But seriously, what's the likelyhood of taxes going up EVEN MORE under Brown? (DMV, utilities)

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

And if you're self employed, you get to write a check for the whole 15%.

12.4% actually. It was set at 6.2% in 1990 combined for both FICA & SECA and has remained unchanged ever since.

[Reason42]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

I never mentioned which party was "more likely to cut taxes", you really should sharpen those reading comprehension skills, and instead pointed out that the temporary sales tax increase passed two years ago expires next year and so there will be a further $12 billion hole in the budget next year beyond this year's $19 billion deficit. I'm sorry facts upset you and cause you the discomfort of having to question your, apparently, sacred beliefs but they're still true even if you don't like them.

...makes ya wonder if, for at least for a couple of minutes each day, Meg Whitman is cracking a smile...

...and if Ol' Moonbeam is sh-tt-ng his depends...

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

12.4% actually. It was set at 6.2% in 1990 combined for both FICA & SECA and has remained unchanged ever since.

15.3% with Medicare.

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

[Oerdin]

Yes, if you include medicare and if someone is self employed but he did originally say he was talking about retired folks not the self employed.

Oh, and there is still that cap at $120k for at least SSI.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by wellyouknow

I don't think taxes HAVE TO go up. In fact, I know they have to go down and damn the "state obligations".

But I believe what you described accurately reflects the thinking in Sacramento who feed off higher and higher taxes and use them as a tackle for their sheeple voters (unions, 'poor', ever multiplying civic 'servants', etc...), so basically I agree the taxes will go up and the productive activity will go down. Eventually, in CA there will be a handful of working folks feeding a horde of freeloaders.

The only way to damn the State obligations is to dafault on bonds and/or contract obligations. The only way to do that without the state getting sued and losing is to declare bankruptcy. I think that the State of California is not permitted to go into bankruptcy. Some states are by constitution or statute or something. I cannot remember which ones or why, I just remember learning that some states are barred from filing for bankruptcy protection.

Of course if a State declares bankrupcy, their bond rating will tank and then they will not be able to borrow and they will nto be able to function. Almost all States borrow to fund their budget at the beginning of the year and then pay back the borrowed money (or some of it anyway) as the taxes begin rolling in later in the year.

The problems that the state has is long term commitments and contracts, including borrowing (bod obligations) made by prior governers/legislatures. They cannot break those committments without some form of court intervention. What they must do is stop making such large commitments. For example state funded retirement plans must be reduced for all current workers. The State simply cannot provide what was promised to various unions etc for retirement benefits. That is terrible, but there really is no choice. A State government with two dollars cannot pay their workers ten dollars for retirement, even if ten dollars is the fair amount. I will not get into arguments about what is a fair amount, what matters is what is a practical amount.

Worker retirment obligations is just an example. It is one of the biggest items, but only one obligation of many. There are many many other obligations that the state must meet and has no real choice in spending. They either cannot be cut because of legal obligations, or they cannot be cut becasue of politial obligations. (For example, they could cut out AQMD's budget and just have foul air, they could close all of the parks and libraries, they could cut all spending for support of cultural activities

If they cut these types of promises, there will be no immediate benefit. Taxes still must go up to meet current obligations. Workers will scream like mad. Unions will withdraw their support. We may even have strikes. All of this is bad and there is no immediate good, so it is very very hard to do. THe benefit will only come after the current obligations expire, then some future govenor and legislature will benefit from the frugality of todays group. What politician is going to be willing to destroy their policitcal career for the long term good of the State? That is why this mess just continues to be perpetuated.

[native56]

Jerry Brown says he won't raise taxes without voter approval. That's real comforting - not!

So Brown and the Democrat legislature jimmy up a tax increase package and put it to the voters. Then the unions pile on tens of millions of dollars in advertising 24/7 to push the tax increase. They are joined by the liberal newspapers and all the electronic media who proclaim disaster if the voters don't approve the increase.

Of course we'll hear that there will be no police or fireman unless we approve the increase. All parks will be closed. Schools will go to three days a week and all libraries will close. And your trash won't be collected.

Not that the scare tactics are actually needed. Califonia is near the point where most of the residents get freebies from taxpayers so they will vote for any tax increase.

Anyway, my point is that the zombie voters will fall in line and approve the increase and Brown will be held blameless. How nice and tidy.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by native56

Anyway, my point is that the zombie voters will fall in line and approve the increase and Brown will be held blameless. How nice and tidy.

I think you pretty much nailed it.

[TimC2462]

Taxes are going to go up under Brown, but not anytime soon, I hope.

It's inevitable, folks. And that's the sad reality of it. We have a budget deficit of billions of dollars. Even with the pension reform and the cuts in excessive spending on unwanted social programs... higher taxation on California residents can only help meet the budget balance halfway.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Reagan did raise taxes. He claimed that he had to to pay off the debt that Browns dad had created in his two terms. also he was dealing with a liberal legislature during his time in office. When Reagan left we had more money than any other state in the nation.

another thing, Reagan inherited a mess that Carter created when he became President. You didn't have unemployment from Reagan, you had it from Carter. The greatest economic growth in the history of the nation occured during and after the time that Reagan left office as President. Interest rates were in the double digits before Reagan started. He proved that cutting spending works and taxing people to death does not work.

Conservatism is the way to save the nation not taxing those that produce.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Reagan's economic growth record pales compared with LBJ's presidency, and even Clinton's. Taxes were higher during the 1960s. Remember, Clinton also instituted a tax hike in/around 1993....sure didn't affect growth rates.

Tight money policy/High interest rates in the 1970s were used by the Fed (under Paul Volker) to curb inflation, which were partly fueled by the OPEC rise in petroleum prices. It did its work but also increased unemployment, which pretty much helped to kill Carter's reelection chances. Incidentally, Volker was appointed by Carter. These high interest rates continued into Reagan's first term but abated by around 1983, when things started to turn around. So RR was a beneficiary of good timing as far as the Fed was concerned.

Reagan's record on taxes? Well he did lower the top rate, but it hardly contributed to growth. Lowering the capital gains tax was really advantageous to the well-off and did result in a bubble economy - lots of boom (and the bust) in Wall Street, lots of mergers and acquisitions (which are usually not very good for job creation - since a lot of people will lose their jobs due to mergers). At the same time he also raised the payroll tax, which was regressive for middle and lower income wage earners. Income inequality went up tremendously during the Reagan Admiinistration, not surprisingly.

[Bob's Burgers]

I think fees will be added. The politicians will not say "tax". I think the DMV just added an $18 fee and last year they added a new smog test that made that "fee" go higher. Watch for city and utilities to add "fees" as well.