Schwarzenegger Rules Out Tax Hike if Re-Elected (Angelides would tax rich)

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/Reuters: Schwarzenegger Rules Out Tax Hike if Re - Elected
By REUTERS
Published: July 6, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged on Thursday he would not raise taxes if re-elected in November, drawing a stark contrast with his Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Phil Angelides.

The state's celebrity Republican governor previously ruled out higher taxes to raise revenues to plug shortfalls in the state budget, and he told the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee he saw no reason now to increase taxes.

"I totally rule it out,'' he told the Bee, according to a posting on its Web site. ``I will not raise taxes.''

Angelides has urged higher taxes on the wealthy to expand services and to close the state budget's persistent deficit, which will be about $3.5 billion over the near term.

Angelides charged in a statement that Schwarzenegger in a second term would raise the cost of living on middle-class families by cutting school and health-care funding and by raising tuition and fees at state universities....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-economy-california-taxes.html

[rocktivity]

1. You can't scare people with the threat of raising taxes

if they're even more scared by the threat of the next Hurricane Katrina. Government must provide essential services, and essential services cost money. Oh, and by the way, Arnold, what about the SIX BILLION DOLLARS that you gave Enron when you torpedoed the settlement? All Angeledes has to do is keep pounding him with that as an example of his fiscal incompetentence.

:headbang:
rocknation

[rmgarrette64]

2. Don't be silly, of course you can

First, it's worked again and again for Republicans - I see no reason to expect it to stop working now. When Angelides has come out in favor of raising taxes, the issue gains even more traction. Your suggested approach would have worked far batter if Angeledes had not already taken his stated position.

But secondly, taxes in CA are already really high, which gives Schwarzenegger an even better position for that stand - whether it's realistic or not. My husband and I are not rich, but are well off, and our state taxes are reasonably painful. Hate to admit it, but the tax issue will play big with me this year. Mind you, I'm not convinced Schwarzenegger will keep his promises (his record isn't the best...) but on the other hand, I am convinced our taxes will go up with Angelides.

Personally, I think there's a lot we could cut back on with the current budget, but neither side is making a serious effort in that direction.

R. Garrett

[1932]

17. It didn't work in the primary, and CA taxes are not that high on the rich

CA's top rate on income of about 10% starts very low -- at or below 100K, IIRC.

CA gets a lot of income from the car tax and property tax.

The property tax, however, is not a high percentage -- it's a high amount because real estate values are ridiculously high and the worst thing about it is that the tax value is established only at sale. So, if you are a rich person with a family mansion that you've owned for 70 years (that you could sell for 4.5M, or could take a huge mortgage out on, or could you use to borrow money to invest in stocks or whatever) and you could be paying tax on $100,000 in value. But if you're a 25 year old with a 50K/year job, two kids and a stay-at-home spouse (because child care is too expensive), you could be paying tax on a 1000 sq foot two bedroom starter home in a bad part of town (at the same % rate) based on 450K in value -- ie, you could be paying 450% more in taxes than the rich person with the mansion worth 1000% more than your house.

Sick, huh? It gets even worse. Corporations avoid triggering the sale and the revaluation by never selling. If you want to "transfer" ownership, you merge two corporations that own property and that's that.

So the effect is that poor and middle class people pay all the property tax, while the super-rich and corporations don't.

Now, that's the conversation Angelides is trying to have, and Schwarz. is trying to reframe it before Angelides can make his points. If Angelides can have this conversation on his terms, voters are going to vote for him.

[Clarkie1]

45. Angelides wants to repeal proposition 13? nt

[WhiteTara]

18. what do you think can be cut?

just curious.

[Mz Pip]

3. Sure you can

That's one of the big reasons we will have 4 more years of Ahnold. That and Angelides is about as interesting as watching paint dry. If he's pounding Ahnold on anything I haven't heard it and I live in CA.

Ahnold is playing nice now and people are sucking it up, forgetting all about what a shit he really is. Angelides is so bloodied from the horrible negative primary that it's really unlikely he'll be able to deliver any kind of knockout punch to Ahnold.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[shanti]

10. come on, now

don't be so negative. did you vote for westly in the primary? well, he lost, and we MUST be behind angelides, "boring" or not. our state depends upon it!

[Mz Pip]

12. Of course I'll support Angelides

just like I supported Kerry (not my first choice).

Still, I can call it like I see it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Raine]

32. I agree

we are doomed to a second term of Arnie. Wesley and Angeledes fucked up with such a dirty primary campaign that whichever of them had won it's not worth anything. I'm just facing reality and accepting the inevitability of Arnie as gov again. :-(

[toopers]

6. What are essential services and who decides?

eom

[slackmaster]

7. Sure you can, if you define "rich" down low enough

:argh:

[NewJeffCT]

9. The problem is...

The problem with saying you'll raise taxes on the rich is that a LOT of people think they are richer than they really are. A survey from a few years back when Kerry was talking about rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans only, indicated that almost 20% of Americans thought they were among the wealthiest 1%.

