Californians: We have to stick together here!

[XemaSab]

There's a 100% likelihood that in the next few weeks we will be asked to make choices.

Do we want state parks or do we want universities?

Do we want public assistance for poor families or do we want reduced-cost HIV/AIDS treatment?

Do we want Medi-Cal for the elderly or do we want schoolteachers in the inner city?

Do we want to lose big in the environment, education, or social services?

Do we want to screw over GLBT people, the elderly, the young, the very poor, black people, white people, Hispanic people, or environmentalists?

How about choosing NONE of these things? How about NOT choosing to screw over ANYONE?

THIS IS THEIR PLAN TO DIVIDE US! DON'T FALL FOR IT!

We can't allow everyone to retreat to their special-interest corner and fight against all the other folks on the left.

We all have to stick together. If we do not present a united front, THEY WIN.

[slackmaster]

1. Those are all false choices intended to intimidate and frighten people

The legislature needs to do its job. They face a major shellacking in 2012 after redistricting reform.

[Howardx]

2. no kidding

i blame them completely for all this mess, they wont make decisions because they dont want to offend any potential voters. its all about staying in sacramento.

[ColbertWatcher]

29. Exactly. n/t

[LooseWilly]

79. Redistricting reform? What redistricting reform?

Did something pass that I don't know about?...

[slackmaster]

85. Proposition 11 - Supported by both Governator and former Governor Gray Davis

The League of Women Voters, and many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_11_(2008)
- Sorry, this won't hot link

You did vote last year, didn't you?

[LooseWilly]

92. I voted, and as usual I voted against the redistricting amendment.

I guess the Obama and Prop 8 news drowned out news of this passing.

Thanks for the info. I suspect it will explain some upcoming increases in the suck...

[taught_me_patience]

3. I don't want any more taxes

or "fees" that amount to higher taxes. I can't pay any more. Something has to be cut.

[Oregone]

5. Well, there is always the option of taxing people who *can* pay more

You could first start with Orange County (only half a joke)

[glitch]

55. How dare you not support the uber-rich?

Don't you know you might be one some day?

[XemaSab]

8. Did you know that Arnold is planning to eliminate the poison control hotline?

:shrug:

[taught_me_patience]

11. Seems like a bad cost/benefit ratio on that one.

He should start with cutting the number of goverment employees and cutting pensions for new hires and freezing additional pension contributions for continuing workers.

[Ilsa]

37. Good grief. I'm a nurse, and I used it once for my son. They gave me

better information than the hospital.

(I thought my son had eaten a bunch of vitamins. Hubby and I were scared shitless. The hotline (Texas) calmed me down and set me to reading the bottle, how much iron was in each tab, how many tabs per bottle, and how many were left. Duh! Turned out he had taken several, but not enough to poison him because they had the limits on how much he is allowed to absorb. The ER would have pumped his stomach without asking about the other stuff.)

[slackmaster]

16. I suspect that you, like me and many others, run a responsible personal budget

It's kind of hard to do that when the state keeps jacking up taxes and fees, isn't it?

[taught_me_patience]

19. It's getting tougher every year

The 1% sales tax hike and car registration tax hike have hurt. I was in Seattle, where there is an 8.x% sales tax and no income tax. People I talked to couldn't believe we were paying 9% sales and 9% income.

There is only so much juice you can squeeze from a turnip...

[tularetom]

4. I want a new governor

I never wanted this one to begin with but now I want him even less.

[dana_b]

26. I second that! n/t

[slackmaster]

86. I don't see how that would make any difference at this point

The legislature has to come up with a budget. That's their job, not the Gov's.

[tularetom]

89. It's the minority party in the lege that's blocking it (dumbass 2/3 reqmt)

And that happens to be the Gov's party. Are you telling me he has no clout with his own party?

Besides he's a piece of shit anyway. i'd just like to see him humiliated.

[slackmaster]

96. He's a moderate compared to the extreme GOPers we have in the legislature

And the 2/3 majority requirement is a response to the core problem of irresponsible spending, which has not been fixed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. The solution is simple but neither the people

or for that matter the radicals in Sacramento want to go there...

