California Prop 30 — A must-read for Californians

[Sand Person]

I'm with Dacien. I had to move back in with my parents after some "More tax for the rich" bills went through. I used to live just outside of riverside and I felt the squeeze.

[Sunseeker]

Ah yes, forcing a contract on a child, GIVE US YOUR MONEY OR GO FIND A NEW HOME!

Lol, God Bless America. The only country filled with people so ignorant they can't tell they're being robbed, hell they even openly give it right to them! It's glorious.

Enjoy rotting away over 50+ in the squalorly pisshole this garbage country will become, too old to work, no benefits because the baby boomers spent it all.

Welcome to the whole fricken world you selfish git.

[Vaheb]

Legalize marijuana.

[Grizzly Willy]

Welcome to the whole fricken world you selfish git.

Aye, taxes are fine as long as the money isn't being spent wastefully.

Suppose that should be obvious.

[Wells]

Ah yes, forcing a contract on a child, GIVE US YOUR MONEY OR GO FIND A NEW HOME!

Children don't own anything.

[Sunseeker]

Aye, taxes are fine as long as the money isn't being spent wastefully.

Suppose that should be obvious.

I'm fine with addressing waste, so long as "waste" can be backed up with something other than "In my opinion this thing is stupid, therefore it's wasteful." If Californians want to pay for a rail system, then let them! If they want to give teachers high salaries, let them pay for it! The worst thing a government can do is attempt to refuse the demands of the people by claiming to "know better". Just tell them "if you want it, then pay for it." and by gum, people who really want things will open up their wallets!

All you have to do is mandate that every new program be fully paid for either through increased taxation or other budget cuts.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The only people who are going to give a shit about a .25% increase in sales tax are the people who are irrationally anti-tax.

I'm with Dacien. I had to move back in with my parents after some "More tax for the rich" bills went through. I used to live just outside of riverside and I felt the squeeze.

I'm sure $25 for every $10,000 you spend is going to force people to move back in with their parents.

Please, yes it is. Government has to steal money from it's citizens because it can't manage it's own money and we have to pick up it's slack.



Do you live in CA? Do you know about any rail systems at all? There are very few rail systems in the world, let alone the US, that turn proffit, this is a HUGE spend that is just going to leave future generations fucked, the same reason why my generation forward will have no SSID or anything.

That rail system is going to fail, no one is going to use it, it will sit there and antiquate. We are using a mode of transportation that died out in the 1930s, and probably sooner than that. All this is, is Jerry Brown wanted to be famous for something, he wanted something to put him on the map along with other "famous" governors, and this is it.

You don't understand what taxes are, what their purpose is, and how the government gets its money.

In fact, you don't seem to understand much of what you are talking about.

[Laize]

Well, giving someone the death penalty costs more than jailing them for life. Yet you claim to A) want more people executed, and B) the government to spend less money and never raise taxes.

So which is it? Kill people convicted of crime or save money?

That's not what this thread is about and you know it. I won't be responding to this kind of tripe here.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 06:12 AM ----------

Laize, we're all well aware that you support a government so small it might as well not exist at all. Unfortunately, Karl Marx demonstrated years ago that humans by and large suck and that relying on altruism, even selfish altruism will do no good for anyone.

I'm not talking about being a Libertarian here.

Pretend for a second I'm capable of accepting a moderate-right stance on political issues.

It's still unethical to raise taxes when your spending is so out of control that you've effectively increased government employee compensation by some significant percentage by subsidizing practically everything for them. Don't forget that even if you "only" make $40,000/year you're still getting huge pension contributions, paid vacation, guaranteed raises and fully subsidized health care. There's a good chance your actual compensation is closer to $60,000/year in value.

[obdigore]

That's not what this thread is about and you know it. I won't be responding to this kind of tripe here.

So you can't put together the fact that things cost money and taxes is how the government gets money to do things. You just know 'taxes bad' but 'things that help me, good!'. The job of the government is to support its citizens where they need it in places the private sector cannot or will not at an acceptable level. The citizens must decide what that acceptable level is. That is why CA is so great. From what I understand anyone can suggest a proposition and if they get enough support, get the citizens of CA to vote on it. Much closer to actual Democracy than the rest of the country. Maybe that is why CA's taxes are so high, because they get more social services than other places?

