Why not cut spending AND TAXES? (Bradley: how much, lawyers, to buy)

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by esmith143

Because we've been cutting spending every year for the last three or four years and there are no easy cutting avenues left. If you want to balance the budget, repeal prop 13 and raise property tax rates to the nationwide average of 2%/year, and all of a sudden you'll find that there's so much money in the budget that you can actually afford to cut the sales tax or the income tax.

BTW, tax-friendly states aren't doing very well budget wise, if you haven't noticed.

Neither are the states with insane property taxes.

California ranks tenth in the average amount of property taxes paid ($2,839 annually). New Jersey averages the highest ($6,579) and they are in a huge financial mess. New Jersey's problems aren't unique either. Massachusetts, Illinois, and Wisconsin have huge fiscal problems too.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1913.html

[NewToCA]

Kind of a mix of discussions here.

Concerning California income tax credits for kids, the amount is only $99 per year. The higher credits discussed are against Federal income tax, which has nothing to do with California.

When discussing property taxes keep in mind that many places have Mello Roos surtaxes in place. I know of quite a few newer developments (built within the past 20 years) that have sufficient Mello Roos taxes to push their property tax rate up into the 1 1/2% of value range. Considering the overall prices of property in California vs other states, we still generate a good chunk of revenue via property tax.

For those unfamiliar with Mello Roos:

Mello-Roos is a form of financing that can be used by cities, counties, and special districts (such as school disricts). Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts (referred to as "CFDs") raise money through special taxes that must be approved by 2/3rds of the voters within the district. A CFD is formed to finance major improvements and services within the district which might include schools, roads, libraries, police and fire protection services, or ambulance services. The taxes are secured by a continuing lien and are levied annually against property within the district.

[nullgeo]

Foolish spending is foolish, for government or individuals ... but simply cutting spending without analysis is just as foolish. Government spending is money that circulates throughout the economy, and which circulation benefits every sector and individual in the country.

Raising taxes on the struggling populace is also foolish and burdensome, for obvious reasons.

However, there is a small segment of the population -- a self-proclaimed / self-created elite -- whose earnings are extraordinary by any measure, who in many cases take in as much money in a year than most people could earn in many multiple lifetimes, yet who pay very little - to nothing - in taxes. They are an elite who enjoy benefits of living in our society that are beyond the wildest imaginings of 90% of the citizens who pay taxes. They live this by leveraging the labors of the taxpayers -- yet refuse to support their own privileged position in our country. Charge them ... collect from them ... and control their speculations which drive the expenses the rest of us have to struggle to pay. Problems solved.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

However, there is a small segment of the population...whose earnings are extraordinary by any measure, who in many cases take in as much money in a year than most people could earn in many multiple lifetimes, yet who pay very little - to nothing - in taxes. They are an elite who enjoy benefits of living in our society that are beyond the wildest imaginings of 90% of the citizens who pay taxes. They live this by leveraging the labors of the taxpayers -- yet refuse to support their own privileged position in our country. Charge them ... collect from them ... and control their speculations which drive the expenses the rest of us have to struggle to pay. Problems solved.

Interesting analysis I saw just last week:

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Interesting analysis I saw just last week:

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

NewToCA, funny (to me) you post this link ... it's great ... thank you ... I bookmarked the same article several days ago thinking maybe I would post it ... reason I hadn't yet is that there has been a flurry of contention in threads this past couple weeks: the Wisconsin debacle and others ... I thought maybe I would just be fanning the flames too much ... especially considering the arguments about the political leanings / quality of various news sources ... I enjoy a good fire, of course (obviously), but this article you cite is sure to flare things up -- if, that is, anyone actually cares to read it. It is excellent (IMHO). True journalism is always exciting to me.

(On a tangent re: excellence in journalism -- but not a California-specific topic: "Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

[NewToCA]

The article was a little eye opening to me. It is one of the few articles I've read that made me reconsider some of my long held political/economic positions.

For example, I've long favored a flat tax system with decent standard exemptions. Back in the early 1980's reasonable guys from both political parties, such as Jack Kemp and Bill Bradley proposed various forms of flat income taxes, with sizable standard income exemptions. I generally supported those proposals, and have done so for decades.

However, seeing the current income data I now favor a limited progressive tax system. The income data indicates that money is much more skewed today, so I think higher income folks should be charged a higher rate, regardless of standard deductions (both at the state and national levels)

[nullgeo]

Just realized NewToCA's link connects only the charts and graphs attached to the article I refer to above as excellent journalism ... the article itself is:

Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About | Mother Jones

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

The article was a little eye opening to me. It is one of the few articles I've read that made me reconsider some of my long held political/economic positions.

For example, I've long favored a flat tax system with decent standard exemptions. Back in the early 1980's reasonable guys from both political parties, such as Jack Kemp and Bill Bradley proposed various forms of flat income taxes, with sizable standard income exemptions. I generally supported those proposals, and have done so for decades.

However, seeing the current income data I now favor a limited progressive tax system. The income data indicates that money is much more skewed today, so I think higher income folks should be charged a higher rate, regardless of standard deductions (both at the state and national levels)

Quite a long time back, I also favored a flat-tax system ... I think it was based in my love of simplicity. But, over the years since Reagan, watching the extraordinary chasm of economic inequality widen, and the frankly obscene acquisition of wealth by the few at the expense of the health of the nation as a whole -- nuh-uh. I have written before: I don't hate the rich ... I hate people benefiting from the labor of others while also not paying for the privileges those labors bring.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

The article was a little eye opening to me. It is one of the few articles I've read that made me reconsider some of my long held political/economic positions.

For example, I've long favored a flat tax system with decent standard exemptions. Back in the early 1980's reasonable guys from both political parties, such as Jack Kemp and Bill Bradley proposed various forms of flat income taxes, with sizable standard income exemptions. I generally supported those proposals, and have done so for decades.

However, seeing the current income data I now favor a limited progressive tax system. The income data indicates that money is much more skewed today, so I think higher income folks should be charged a higher rate, regardless of standard deductions (both at the state and national levels)

Progressive tax is needed now more than ever to even the playing field because the wealthy Americans have found ways to benefit greatly off the middle class by manipulating our government system. They pour funding to political candidates that best serves their special interests, making tougher for the average American to succeed -- whether it be small business or working for a corporation. The wealthy Americans also find ways to avoid paying their fair share of taxes through tax loopholes.

"Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

"In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

"Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust."

How the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011

When you think about it, the income distribution has shifted to the wealtheist Americans who don't pay the same amount of taxes as would the middle class Americans would have paid pay if their average salary figure had increased across the board since 1988. The rich simply got richer, while the middle class have gone backwards in the last 20 years. I won't go more into details, since the CNN article addresses all that. But read the last 9 short paragraphs showing the timeline of the previous US presidents who have paved the way for the growing disparity between the rich and the rest of America.

[Vascodagama]

Graph: Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_incometax_ff183graph3-2.jpg (broken link)