Say it with me HIGHER TAXES

[taught_me_patience]

9. We can't take any more taxes here

Income tax - 9%
Sales tax - 9%
Gas Tax - high
Auto - high
Property - 1.25%

Seriously... do you live in California? Are you willing to pay more taxes? What more taxes would YOU be willing to pay?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Yes I live in Cali

Income Tax is actually somewhat low by the services we want, though I'd rather have it be progressive, and by income level... but you want services, guess what? They cost money.

Sales taxes are determined both locally and by Sacramento... some areas are higher than others.

Gas taxes, you got a holiday in the state one thank to the radicals in Sacramento, not that they understand that funds silly shit like Cal Trans, so in a couple of years when freeways fail, don't complaint, I don't want to hear it.

Auto, needs a little tweaking... but you get the ideal.

Property has been a problem and law of unintended with Prop 13, well intentioned but that led to some problems like the number one school system in the nation competing with Hawaii right now, and that is not a good thing.

So here is my question. DO you want your services? If you don't, then go join a local state senator who believes the proper tax rate for cali should be zero... he does not know where his salary comes from. If you want services, well guess what, nothing in life is free... and it is time Californians wake up to this little fact. Yes, we will need to pay over all higher taxes, the cost of living in a civilized society, or give up and allow all those services to meld away.

And yes, I AM willing to pay higher taxes if that leads to a world class educational system, world class infrastructure, shit like that, which we USED to have... and guess what? Taxes were higher.

[taught_me_patience]

15. I would like services that match tax revenue that we collect

and I'm not willing to pay more. Therefore, I want services cut. I think the california government can be much more efficient. Cutting the number of teachers and pensions would be a good start.

edit:
I'm glad you are personally willing to pay more taxes. My rant was more about people saying "raise taxes... tax the rich" because they can afford it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Of course because then we can beat Hawaii! as last in educational

excellence!

I hope you also don't mind when you call 9.11 and there is nobody there to answer the phone, or when there is a wreck in the freeway, it takes CHP for EVAH to get there, since they have no officers.

Yes, those are the kinds of cuts also expected.

WHY CAN'T I GET THROUGH TO THE 9.11 dispatcher?

Nobody there to answer the phone

Or when they cut a shift from your local police department.

[xxqqqzme]

32. cut the number of teachers?

Where have you been? Class sizes now are huge.

how about getting rid of 3 strikes and releasing the non-violent inmates - no, wait that would mean fewer guards.

[Oeditpus Rex]

44. They've already started laying off guards

http://thecalifornian.com/article/20090527/NEWS01/905270302/1002/NEWS01/Salinas-area+prison+employees+to+lose+jobs

[ContinentalOp]

34. Cut teachers. Brilliant.

My daughter is entering Kindergarten this September and will probably be in a class with a 30-1 ratio while last year's Kindergarten class was 20-1. Thanks to Californians like you. But yeah, let's go ahead and cut even more teachers to save a quick buck.

[taught_me_patience]

82. I went to a school that had a 27-1 ratio

Shitty school called Punahou. Obama didn't learn shit there.

[ContinentalOp]

94. So you went to an elite private school and you're advocating firing public school teachers?

BTW, all the information I can find points to Punahou having a much smaller ratio than you claim. This site says 14-1 http://hawaii.schooltree.org/private/Punahou-007410.html

[Luminous Animal]

38. Tax rate for the poor-12%, wealthy pay 7%

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/apr/16/where-the-money-really-is/

Fix this AND reinstate the tax rates of 10% and 11% (I'd also propose a 13% rate on the top 1%). Also, enact an oil extraction tax, something that every other oil producing state in the U.S. levies against the oil companies. California has one of the lowest tax rates in the nation and the most lucrative beneficiaries of Prop 13 have been corporations.

What we are seeing here in California is "disaster capitalism". A successful decades long campaign to starve the government of funds in order to squeezing out services that benefit the people.

I sign on to the proposal to split California into three separate states. The inland can revert to the standards of Mississippi, the coast can enjoy the standards of pre-1978 California (excellent k-college public education, fewer prisons) with the added benefit of single-payer and full civil rights for the LGBTQ community, the north can have their guns and legalized pot.

[depakid]

57. "Therefore, I want services cut."

