U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 02-28-2012, 03:11 AM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,658,807 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Yes reading the article will go a long way.....so why didn't you read it? The article mentions a number of tax proposals. The 12% and 15% income taxes were in reference to incomes beyond $1 million and beyond $2 million respectively....not $250,000.
From Article :
Fifty-eight percent support Brown’s plan to raise retail- sales taxes to 7.75 percent from 7.25 percent and increase wage levies on individuals making $250,000 or more, currently at 9.3 percent.



Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Yes
To say it again, you are speaking as if everyone is trying to maximize their net worth regardless of any other issue. Not everything thinks that way. As for shifts in behavior, any tax change will result in shifts in behavior.
OFC not, I am of the thinking of minimizing the returns on my capital
There's something called price elasticity of demand .. I am sure you are familiar w/ the concept .. Given that tax increases the price of something, and that that something has a certain Price elasticity of demand.. There are many examples in which tax changes don't change behavior (demand) at all as the tax impact is negligible. There are many gimmicky taxes that boast that it changes demand when in fact it doesn't.. Such taxes typically center on small tax on large volume goods ..

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
I'd much prefer an increase in property taxes, but higher income taxes on top earners isn't so bad either. I just don't think its going to raise as much revenue as they think it is... Of course the state wouldn't even have a problem if the federal government wasn't bleeding it of tax dollars, its fundamentally crazy to have federal tax dollars flowing out of California and into the redneck states when California's economy is hurting.
Your bias is showing and I've already debunked this idiotic theory on threads past. An example of how California 'donates' .. Many Californian's pay into Social security and many of them decide not to retire here due to tax/COL .. They go to another low cost/low tax state and draw down on Social security.. by the idiot logic of 'donation to federal' govt. this event results in a 'donation'.

The federal govt. decides to locate alot of its departments and work outside of California due to its exorbitant costs ... Locates it in cheaper states to maximize the utility of federal tax dollars .. This according to (idiot) logic results in a donation from California to said state...

The logic is idiotic and has been debunked 500 times .. stop spewing out this nonsense .. Nuke prop13.. tax people to all high hell in Calif. I support you there. No one is going to leave. The sun is too bright.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2012, 03:25 AM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,658,807 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Perhaps you don't have an inferior complex but you certainly sound as such by your posts. There is no point there, just mindless bantering on top of self-ego stroking. I think what you were trying to say is "CA has a fiscal problem!" Well duh! What amuses me is that you honestly think you're the only one who notices CA has this problem.
Relax ... All this stuff above.. again .. personal attacks.. stick to the topic and grow up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
A good engineer knows that there is no perfect system. It's always a give and take - good engineering is as much art as science. Is CA perfect? Hell no. Is it for everyone? Probably not. But is it going to fall and crumble like you predicted? I highly doubt it.

.
The first step in solving a problem is admitting there is one.
Many people can't even seem to do step #1 w/o having a mental break down...
Quote where I said in this thread it is going to fall and crumble....
There are facts though and this is one :
Stockton Bankruptcy: City Would Be Largest In American History To Declare Bankruptcy
I guess in your world sh*t just happens out of nowhere.

As an good engineer.. as a person who makes $$$ betting on the future and (net) being right .. I tend to take predictions and projections serious.. It means more to me than just some mindless talking point to protect my personal bias or to stroke my ego... I'm not one of them as I still care but part of the reason why the big financial gap exists in this country is because people in the know stop trying to help the broader society because they just spit in their face when the truth is given to them.. and instead focus their raw talents in markets.... If you're wrong, you'll get immediate feedback in the form of losses.. If you're right, you will make gains .. There are no emotions.. No one spitting in your face because they don't want to accept reality.. It's a lot more rewarding than sitting around trying to help the unwilling. <- i say this to provide perspective from people I interface with who wouldn't have the balls to see this in a public forum.