[Deleted]

Hello all, I'm not from the USA. I'm from Portugal and as some of you might have heard we have our own little debt crisis here, having been rescued by the IMF/UE/ECB last year.

I won't pretend to know much about economy but here's what I can say: You get into debt because of incompetent or corrupt governments who invest in all the wrong things. Increasing taxing without addressing this issue will not solve anything, it will only escalate the problem by allowing government to spend more before needing to borrow again.

The "we need money to fix things" is a fallacy. More money thrown at the problem won't help (look at Greece for the perfect example). Changes are necessary in the expense department. Will it cause unemployment and poverty? Yes, most likely. But those people who would get fired were already hired above possibilities.

For the OP: Its more important to find alternatives than to oppose this particular bill. You're saying no more taxes and that's all fine and good but then you should propose a solution for your debt/deficit problem that doesn't involve taxing. You need to cut expense, what are you going to pick: Healthcare, Education, Social benefits, public workers? None of those will make people happy.

[Sunseeker]

I'm not talking about being a Libertarian here.

But that's still the implication.

Pretend for a second I'm capable of accepting a moderate-right stance on political issues.

I suppose I've got a few brain-cells left to waste on trying.

It's still unethical to raise taxes...

Lets top right there. Unethical by whose standard? Yours? Gods? The cyborg-zombie corpse of Alec Guinness?

...when your spending is so out of control that you've effectively increased government employee compensation by some significant percentage by subsidizing practically everything for them. Don't forget that even if you "only" make $40,000/year you're still getting huge pension contributions, paid vacation, guaranteed raises and fully subsidized health care. There's a good chance your actual compensation is closer to $60,000/year in value.

Personally: I find it nice to take care of your employees. I don't much care for paying people squat and expecting miracles out of them.

Look I'm not saying not to trim budgets and eliminate waste. I'm only saying that a personal distaste for a program does not equate to "waste".

[muffinss]

Cost of living in California is already ridiculously high. The added increase in taxation doesn't help that problem. I grew up in Cali. I loved Cali to death. When the housing boom happened my family got tired of seeing Cali falling down the drain. Neighborhoods falling apart. Infrastructure crumbling. Taxes going up but nothing being fixed. Education going down the toilet with taxes to education increasing. Crime rate going up, taxes going up to pay for extra police officers yet police officers being laid off because not enough funding.

We left in 2005 and the state has just gotten worse. The money isn't going to where it needs to go. The middle class has been leaving Cali in droves. Increasing taxes wont help when there isn't that many people left in Cali anymore with money.

Cali will never get enough money from taxation. They need to start slashing funding on everything. They need to balance their budget. They have to start a campaign to bring back the middle class. Make it worth while to live in Cali again.

[Garnier Fructis]

I would pay an extra cent for every $4 under this tax. This is such a small increase that we won't really feel it. I'm voting for it simply because they had the balls to come out and propose a tax instead of another shitty bond.

We voted ourselves into a financial hole by approving all these bonds left and right. Politicians told Californians that a bond isn't a tax, and people bought it hook, line, and sinker. Sure, it's not a tax. It's a god damn tax with interest. Because sooner or later, the state actually has to pay up on those bonds. And when they do, how else do you think they're going to get the money? They're going to raise taxes.

[MCMXCIX]

So you don't want to give up ~$280 so those who make $250k will give up $2125 more, and those who make $1000k will give up $9500, and all the multi-millionaires in California more than that? Yes, often times taxes go to places they shouldn't. But that will happen in any government, so why not try and help California's horrible economic situation?

edit: for some reason I read .85% increase. I don't feel like redoing my math, but that's less than a third of what I put. So... yeah.

[Gothicshark]

Honestly people making 250k+ should be taxed more.

If i was dictator.

0-50k 10%tax
50k-250k 10%
250k-100Billion+ 10%

No Deductions, capital gains count, money in trust funds, American businesses, Churches, on all new money, every year 10%, also 20% on business if they manufacture/service/or anything beside sell overseas same deal.
Property 10% on the sale only or the transfer of ownership to a non-related party (blood or marriage). Business Property 10% on the purchase only. Renting the leaser gets taxed 10%.