I think the actual barrier for the richest 1% was actually over $1.2 million per year at the time, too.

So, while some of that 20% will accept a raise in taxes as paying their fair share, a lot of them will not.

And then some RWers will go out there and say, "well, it won't just be the top1%, it will end up being a bigger raise on the 1% and then more on the next 10%" and if 20% think they are in the top 1%, how many think they are in that top 10%? Maybe 40%?

[Joe Bacon]

37. C'mon Arnold, Let the RED INK flow!

He's run up bigger deficits than Davis, yet the Whore Press ignores that!

The same Whore Press who exaggerated Davis' deficits.

I cant wait for November, if I have to, I'll crawl over ground glass to get to the polls and vote for Angiledes!

[onehandle]

4. What people hear: "Schwarzenegger Rules Out Tax Hike if Re-Elected"

And that's all. This is how Republicans get "re"-elected.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. I'm afraid you're right. nt

[lwin]

8. SNAP OUT OF IT!

Oh we're doomed...chicken little, the sky is falling...we're finished, we're done for...wah wah wah...

What's the matter with you people? Why are you so willing to just give up and roll over?

Phil Angelides is a PROVEN brawler, and a damn good one at that. Just ask some of his opponents over the years...most recently, Westly and his big checkbook, who he managed to beat quite nicely.

He led the CDP out of the DARK AGES back in the 90's, he got Boxer (and yeah, Feinstein) elected. I'm telling you as a Californian and a Democrat, who is very hard on their party and its leaders..DO NOT COUNT THIS MAN OUT.

Underestimating him will be Arnold's biggest mistake.

This race will be won in November, in the field, on the ground, and not by armchair doomsayers in July. What are YOU doing to help us get there?

[shanti]

11. THANK YOU!

we have more than enough ammunition to destroy the gropenator, no reason to give up now!

[bliss_eternal]

13. ...added to the fact that he's already proven himself a liar.

He said he was going to pay back the money he took from the schools--he did not. He said that he was going to improve conditions in public schools, he did not. His way of improving schools--attacking the overworked, underpaid school teachers.

He said he was pro-gay marriage, yet he wouldn't sign the bill allowing gays to marry legally in California. :eyes:

He said he was going to fix California's financial crisis, yet he spent millions on his retarded special election, :mad: putting our state deeper in debt.

He said he was pro-choice, yet he was for parental notification which spits in the face of the entire issue of choice.

He told California he had no intent of stumping for bush during the last leg of the 2004 campaign, yet where was that asshole the last weekend of the election? Grinning his plastic, bleached smile with his lips firmly inserted to bush's butt cheeks in Ohio, campaigning for dur fuhrer.

As Californians, we can't let him forget that we remember every lie he told and how he fulfilled his word.

I for one remind people of this everytime I hear anyone say anything negative about Angelides.

[1932]

19. This election isn't about destroying Schwarz-It's about electing a Dem wh

who is going to fix CA's problem. Read post 17. The crappy way CA taxes people would be a problem no matter which Republican were in office.

I'm voting for Angelides because fixing problems like that is what he promises to do.

[Clarkie1]

14. It is unfortunate Angelides defeated Westly.

Westly wasn't such a fool as to propose raising taxes as a first resort.

[DeepModem Mom]

15. Aside from the merits of either man, I think Westly would have been...

the stronger candidate.

[lwin]

29. How so?

Westly couldn't even win amongst Democrats. He BARELY beat a major right wing windbag for Controller last time around (McClintock).

He wasn't termed out, he should have sat tight in his seat for another term, and then made a run for something. Too bad his ego wouldn't allow him to do what was right for the Party and the State.

[DeepModem Mom]

36. Totally superficial reasons, for which I'm not proud. nt

[1932]

20. Oh please. Westly was a Republican. Read post 17. The way CA taxes its

citizens is a real problem and its eviscerating the middle class and the working class and people like Westly and Arnold have no problem with that.

Angelides does have a problem with that. That's why he beat Westly and that's why he should beat Arnold.

[Clarkie1]

31. "Westly was a Republican."

:eyes:

I guess that's why the Sierra Club, Dick Gephardt, and many other Democratic leaders endorsed him. Also explains his life-long activism in the Democratic Party.

[1932]

34. Sierra Club endorsed Angelides and Westly ran as a Republican, from

his anti-progressive tax position down to his Stanford ads (which, in California, is shorthand for privilege).

At the Democratic convention, Angelides was endorsed by 2/3rds of the party and I can't think of a well-known Democrat who endorsed Westly. I'll take your word on Gephardt, but would that be the Dick Gephardt who tanked in the 2004 primaries because he stood behind Bush in the Rose Garden?