At some point I realized there's money to be made too .. in being able to look at things logically, by the #'s, and by the facts.... People lie.. The #'s .. they never lie. 1+1 =2 .. 4+4 = 8 .. I don't carry emotions and love for a state in my thinking.. sorry. Just cold hard facts/data/#'s and logical projections.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 12:38 PM
 
483 posts, read 668,087 times
Reputation: 1373
CA voters are dumb. First, they vote for greater deficits with that retarded high-speed rail. And now they want even more-progressive taxes -- which is the main reason we have these budget problems every year.

Why can't these fools realize it's the progressive nature of CA's taxes that's the source of its wildly fluctuating state revenue? Rich people and corporations have very volatile income that swings strongly with the economy, so when that group is responsible for the lion's share of state revenue, you get these insane swings like in 2008-09 when state income tax revenue dropped by 50%!!

So now they want to make it even MORE progressive. Great thinking!!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,351 posts, read 10,675,051 times
Reputation: 4075
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
From Article :
Fifty-eight percent support Brown’s plan to raise retail- sales taxes to 7.75 percent from 7.25 percent and increase wage levies on individuals making $250,000 or more, currently at 9.3 percent.
Right, so like I said, you should have read the article. The 12% and 15% rates weren't associated with Brown's plan and the article didn't specify the increase in income tax specify by the Brown plan.

To say it once more, the article stated that the 12% and 15% rates were for incomes of $1 and $2 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
Many Californian's pay into Social security and many of them decide not to retire here due to tax/COL .. They go to another low cost/low tax state and draw down on Social security.. by the idiot logic of 'donation to federal' govt. this event results in a 'donation'.
I didn't say anything about "donations", rather the flow of federal tax dollars. Social security spending isn't the key issue, instead other forms of federal spending. The federal government should shift the flow of funds in response to local economic issues. Allowing funds to flow into the redneck states makes sense, it helps these states get out of poverty, but funds shouldn't be taken from states that are having issues.

And as I've said numerous times, the bay area isn't representative of California as a whole, there are plenty of areas throughout California that have low costs. Folks, like yourself, that can't afford the bay area can have many options throughout California....of course leaving California is perfectly viable as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 01:49 PM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,658,807 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Right, so like I said, you should have read the article. The 12% and 15% rates weren't associated with Brown's plan and the article didn't specify the increase in income tax specify by the Brown plan.

To say it once more, the article stated that the 12% and 15% rates were for incomes of $1 and $2 million.
Right, so like I said, there is a consensus to raise taxes on couples making $250k+ which includes that income bracket in the discussion ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
I didn't say anything about "donations", rather the flow of federal tax dollars. Social security spending isn't the key issue, instead other forms of federal spending.
How about you provide #'s showing the breakdown for once ? I know what it is... As of now, your statement, as always, has no supporting facts. I've spoon fed enough on this topic and will not be providing you this service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The federal government should shift the flow of funds in response to local economic issues. Allowing funds to flow into the redneck states makes sense, it helps these states get out of poverty, but funds shouldn't be taken from states that are having issues.
Your ignorance is showing again ... and shows the underlying emotional bias that underlies your lies..

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
And as I've said numerous times, the bay area isn't representative of California as a whole, there are plenty of areas throughout California that have low costs. Folks, like yourself, that can't afford the bay area can have many options throughout California....of course leaving California is perfectly viable as well.
I work in tech, don't talk to me about affordability in inland California in BFE. That's not where my job is and there are limited areas in northern California I deem suitable to house my family ... Maybe if there weren't such stark differences between the people who compose one town vs. the next (Here is where the middle class/rich people live) and here is where all the low income/illegals/and servants of them live and have to commute from BFE to work in the bay area....

You don't what my affordability is so don't comment on it .. Affordability is not the issue... Overpaying for something I can get a lot cheaper is... and by cheaper, I don't mean some hole in the wall city 2 hours inland from my job full of some of the worse performing schools in America.