Basically 10% flat tax.
--

National services and insurance, an additional 10% on your paycheck only. This money is only for one thing Social Security/National Health Care, no opt out, can only receive benefit if you or your parents pay in. benefits covered 5% towards retirement, 5% towards basic healthcare insurance with a Vision and dental clause.

States can include a 5% unemployment insurance on Payroll only.
--

The flat tax gets a 50/50 split between state and the fed.
The Fed is responsible for National Defense, and Government regulations and standards. The Fed can also withhold Tax money to states which do not comply to standards. The Federal Government would work the same way, although it would be staffed differently.

All Americans who want to Vote and have access to the SSI/National Health care system would have to work for a minimum of two years with in the government. This work would be at Federal minimum wage with free dormitory style housing and food stamps, or they can opt to join the greatly reduced and more focused military and gain the GI-Bill, a higher tier of medical insurance, and a higher tier of retirement from SSI. the FBI/CIA/Secret Service/NSA would all count as Military service.

The national Language would be set to English only and all official documents would reflect this. If an American couldn't speak English, they can have a translation to read but would have to sign the English version and would be responsible for the cost of the translation.

The word Marriage would be stricken for all government documents and replaced with Civil Unions, it is up to each church how it does its on marriage, it is up to the government not to recognize any of them unless they are done in front of a state Judge. Also the cost for the Civil union would have a filing fee which counts as a luxury tax.

Business would no longer count as a human.
"Life starts when it can breath on its own with out mechanical aid.", added to the Constitution. the only death sentence in America will be for people who question this line. Granted they can choose banishment to any nation willing to put up with them.

Be glad I'm not Dictator.

Edit:
Oh and if you are wondering how would the government make money when everyone thinks 25% flat tax would cover the same amount of money made in the current tax system. The Government would be allowed to compete in Business, it would be allowed to rent property (never sell) It would be allowed to own businesses in several areas, the Postal system, all interstate freeways would be toll roads, Any business that needed a bail out would become owned by the Fed. All end of the year surplus would be refunded to all Americans who did at least two years service at an equal rate.

Example GM is failing the Government bails GM out, the stocks are now 100% owned by the Fed. All employees would work based on government scales, with a 10% profit share. The CEO and board would have to prove to the Fed they can keep their jobs. Otherwise the government would hire people based on a scale, the advantage being these companies are no longer taxed. Since they are revenue generating. The employees would also fall into government scales. No mixed loyalties as well so any company taken over such as this would nullify any union contract.

[Hothgor]

You should never raise taxes on anyone (Especially a single group, even if that group "can afford it") until you've cut as much as you can cut from the budget.

Raising taxes is supposed to be a last resort. Especially when you shower your public employees with lavish vacation time, tenure, guaranteed pay raises and fully subsidized retirement AND health packages.

Laize, we're all well aware that you support a government so small it might as well not exist at all. Unfortunately, Karl Marx demonstrated years ago that humans by and large suck and that relying on altruism, even selfish altruism will do no good for anyone.

Actually, raising taxes should be the first resort when faced with temporary revenue lapses. The US Budget is roughly $3.6 trillion, comprising approximately 24% of our GDP expenditures. It employs millions of people both in the 'public' sector and the armed services. Each of these individuals spends their money just like you do, supports their local businesses just like you do, send their kids to schools just like you do and pay their taxes just like you do (or so I hope).

If we eliminated the government entirely, or even reduced it to say, 10% of its current size, you would be taking over $3 TRILLION out of our GDP, essentially shrinking the size of our economy by 25%. It would also put those same millions of people out of work, instantly raising the unemployment rate to ~20% or higher. The economy would collapse in on itself as no economy can properly function with -25% growth on an annual basis. The resulting depression would make the Great Depression look like a mild recession.

Civil unrest will ensue. Goods will not be created, and there will be no military to ensure that food rations are properly handed out. In essence, society will devolve into a land of might makes right, or survival of the fittest. In essence, we would become a much, much larger version of Somalia, but with nuclear weapons.

