Today in the Los Angeles Times: Sweden or Mississippi

[CaliforniaPeggy]

I thought this editorial really brought the issues facing California into sharp focus...


Californians must choose: lower taxes or more services.
By William Voegeli
February 24, 2008
Thesauruses were coming off bookshelves last week. Editorial writers in California were searching to find the strongest word possible to condemn state Republican legislators who refused to close a loophole that allows buyers of private planes, yachts and recreational vehicles to avoid paying sales tax on their expensive toys. Depending on which editorial page you read, the Republican position was "indefensible," "ludicrous" or "unconscionable."

A two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the Legislature was necessary to close the tax loophole -- or "sloophole," as Democrats scornfully called it. The Senate had earlier voted to end the tax break -- but not enough Assembly Republicans joined Democrats to close the deal.

All the indignation missed a small point and a large one. The small point is that, whatever public relations advantage it might give Democrats, closing the “sloophole” would have generated revenue that amounted to barely a rounding error compared with the size of the state's budget deficit. The optimistic projection is that eliminating it would produce $5 million in the current fiscal year and $21 million in the next and each year thereafter. It's optimistic because "closing" the loophole wouldn't, well, close the loophole. The proposed fix would only change the waiting period from 90 days to a year. Yacht buyers could simply park their new vessels along the Oregon coast for an extra 275 days and still avoid paying the sales tax.

The larger point in the "sloophole" ruckus is that our politicians' failures have little to do with how we got into this fiscal crisis and how we'll get out of it. In a democracy, few shortcomings ascribed to politicians cannot be traced back to the voters, and California voters have sent contradictory messages. Is California going to be a high-benefit/high-tax state, or a low-benefit/low-tax state? In other words, are we going to be Sweden or Mississippi?

More at link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-voegeli24feb24,0,3195551.story

[Kajsa]

1. That's the dilemma we face, Peggy.

For one thing, we should not waive the sales tax on yachts, PERIOD!

I'm sure there are other areas where the top tier is getting tax breaks that could be
eliminated.

But No- The poor, the disabled and the elderly are targeted for the cuts.

It's not right.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. You've got that right, my dear Kajsa!

It just makes my blood pressure rise when I consider the enormous folly of eliminating that tax...

Making the poor bear the burden of bearing these tax cuts is just beyond the pale!

I'm all in favor of being more like Sweden, myself...

[Lionel Mandrake]

3. Sweden would be nice,

but the governator will not take us there.

He once terminated a car dramatically to demonstrate that he would not raise taxes.

Mississippi, here we come.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. I'd like Sweden too, my dear Lionel Mandrake!

I'd like to see it happen here...

Unlikely, with the Gropenator running the show, and all the idiot Republicans refusing to budge on "no new taxes."

Bastards, all of them.