I choose the later option as there aren't many 'viable' options for my particular situation in California. The 'affordable' snipe is really getting old.. In response, I am all for supporting tax increases out the wazzo right as I leave .. w/ $336 billion in debt and tens of billions in deficits a year, given how well Californian's can 'afford' living here.. they can 'afford' lots more taxes to pay off their obligations .. *cheers
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,351 posts, read 10,675,051 times
Reputation: 4075
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
Right, so like I said, there is a consensus to raise taxes on couples making $250k+ which includes that income bracket in the discussion ....
No....not like you said. Anyhow, this is silly, you didn't read the article and you made erroneous comments about it. Brown's plan, as the article states, includes an increase on income over $250k but the rate is not specified. The 13% and 15% rates aren't in relation to the $250k figure.... C'mon, this isn't difficult the article is only one page....

Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
I work in tech, don't talk to me about affordability in inland California in BFE.
When you are making general claims about California I will most certainly talk to you about the affordability in other areas of California. You continuously generalize about California from your narrow experience in one very particular area of the state. Get over the fact that you don't make enough to afford a nice home in the good parts of the bay.

Do you promise to stop whining when you finally leave the state?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 04:22 PM
 
1,791 posts, read 1,265,880 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post

Glad you feel that way. Do not ask the rest of the country to bail out your state when its treasury is empty and no one will give it credit.
Bail out CA? It's CA who has been bailing out other states... for decades! Do you realize that we Californians only get 75 cents back in federal services for every dollar in federal tax that we paid?

California has been subsidizing the rest of the country for decades! We get screwed and we ever complained. We're one of the biggest economy in the world, not just the country, the world. Sorry, I know your ego can't take that fact, but reality is reality - California drives this nation, not the other way around. You need CA much more than CA needs you.

Why is it that some rich people leaving the coastal states is bad? I think it's healthy for wealth to be diversified. I don't want CA and NY to be the only places where millionaires congregate. In fact, I think part of the problem of this nation is that there is not enough wealth in flyover countries, so they become right-wing extremist conservatives to make themselves feel better.

.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 04:30 PM
 
1,791 posts, read 1,265,880 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
Relax ... All this stuff above.. again .. personal attacks.. stick to the topic and grow up.


The first step in solving a problem is admitting there is one.
Many people can't even seem to do step #1 w/o having a mental break down...
Quote where I said in this thread it is going to fall and crumble....
There are facts though and this is one :
Stockton Bankruptcy: City Would Be Largest In American History To Declare Bankruptcy
I guess in your world sh*t just happens out of nowhere.

As an good engineer.. as a person who makes $$$ betting on the future and (net) being right .. I tend to take predictions and projections serious.. It means more to me than just some mindless talking point to protect my personal bias or to stroke my ego... I'm not one of them as I still care but part of the reason why the big financial gap exists in this country is because people in the know stop trying to help the broader society because they just spit in their face when the truth is given to them.. and instead focus their raw talents in markets.... If you're wrong, you'll get immediate feedback in the form of losses.. If you're right, you will make gains .. There are no emotions.. No one spitting in your face because they don't want to accept reality.. It's a lot more rewarding than sitting around trying to help the unwilling. <- i say this to provide perspective from people I interface with who wouldn't have the balls to see this in a public forum.

I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore. Have you just shifted the topic to Stockton, investment and futures? Good God. Stay. On. Topic. I know it's hard for you to do, but...

Whether or not you agree with my post, at least you can understand my writing. The same can't be said about yours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
At some point I realized there's money to be made too .. in being able to look at things logically, by the #'s, and by the facts.... People lie.. The #'s .. they never lie. 1+1 =2 .. 4+4 = 8 .. I don't carry emotions and love for a state in my thinking.. sorry. Just cold hard facts/data/#'s and logical projections.

More off topic stuff. Nice.

Btw, it's scientifically impossible to make any decision or conclusion without emotions.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/feeli...0227-8k8v.html


.