Before running for governor, Westly was most famous among Democrats for being the guy in the party most supportive of Arnold Schwarzenegger -- which seemed to be a reputation that he was trying to continue into the primaries. I'm not surprised Arnold is re-running Westly's campaign ads against Angelides. In fact, the primary looked more like an opportunity for Arnold to run two campaigns against Angelides, the first one paid for by Steve Westly.

[lwin]

28. No, it's unfortunate your candidate lost

Which would explain your sour grapes attitude towards Angelides.

[Clarkie1]

30. Exactly...it's unfortunate Westly lost. nt

[1932]

35. You are quite a Democrat!

Why don't you help out the team and save this argument for after the general election.

Would that be so hard?

Why don't you try to come up with arguments why Angelides would be better than Arnold.

You do believe that don't you?

[Clarkie1]

41. Yes, Angelides would be better than Arnold.

Although I disagree with Angelides that raising taxes should be a first resort. I did prefer Westly, but will vote for Angelides.

[1932]

42. When the tax code is a big part of the problem for the middle class, I'm

glad Westly isn't running for governor anymore.

[Clarkie1]

43. California already has some of the highest state taxes in the country. nt

[1932]

44. See post 17.

I'd love to read your comments.

[Cha]

38. THANK YOU, I WIN!

"Snap out of it"! Is exactly right! Angelides is living in reality and swartzgrope is in deep denial. Why doesn't swartz go after the enron money that was bilked from California?

[Imajika]

16. Angelides will lose...

Do we ever learn?

Californians are in NO mood for tax increases. Period. Prop 82, an attempt to expand pre-school education with higher taxes, was just crushed in CA - winning support only in San Francisco. Further, Californians wouldn't even vote for a library bond last time around.

Promising tax increases is a dangerous campaign platform most everywhere, and a political death sentence depending on the mood of the electorate.

Angelides should have said he doesn't want to raise taxes and would only consider it as a last resort. A tried and true talking point yes - but a responsible statement that leaves options open.

Running around campaigning on tax increases at this time in California is a disaster.

Barring a shocking turn of events, I'd bet Arnold beats Angelides easily.

[1932]

21. Did you expect any other outcome for a Proposition vote when only one side

has a ton of money and a huge advertising campaign?

Those votes weren't an indication of what voters wanted after an informed debate on the issues. They were votes based on which campaign had much more money than the other campaign.

Fortunately, in the governors election, we'll have a more informed debate on both sides of the issue and people will chose the candidate who stands for improved infrastructure and a fairer tax code because, uhm, those are the things that most voters want when they learn the issues.

(I can't believe I'm having this debate on a liberal board!)

[Imajika]

22. Believe it...

The tax issue is fairly reliable winner for Republicans. Therefore, Democrats have to be VERY thoughtful and careful if they chose to propose a tax increase during a campaign. Sometimes raising taxes is just one of those things you have to do once you've won. First get elected, then lead. Being too honest in campaigns is often a prescription for defeat (which is why you'll find few politicians - Democratic or Republican - are honest when campaigning).

When you can't get a proposition through to tax the top most wealthiest for preschool or pass even a library bond, you can sortof assume that higher taxes is not what the electorate is in the mood for.

Angelides should not run on higher taxes in California at this time. Better to say raising taxes is a last resort but something that no responsible leader takes off the table.

Angelides appears to be a rather poor candidate as it. If raising taxes becomes the issue he is most associated with during the campaign - he's done.

My guess, Arnold wins in a walk.

[1932]

23. If the tax issue is so reliable, why didn't it work for Westly in primary?

Perhaps it's because when people say the firemen, policemen, teacher ads for Angelides they realized where their tax money goes?

You cannot assume anything about voters' desires from a proposition campaign where there is such a huge difference between the wealth behind the two sides of the issue and when there is no informed debate.

[shanti]

24. wait a minute...

according to your profile, you are in where? virginia? please don't think that you can speak for us californians about this.

[lwin]

27. Really, save us your RED state pontificating

About OUR election, and OUR candidate. Unless you plan on sending money and coming out here to walk precincts, you can keep your negative doom and gloom predictions to yourself.

[Binka]

33. This Poster Loves To Tell Negative Stories About Democratic Woes

Do a search. It is common knowledge.

[Cha]

39. NIce freakin' Negative

attitude.

[MurrayDelph]

25. The key is to point out

that while there has been a "tax cut," we have been faced with increased state debt
(which is going to have to be paid back someday no matter how much they try to ignore
that), AND increased "USER FEES" (Stuff that used to be free is now a couple of bucks
, and parks
that used to have reasonable day use fees now have exorbitant ones.

We've already had tax increases; it's just these are affecting the poor.

[progressivebydesign]

26. Ahnold has already jacked up community college rates!!

If people in California are stupid enough to vote for that asshole, then I guess they deserve him. Cuz.. many, many, democrats voted for him... because he's "FAMOUS"!!!

[Cha]

40. arnie swartzengroper is a

Has Been and they need to fire his ass.