But that is ok, right? The evil government is out of the way, and now you can keep 'your' money for yourself...except you will be out of a job, your money will be worthless and you will be working for a warlord, or dead in a ditch. Brilliant idea all around.

Don't believe me?

Show me a country on the map that has zero income tax, zero sales tax, and zero, or next to zero government that even remotely looks like a first world country. Then tell me why you aren't there already. Then explain to me why such a system has yet to arise if it is so successful in the first place, as a capitalistic society would already have reached such a state as it is the most 'efficient' usage of our resources.

[Laize]

Lets top right there. Unethical by whose standard? Yours? Gods? The cyborg-zombie corpse of Alec Guinness?

Personally: I find it nice to take care of your employees. I don't much care for paying people squat and expecting miracles out of them.

Look I'm not saying not to trim budgets and eliminate waste. I'm only saying that a personal distaste for a program does not equate to "waste".

Ok. Let's draw a parellel. Is it ethical for your landlord to raise your rent 10% this year because she insists on paying her employees more? Is it ethical for your wireless carrier to do the same? Regardless of whether or not the entity you're paying is for-profit or a government body, prices you pay still have to go up for employee compensation. Doesn't it make sense to strike a balance between your employees' needs and your customers'? Both groups need to be happy for the system to work.

I'm not saying to strip employees of everything and have never suggested as much. Look at the costs of employee benefits, though.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

That's for private sector. An employee earning $30/hour generally costs an additional $10/hour in benefits for total compensation of $40/hour.

And according to the CBO:

On average for workers at all levels of education, the cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics, CBO estimates

Now this obviously CAN mean that private sector employers have room to move up, but a 48% disparity seems much higher than expected. Government employee benefits certainly have room to work down.

They can pay some of their health care and retirement benefits. Especially since small contributions on their part can save their governments BILLIONS in aggregate. No joke. At least in New Jersey, raising the PERS contribution rate from 5.5% to 6.5% will help close the insane gap on the Public Pension fund underfunding of $46 billion.

Cutting public employee benefits (Where they can be borne by the employees) by even small amounts has huge financial benefits to the state.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Ok. Let's draw a parellel. Is it ethical for your landlord to raise your rent 10% this year because she insists on paying her employees more? Is it ethical for your wireless carrier to do the same? Regardless of whether or not the entity you're paying is for-profit or a government body, prices you pay still have to go up for employee compensation. Doesn't it make sense to strike a balance between your employees' needs and your customers'? Both groups need to be happy for the system to work.

I'm not saying to strip employees of everything and have never suggested as much. Look at the costs of employee benefits, though.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

That's for private sector. An employee earning $30/hour generally costs an additional $10/hour in benefits for total compensation of $40/hour.

And according to the CBO:



Now this obviously CAN mean that private sector employers have room to move up, but a 48% disparity seems much higher than expected. Government employee benefits certainly have room to work down.

They can pay some of their health care and retirement benefits. Especially since small contributions on their part can save their governments BILLIONS in aggregate. No joke. At least in New Jersey, raising the PERS contribution rate from 5.5% to 6.5% will help close the insane gap on the Public Pension fund underfunding of $46 billion.

Cutting public employee benefits (Where they can be borne by the employees) by even small amounts has huge financial benefits to the state.

Landlord: Provides shelter for money. Government: Does a whole lot of different shit.

Your comparison is horribly bad. Let me know when landlords start managing public systems for an entire state or country.

[Corleggy]

Ok. Let's draw a parellel. Is it ethical for your landlord to raise your rent 10% this year because she insists on paying her employees more? Is it ethical for your wireless carrier to do the same? Regardless of whether or not the entity you're paying is for-profit or a government body, prices you pay still have to go up for employee compensation. Doesn't it make sense to strike a balance between your employees' needs and your customers'? Both groups need to be happy for the system to work.

Rent and wireless companies do raise their prices... If you signed a lease/contract you are agreeing to a set price for a set time.

[shimerra]

Be glad I'm not Dictator.

I am. Your plan is pants on head retarded.