Well, it looks like that's what you're going to get- in spades.

[LooseWilly]

80. Cutting the number of teachers and pensions??

Class sizes in the Bay Area tend to be around 30-40. Teachers are underpaid as it is... cutting the number of teachers will just increase class sizes, leading to yet worse education (Have you ever tried to teach a class of 38 students? How about a math class of 38 students in a city like Oakland?... You are essentially arguing to turn teachers into over-educated babysitters.. and you're fine with that to keep your taxes from going up?....)

Pensions? Cut pensions?... So state employees should just be cut off and left to their own devices? They worked for some odd number of years... under contract... and you'd just break the contract to save yourself some money?

If you're really going to argue that services should be cut... I would argue that Fire and Police services should be cut. I think services for those who own property but aren't willing to pay to protect that property should be the first ones to lose services.
Get yourself some guns and a whole lot of buckets that you should keep filled with water at all times... cause teachers are necessary for the future... but cheap bastards who don't want to pay taxes should learn to protect their property themselves.

Since Schwarzenegger was willing to veto a yacht tax... I'm guessing the "tax the rich" notion isn't liable to fly any time in the near future...

Edited for spelling...

[taught_me_patience]

81. Cut the pension for new employees

and stop the contributions for grandfathered employees. They can start a 401k like the rest of the working population.

[Luminous Animal]

91. 401Ks have always been a corporate scheme

to reduce costs. It's never been a device for retirement security.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/102775/the_fallacy_of_the_401(k)/

[snooper2]

95. You should move to Texas :)

Income tax - 0%
Sales tax - 6.25%
Gas Tax - ( we are in Texas :) bout 2.12 gallon right now )
Auto - high
Property - high

[omega minimo]

7. First thing, start at the top: no perks, plaques, raises, retreats, celeb events, dedications. NONE

Nada

[mulsh]

12. get rid of all the people in "plumb"jobs all of the ex legislators

who get parked in these jobs. Eliminate expensed from the top down. down size the governor, lt. governor, AG offices etc. Cut management and administrative salaries by oh 10%.

she's right though we need to stick together to combat der gropenfeurer and his merry band of legislators.

[omega minimo]

13. No per diem or free transport for those who don't need it or will give it up for now.

[1]

10. go get 'um californians! i know you can do it...

[ContinentalOp]

18. How about getting some help from the rest of the country that is sucking us dry?

If we got the same amount of federal aid (per federal tax dollar spent) as Texas we would be fine. :shrug:

[taught_me_patience]

20. Totally agree

This is the true cause of our fiscal crisis that the mainstream media never talks about.

[1]

21. "This is the true cause of our fiscal crisis"...

right...

[taught_me_patience]

22. Federal goverment sucks $50B/year more than they give back

Our budget gap is $20B. Do the math...

[1]

23. apples and bowling balls...

don't confuse the state budget with what citizens pay in federal taxes...

[Xolodno]

25. yes..but....

When Alaska gets a bridge to nowhere....

[ContinentalOp]

33. The state budget and federal aid are directly linked.

Why does Texas get back $.94 on the dollar while we get back only $.78? If we got more federal funding for education, infrastructure, etc. that's money that could be directly saved on the state budget.

Why does a state like Wyoming deserve $4 million for bike paths when they pay NO STATE INCOME TAX? :shrug:

"Now, Jackson is home to some 8,500 people, so Uncle Sam's gift comes to about $500 per person in a town where animals outnumber residents by at least two to one. For a bike path. In a state with no state income tax.

That doesn't make sense. Neither does Wyoming's share of federal money for homeland security. Until recently, it was seven times per capita bigger than California's, even though our state is home to some of America's most important--and vulnerable--economic assets. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-goldsmith/a-california-strategy-for_b_43969.html

Oh that's right, states like Texas and Wyoming are RED states! I forgot. Silly me. Obama sure as hell better help out the state that gave him more campaign donations than any other state, and do something to reverse the damage that's been done to us over the past 8 years.

[girl gone mad]

35. apples to oranges.

what about all of the corporations in CA that pay little to no federal tax? You have more high earners, that's why you pay more in taxes. Complain to your Governor, senators and congress people if you don't think the state is getting enough Pork. I somehow doubt the money would get put to good use and your budget problems would be resolved.