Last edited by beb0p; 02-28-2012 at 04:51 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 05:14 PM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,658,807 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Bail out CA? It's CA who has been bailing out other states... for decades! Do you realize that we Californians only get 75 cents back in federal services for every dollar in federal tax that we paid?
California doesn't subsidize crap .. I've covered this already.. The idea that it contributes to the federal pool and gets nothing back is a farce.. When i pay into social security and retire in another state.. that state I retire in is so called 'subsidized' by california because i draw down on federal funds i contributed while in california in a state other than california.. That's how idiotic the logic is .. When people spew such nonsense statistics around, it's obvious no one uses their brain to further analyze info they are given. Again, California doesn't subsidize sh*t. P.S - California is the #1 state in America receiving federally funded and extended unemployment relief and 'housing recovery' bailout money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
California has been subsidizing the rest of the country for decades! We get screwed and we ever complained. We're one of the biggest economy in the world, not just the country, the world. Sorry, I know your ego can't take that fact, but reality is reality - California drives this nation, not the other way around. You need CA much more than CA needs you.
It's a co-relation if you understand it right .. Such as periphery EU members to Germany's GDP .. W/o them consuming your crap, you'd soon be jobless too ...
Something the average ego in California doesn't get .. Oh, and explain to everyone in the U.S how and why almost every corporation here outsources everything that isn't nailed down in order to avg. op-ex lower due to the high cost of operating here.. Apple comes to mind. Maybe if they added tariffs to junk, more jobs would be spread throughout the U.S .. But woops :


As for what California drives .. It drives a dominant ideology of consumption and idiocy fueled by the media/marketing machine in hollywood and is one of the issues why this nation has ran amuck as people focus on the most materialistic of pursuits ..
California drives the nation in the ground that's what it does.
[Why America Failed: The Roots of Imperial Decline] - C-SPAN Video Library

Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Why is it that some rich people leaving the coastal states is bad? I think it's healthy for wealth to be diversified. I don't want CA and NY to be the only places where millionaires congregate. In fact, I think part of the problem of this nation is that there is not enough wealth in flyover countries, so they become right-wing extremist conservatives to make themselves feel better. <- no need for this
I actually agree with you here.. Market forces are already doing it though .. businesses and people have already made and are making the financial decision to leave and go to lower tax/COL locations.. will alleviate the middle class that is getting rolled in California and allow those who leave to access a better quality of life. Win for everyone

Last edited by yeahthatguy; 02-28-2012 at 05:22 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2012, 05:21 PM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,658,807 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore. Have you just shifted the topic to Stockton, investment and futures? Good God. Stay. On. Topic. I know it's hard for you to do, but...

Whether or not you agree with my post, at least you can understand my writing. The same can't be said about yours.
It was a response to your off-topic remarks..
Cliff notes : My foresight is used to make money and is quiet accurate. My critiques have to do w/ politics as its relates to economic/tax/COL impact .. All of which are math and finance .. Have nothing to do w/ emotions. Emotions are dangerous and don't help at all in science. Drop the emotional love affair w/ California and maybe you will see clearly. Also drop the personal attacks .. I have no ego to stroke.. Only my wallet.. and it pays to be accurate. Where do your projections/analysis stem from? A personal bias in defending California? What's your agenda ? Are your theories/projections tested on a daily basis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Btw, it's scientifically impossible to make any decision or conclusion without emotions.

Feeling our way to decision
.
B.T.W - Emotions don't help you solve 1+1 .. We are human. We have emotions.. In many things, you are more accurate when you minimize them... Your analysis seems to stem from an outright defense of California (due to your love affair w/ it in the face of reality) .. and thus,your emotions, in this case cloud sound judgement and lead to inaccurate projections.. Stockton was brought up as it will serve as an example of things to come in California (#1 municipality bankruptcy in american history) .. It is the result of systemic problems plaguing California that emotionally/irrationally blinded apologist like to ignore .. So, to suggest my negative projections are inaccurate even flies in the face of present day reality .. As does it, if you thought clearly about what the future reality was an extrapolated current trends out.

I hope I am clear and didn't break any of your brain cells.

Good Day
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top