction.

[lunatica]

17. I know he's true to his word so that doesn't worry me

I just hope the temporary tax ends before he leaves office. I'd hate to see what a Republican would do with it if they could.

But I believe the Bay Area has one of the highest combined sales and use taxes in the country already. That's when certain districts and counties add more local taxes to the state taxes already being paid. I know for a while all the extra taxes added up to 9.25%. I think it's gone down in this are, but not by much.

I also think (not totally sure about it) that the lowest sales and use taxes in California are 7.25%.

[Cleita]

39. Sales tax are regressive and should be eliminated. Tax the rich oligarchies instead.

There is a reason California is still the seventh largest economy in the world, not the nation but the world. There's so much money here that needs to be taxed. We also control the trade coming from Asia. It's time to put tariffs on all that cheap Wal-Mart stuff coming from Asia that is killing our manufacturing base in this country.

[Taverner]

34. Fine...I have argued we need to raise our taxes here

[Islandlife]

65. Small price to pay for living in California

If I lived there and flt otherwise, I would move.