[ContinentalOp]

39. Yeah, let's punish those corporations who don't pay taxes...

by eliminating welfare :crazy: That'll teach 'em.

I wasn't talking about paying more in taxes. I was talking about how, for the amount we DO pay in taxes, we get far less back in Federal aid than most other states. If we corrected even a small fraction of that balance it would easily cover our budget problems. I'm not talking about getting back $2 from the Feds for every dollar we spend, but even something in between what we get now and what a state like Texas gets would help immensely.

[1]

36. nice try...

but calfornia's budget problem is a state budget problem. and california is going to have to solve it.

do something about your state taxation deficiency. or cut something out of your state budget.

california has been playing it fast and loose for decades. it caught up to you. california has a large economy. so fix the problem.


make it work, california. you can do it...

[ContinentalOp]

41. use your brain, "1". learn to read. you can do it...

California budget deficit = ~$40 billion

amount CA was defrauded by Texas corporation Enron = $30 billion

extra federal $ we would receive in a single year if we got the same benefits as Texas = ~$46 billion

extra $ that we could have gotten over the past 8 years if we were treated fairly = at LEAST $250 billion

all of that == "a state problem"? :shrug:



california state sales tax = highest in the nation
california state income tax = some of the highest in the nation
california state property tax = 10th highest median tax

all of that == "state taxation deficiency"? :eyes:

[1]

47. why don't you address the problem?

you can carry on all you want about these imaginary federal tax dollars you think you are owed, or you can address your current state budget crisis.

you do not get back 100% of the *federal* taxes paid from citizens of california (you never have, you never will). you get 78%. you know that. and you should have budgeted accordingly.

now if you want more bike paths or homeland security or bridges to nowhere, by all means have your federal legislators push for more federal pork.


but that's not the problem.

california spends money like a drunken sailor on leave, all the while refusing to ensure that the taxes taken in by the state can cover these expenses. california is the 6th largest economy on earth (or some such huge number, don't quote me). california brags about that all of the time. so you have the resources necessary to fix this problem. make those taxes on this robust economy and the people that make the huge money higher. and higher.

take in more money or cut back on services. you have to do one or the other (or both).

and look at these numbers:

california state senate: 24 democrats, 15 republicans
california state assembly: 51 democrats, 29 republicans

are you telling me that its only the evil republicans that prevent higher taxes? with large democratic majorities in both the house and assembly? what would the numbers have to be? 100% democratic before a tax can be increased?


california is going to have to make some hard choices about how to get out of this current mess. california.

so do it...

[ContinentalOp]

49. Still not getting it are you?

"you do not get back 100% of the *federal* taxes paid from citizens of california (you never have, you never will). you get 78%. you know that. and you should have budgeted accordingly."

:rofl: OK, now this is getting fun. We indeed got back $1.08 for every dollar spent under...wait for it... RONALD REAGAN! More recently we got $0.98 in 1994 and averaged in the 0.90s during Clinton's Presidency. It's only during the Bush years that our funding dropped year after year from 0.87 in 1999 to 0.78 in 2005. That ten cent drop may not seem like much but considering we pay around $200 billion a year in federal taxes that works out to around $20 billion a year (a nice big chunk of our current deficit). http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html


"now if you want more bike paths or homeland security or bridges to nowhere, by all means have your federal legislators push for more federal pork."

Um yeah. Look a little farther south than that. We're not Alaska. We actually use our Federal funding for things like "people with disabilities, the blind, seniors and low income families...public housing, public transit, and special education." Silly huh? http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/02/billions_sent_t.html


"and look at these numbers:

california state senate: 24 democrats, 15 republicans
california state assembly: 51 democrats, 29 republicans

are you telling me that its only the evil republicans that prevent higher taxes? with large democratic majorities in both the house and assembly? what would the numbers have to be? 100% democratic before a tax can be increased?"

You really can't pay attention can you? Yes, I and many other people here are trying to tell you that the CA state legislature cannot raise taxes or approve a budget without a 2/3rds majority. So yes, it is a minority of "evil republicans" that are preventing higher taxes in our state.

I know, I know, "so change it. overturn prop. 13. you can do it california." Ah, if only the real world were as simple as your pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps fantasy land.

[1]

51. fine. you have convinced me. california is fucked and california can do nothing about it...

not a damn thing. i am stupid for even thinking you had a chance. thanks for setting me straight on that.

your hands are tied. it looks like they won.

good luck, my california buds.

sad days ahead for you indeed...

[madville]

40. Good example of a progressive tax system

California is the wealthiest state in the country. They should not be getting federal money back at the same levels as less fortunate states. Sounds just like the system many champion around here, tax the rich and give to the poor. It's not everyone else's fault California can't live within their means, they are still the wealthiest state and need to pay more than their fair share to the fedral government because other states need it more than they do.

[ContinentalOp]

42. The wealthiest state by what measure?

We're actually ranked around #12 or 13 for median income. And that doesn't factor in the higher cost of living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_median_income

I'm not saying that we should get Federal money at the same level as a really poor state, but we have clearly been intentionally ripped off for the past 8 years.

[DatManFromNawlins]

60. How many Californians throw around the "8th largest economy" bit?

If you're the 8th largest economy in the world and you aren't managing your state-level programs correctly, then why do you assume you're being ripped off? How much more tax revenue could you collect if you have a normal property tax system? One of three things would happen: people would either stay and pay property taxes, but demand would decrease for those homes so the prices would go down, or people would leave the expensive areas for less expensive locations, sending less money to rich landlords and building more equity for themselves and allow themselves to actually save money.

Can't really say I sympathize much. Louisiana gets screwed each and every year because our mineral rights don't extend nearly as far as Texas'. The result is that Texas gets a lot of money that we don't get because of rigs that are that far out. Unsurprisingly, the representatives and senators of other states are completely unwilling to put us on equal footing. They want that money.

[ContinentalOp]

62. A little perspective though...

Yes, we're the wealthiest state in terms of sheer dollars, but we're also the most populated state by far. Our total budget for '09 is $135 billion. Per capita, that's about $3650 per person. Correct me if my numbers are wrong, they usually are.

I can't find a good state by state ranking of per capita state budgets, but this site has some comparisons. http://www.nycapitolnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/1201/2008-04-14.html They say the Alaskan per capita spending is $20,824, AR is $10,246, TX is $6508, NY is $6423, etc.

So that would put us pretty far down on the list of per capita state spending, and yet I keep reading here that this is all California's fault for out of control spending.

[1]

63. spending more than you take in = out of control spending...

since you convinced me above that nothing, absolutely nothing can be done to increase state revenues, this is now very much a spending issue.

california can do something about spending, right?

or are your hands tied on that as well...

[ContinentalOp]

65. I guess we're fine then and doing everything just as you say.

If "out of control spending" = spending more than you can take in, and since we're technically not allowed to run a deficit, then I guess by definition we can never have out of control spending in California!

And we are doing something about spending. Or haven't you seen all of the threads about that? We're apparently closing most of our state parks, firing teachers, increasing class sizes, eliminating state welfare, and pretty much cutting any social program in sight.

And yes, our hands are tied to a degree with spending, thanks to ballot propositions that mandate spending for certain programs. Mandated spending levels + mandated balanced budget + impossible barriers against raising taxes == totally fucked impossible situation.

[1]

68. wow, that's quite a system you have there. you see that you have to fix that, right?

too much mandating and not enough proper fiscal controls. even a shot of cash from the federal government wouldn't address your fundamental problems that are sure to come back and bite you in the ass again soon.

why don't you guys do ballot initiatives to address the governmental problems you point out in your post? or just rewrite that crazy constitution of yours?

i'm sure you could get a whole bunch of people behind that effort...

[ContinentalOp]

72. Yeah we know.

It's been a huge issue in California politics for decades. Personally I think that on the Federal level we need to fix the electoral college system, get universal single payer health care for all Americans, amend the constitution to protect gay rights, etc. You know, just a few easy fixes. I'm sure a lot of people will get behind me on those, we should just get it done.

I don't mean to keep going after you on this, but I hope you can see how your tone can be kind of frustrating and insulting. Imagine a thread discussing someone dying of cancer who couldn't get needed care because they were denied health insurance. Now imagine that a Canadian came onto that thread and said, "come on america. you need universal health care. you can do it." You don't see how insulting that would be? As though nobody ever thought of that before? As though millions of people weren't already fighting for that and running up against vastly more powerful and well funded corporate interests and a seemingly impenetrable wall of right wing stupidity? It's frustrating how often the simplest most obvious fixes are so far out of reach.

And I only talk about the possibility of federal aid because of the fact that none of these changes can be enacted fast enough to fix the problem that we're facing right now this year. And the alternative will be drastic cuts to social programs that will have devastating effects for the poorest, youngest, and most vulnerable people of California.

It's funny how there are some private corporations who are apparently too big to fail, but the biggest state in the union? Eh, fuck em.

[Cleita]

61. We used to be the fifth largest economy in the world before Bush

became President and Arnold became our government, but eighth IN THE WORLD would still make us pretty rich.

[ContinentalOp]

67. But look at our GDP per capita.

$41,805 puts us as the #7 state in per capita GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

As a nation we'd still be in the top 10 though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

[Xolodno]

24. Looking at the proposed cuts....

Looks like its designed to hit two ways....

On one side it makes the legislatures who voted against any tax hike look bad. I can see the slogans now, "State Rep ABC doesn't like children!", "State Sen says you should die if you have HIV!".

The other cuts...wow. Imagine if Huntington State Beach Fee's quadrupled. Imagine the very red portions of the state have their campgrounds and state parks closed...which bring in significant tourist income. Because the city coffers will be raided, suddenly your fire and police protection decrease dramatically and crime increases.

Its sad to say, I think many won't "get it" until it bites them on the ass. Right now, I'm betting Republicans are cheering victory thinking they are going to finally cut the life line for those lazy no good for nothings in those urban areas...but the cold reality will set in once they find out those same services helped them as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You get it

it will hit the lefties by cutting in some cases essential services... but it will also hit the red sections with decreased essential services.

And only then Californians MIGHT get it.

It used to be that SS was the third rail in politics, 30+ years of propaganda have made taxes that same third rail.

[CreekDog]

28. But he took tax hikes off the table

I'd have to be pretty generous to think the purpose of that was to show that no tax hikes is a nonstarter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Actually tax hikes were blocked by the RNC members in the house and senate

they were part of the package.

But they would not vote for those, no way, no how.

Been following this pretty closely... and yes, you can thank the radicals in Sacramento for that beaut

[diamidue]

75. Have they mentioned ending industry subsidies?

The CA farming industry, dairy industry and cattle industry all get enormous taxpayer monies in subsidies. Surely they could trim some of the fat in this area.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. "THIS IS THEIR PLAN TO DIVIDE US! DON'T FALL FOR IT!" QFT! k+r, n/t

[Cleita]

43. This is the effing richest state in the union. It's time

for our governments to start taxing all the wealth. If they don't have the ability and will to do it at a state level, then the counties should start doing it because all the defunded state programs are going to fall on the counties and cities to either ignore or do something about.

[XemaSab]

45. You think Shasta county is going to bring it?

We're laying off 23 deputies due to budget cuts. x(

[Cleita]

53. Yes, Shasta County is pretty unpopulated, isn't it. I feel sorry for you guys.

However, there are counties like mine, Monterrey north of me and Santa Barbara south of me that really need to get tax bills instigated. I think people from poorer counties can migrate to the richer counties to get the services they need. I honestly don't know of any other solution right now other than repealing Prop. 13 and Arnold and the legislature aren't gonna do it.

[ContinentalOp]

46. Not really. We're up there pretty high in terms of median income but by no means the richest.

Maybe in sheer dollars but that doesn't mean anything.

[Cleita]

50. I'm not talking about income. I'm talking about wealth. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

56. Measured how? -nt-

[Cleita]

59. Wealth is measured in what you own.

Your assets, property, diamonds and other metal wealth, yachts, airplanes, cars, securities, money in the bank, etc., etc., etc.. Income is only those little dividend checks, rental checks and so on that come in from your wealth to sustain your lifestyle. Income is very unimportant. What's interesting is that property wealth in California is owned by many out of staters and wealthy people from other countries, not to mention international corporations with business interests in this state, but they are hardly paying any taxes at all for the privilege of being here. How many second homes does John McCain own in this state?

[ContinentalOp]

64. That's not always a good measure of wealth though IMO.

Which was the original impetus behind Prop 13, misguided as it was. Are my parents wealthy because their suburban tract home they bought in the '70s for five figures is now worth about a million dollars? Not really.

I see what you're saying though. We obviously need to get rid of Prop 13 ASAP. But to say that we're the wealthiest state kind of implies that we're a state of millionaires and who cares if we eliminate state welfare. It ignores the millions of working poor in California. And much of that wealth is simply in our inflated real estate values and only exists on paper.

[Statistical]

66. Well technically they are.

If the house is paid for free & clear and they have no other debts their net worth is $1 million + their other assets.

Most people would consider that wealthy. They could retire, sell the property, move to FL pay rent and live off the interest for the rest of their lives then give $1.0 $1.5 million to their children.

So yeah they are wealthy!

Of course I think taxing based on wealth is a foolish idea. Determining net wealth for all assets including those with no immediate book value would be an insanely complex situation.

There is a reason we only tax wealth once (at death) because it is manageable as a one time event but doing it each year would be insane.

[ContinentalOp]

69. Exactly, it's "technical" wealth.

It relies on hypotheticals like actually wanting to leave your home, your friends and family members behind and move to Florida. Or, you know, actually being able to SELL that house, rather than just looking at the hypothetical on-paper appraisal value. It's kind of a ridiculous measurement. If you own a house that's worth $50,000 are you wealthy? You could always sell it, buy a cheap shack in a third world country and live cheaply off of the cash. Comparatively we're all wealthy.

And no, the house is no longer paid off and they aren't debt free. So would a wealth tax account for that? If so, it might be a good idea, though very complex as you say. Property taxes generally don't take that into account AFAIK though. They just assess the current value of your house and raise your taxes accordingly.

[Statistical]

70. If the house is not paid off and there are other debts then I would say no...

WEALTH = ASSETS - LIABILITIES

Also you are right the house may be worth less in a sale then it is on paper.

[Cleita]

71. I have a solution.

The primary family home or small ranch would be exempt. However, additional homes, like vacations homes aren't. Now I am going to bring up the McCain's beach condos. Out of state home owners aren't exempt because without exemption they are wealthy. Out of country owners, like all the wealthy ME oil millionaires, who own prime real estate aren't exempt. Every single out of country corporation who does business here, like Robobank, who are from Europe aren't exempt. They own about five properties in my area alone and I live in the boonies. I could go on and on, but right now I'm tired. I will do a lengthy post on it one of these days when I have the time to concentrate on it. Also, let's talk about Arnold. He owns so much real estate and property on the Westside of California that I think he can pay more than 1% in property tax. Ya know there was a restaurant in Santa Monica Canyon that he and Maria liked so much that he bought it. Tell me there isn't enough money to tax in California and take care of all our problems.

[ContinentalOp]

73. Oh I absolutely agree with you there.

Repeal 13 for corporations and second homes (which would encompass people with their primary residence out of state). Grandfather in existing property tax rates for retired people above a certain age. For everyone else, keep some sort of limits in place but even things out more to fix the disparity between the young and the old.

[Cleita]

74. Bingo! See Arnold and California legislature, it's not that hard. n/t

[proud patriot]

48. Indeed we must

:grouphug:

[bridgit]

52. Repeal Prop 13!

http://repealprop13.org

[Cleita]

54. I think we would have to shoot the whole legislature and the governor to

get that to happen. However taxes could be levied county wide on those property owners who aren't paying their share.

[slackmaster]

87. I would agree with modifying the provisions that keep taxes on commercial and industrial parcels low

But not residential. Leave that alone!

The problem with the state budget is mainly spending, not revenue. If Prop. 13 was repealed and all kinds of additional money started flowing in, the Bozos in Sacramento will just piss it away.

[bridgit]

90. Schwarzenegger himself has mil's in commercial real estate; the Bonaventure Hotel

is considered commercial, as such it falls within Prop 13 and where it doesn't floor after floor of pin-stripped sharks are paid mil's more to find ways to stuff it all in like Victoria's little secret...Chevron! Chevron is industrial property and I know damn straight they don't pay their share a penny beyond what they're able to prevail over through a tax code, policies, and system of redress that already favors them and has for decades. It's the revenue side.

The other side is occupied by republicans dragging their feet kicking and screaming over everything from luxury taxes on their yachts, furs, mink stoles, tax free blood diamond tennis bracelets for their princess', and ivory tower polish for their alumni/frat boy rings, etc, etc; that and the immigrant labor it takes to clean all their tax free toys, bed sheets, Italian granite foyer' and stoop-pick their veggies while pushing all services (not unlike WalMart) onto a public dole their taxes never reeaallllly contribute to cause they don't wanna; republicans don't wanna have to contribute to a social network in which they have no sustained belief enter the republicans in the Cal St Senate & Assembly, naw...

The tax exempt world lobbied for by the likes of Prop 13, Grover Norquist and the ghost of Howard Jarvis is not an incentive for republicans to even think like Americans at all quite the contrary; it is a codified excuse to pillage the coffers of common wealths, republics, democracies, nations, and states alike (sometimes cross state lines ala ENRON) in the course of never-creating what "low taxes" are purported to incentivize like a broken record over & over round & round: Job Creation!

Prop 13 made it possible for loud mouth, ham-handed hucksters like Jarvis to cash in on sweat shop-esque commercial properties in LA's garment district, and slum lords in general; to be all that *they* could b and to hell with everybody else. IMO the problem with that is that ham-handed republican hucksters weren't, aren't, and don't often think like Americans to begin with.

[Greyhound]

58. Beautiful post.

I so hope I'm wrong.

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Here's what I don't understand: GM makes fucked up decisions, and the Obama administration gives

them tens of billions of dollars. After GM burns through that, and goes into bankruptcy, the Obama administration is going to BUY 70% of the company. Many more tens of billions of dollars will disappear, and what we'll get in return is more layoffs, and a government run auto company.

California makes fucked up decisions, and what? What? Beuller? Beuller? Leave THIRTY SIX MILLION people twisting in the wind. Why? Because we have a rethuglican governor?

That part makes me angry. What makes me sad is that so called PROGRESSIVES would love to see Californians suffer. How many times have I seen sentiments here on this board approximating "Fuck California!"

Wall Street gets HUNDREDS of billions of dollars. California can go fuck itself. Sad.

[ContinentalOp]

77. We should have incorporated.

Maybe then we would have gotten a bailout :shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. It's my understanding that you can do that in Nevada on the cheap.

An idea whose time has come...

[Pachamama]

83. Two things the Governator could do: (but won't)

1) Tax increases on the wealthiest 2% of Californians (I'm talking the top top earners in this state with lots to spare)

2) Put a halt to the death penalty and commute all sentences to life without parole. (the cost to have a death row inmate is far higher than that of a lifer). This stop the costs of the automatic appeal costs and also he could then close down San Quentin, move the prisoners to other more modern maximum security prisons in the state and raise about a Billion plus $$$ from selling the property at San Quentin which is prime real estate and could become a transportation hub for the county.

Just doing those two things alone wouldn't necessarily solve the crisis, but it would carve a huge chunk away from the debt that our state is facing.

But he won't do it....and meanwhile, I like many people ask myself "Tell me why again Gov. Gray Davis was recalled and replaced with Ahnuld?"

[okieinpain]

84. man with all of those beach girls in cali, all they have to do is have

a bunch of bikini contest all summer and problem will be solved. I don't understand why this is so hard.

[XemaSab]

97. You are clearly unfamiliar with Cali

The northern 1/3 of the state is FREEZING. :scared:

[Iwillnevergiveup]

88. I've been wondering

about home foreclosures. How many people who lost their homes in 2008 and '09 paid property taxes which are a huge revenue source? I know one person (a teacher!) who walked away from her townhouse after her ARM increased $1,000 a month. She could barely scrape it together to get into an apartment, never mind paying property taxes.

[Luminous Animal]

93. California property taxes are amongst the lowest in the nation.

And many people are getting them readjusted due to lower property values.