raising ca state tax (Arnold: prices, budget, office)

[hsw]

Originally Posted by sav858

CA has a budget deficit 3x NY, the state with the 2nd highest deficit, that alone should be a warning sign of how dysfunctional our state govt is. And it's that type of mentality of it's "unlikely to ever change" that will never make anything better and will continue to ruin CA's quality of life. Yeah the northeast has high taxes and cost of living but they also have MUCH BETTER schools and infrastructure than we do, so at least they got something to show for it. But what does Ca have to show for it's high taxes? Ranking in the bottom 5 for education, crumbling roads, poor public transit, etc..... Ca's govt needs serious fundamental changes or this state will go nowhere but down.

NYC region is no better than SF/LA....

CT has lower inc taxes than CA; but Greenwich public schools suck (they have public housing projs and associated crime issues in Greenwich along I-95)....rds in NYC region are some of worst in US (SF and LA are relative paradise in ability to travel 40-60mis through dense urban regions quickly in one's own car)....NYC region lacks a 280-like fwy....or the fast tollways nr NewportCst.....and need to value CA's nr-perfect weather....and the freedom of being able to drive one's high-performance car daily everywhere....

Chicago's NorthShore suburbs offer perhaps US' best balance of high QOL/moderate COL...but it lacks NYC's high-powered financial industry...or SV's powerful tech industry....and that awful weather and endless flat, boring rds mean torture for car nuts....

Any place that's much cheaper tends to have a proportional QOL and economy....IMO, life's simply too short to live in "cheap" places like Dallas....

[jamesandveybe]

Originally Posted by eagle7

Ca is well known for being a greedy state from high taxes,utilities,rents,dmv fees,electonic waste fee,gas taxed twiced,etc..NOW the idiots incl gov arnold want to raise the state tax 1% from 7.75% to 8.75%.This is utter nonsense.They created the 15 billion dollar deficit & why should we pay for these morons greedyness & stupidity ?

Ah yes, the state board of "equalization." Even after 15 years away from California, I still remember the term. Equalization to feed those on welfare, of course.

No, there is no surprise that the state wants you to bend over further. In fact, they will do it again in 2011, to 11.25%. Bet me.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

Correct Mach.

As far as roads and public transit, i dont notice it. ive spent time in colorado, nevada, and utah in the past few months and CAs roads are plenty fine. good public transit is just something that will never be a reality in CA because of how the state was built and when it was built, so get over it.

great defeatist, do nothing mentality there and fairly typical for Southern Ca. I don't get why some of you don't think public transit will work in Southern CA when there are good examples of it already here. And other cities across the nation with similar development patterns as SoCal too have it. Public transit is very much a reality and does work in Ca, mainly in the Bay Area. Most of the Bay Area is just as sprawling and suburban as Southern CA and their suburban rail system (BART) works great. La's rail system has good ridership for such a small system that misses many of the most important parts of the city. San Diego has one of the most successful light rail systems in the country despite it also missing a lot of important parts of the city. Should we just keep expanding freeways? double decking freeways? Gas is not getting cheaper and traffic is not getting any better or going to get better. We need alternative forms of transit and can't rely on just one mode, the private automobile.

And as for the worst roads, nearly every major city in CA was in the Top 10 for having the worst roads: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/us/03brfs-001.html

[sav858]

Originally Posted by hsw

NYC region is no better than SF/LA....

CT has lower inc taxes than CA; but Greenwich public schools suck (they have public housing projs and associated crime issues in Greenwich along I-95)....rds in NYC region are some of worst in US (SF and LA are relative paradise in ability to travel 40-60mis through dense urban regions quickly in one's own car)....NYC region lacks a 280-like fwy....or the fast tollways nr NewportCst.....and need to value CA's nr-perfect weather....and the freedom of being able to drive one's high-performance car daily everywhere....

Chicago's NorthShore suburbs offer perhaps US' best balance of high QOL/moderate COL...but it lacks NYC's high-powered financial industry...or SV's powerful tech industry....and that awful weather and endless flat, boring rds mean torture for car nuts....

Any place that's much cheaper tends to have a proportional QOL and economy....IMO, life's simply too short to live in "cheap" places like Dallas....

no better in what respect? Yes there k-12 schools are MUCH BETTER than CA's and some of the best in the nation. Are there some bad schools there? Of course, you can't pick one crappy district then try to use that as some evidence the entire NE isn't better than CA.

CA has the worst roads in the nation, all of our major cities fall into the Top 10 worst roads: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/us...=1&oref=slogin

Our public transit is pathetic compared to the NE.

Who gives a crap about the weather or being able to drive an overpriced car? what the hell does that have to do with govt waste, poor education, and bad roads?

are you even native to Ca b/c you seem like a transplant?

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by sav858

great defeatist, do nothing mentality there and fairly typical for Southern Ca. I don't get why some of you don't think public transit will work in Southern CA when there are good examples of it already here. And other cities across the nation with similar development patterns as SoCal too have it. Public transit is very much a reality and does work in Ca, mainly in the Bay Area. Most of the Bay Area is just as sprawling and suburban as Southern CA and their suburban rail system (BART) works great. La's rail system has good ridership for such a small system that misses many of the most important parts of the city. San Diego has one of the most successful light rail systems in the country despite it also missing a lot of important parts of the city. Should we just keep expanding freeways? double decking freeways? Gas is not getting cheaper and traffic is not getting any better or going to get better. We need alternative forms of transit and can't rely on just one mode, the private automobile.

And as for the worst roads, nearly every major city in CA was in the Top 10 for having the worst roads: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/us/03brfs-001.html

and many of those rail systems lose money and are propped up by taxpayers, which is the same case in many european countries that have very thorough light rail.

im fine with building rail, but with the geography and layout of workers and business in socal you will never have a truely efficient system.

an example of a place where rail works in the west is denver. you have a clearcut business area(downtown and denver tech center) and a big square that people live in. send a few spokes out from the middle(downtown) and its fairly efficient. you have business elsewhere, but because of the layout of the greater denver area its not difficult to reach it via public transport.

in LA you have many job areas all geographically split apart with no real rhyme or reason. you have long beach, downtown la, ventura, irvine, anaheim, el segundo, santa monica, carson, santa fe springs/cerritos, etc with heavy business and industry. the layout does not favor any specific system so instead you have rail lines that spider around haphazardly and in order to serve the needs of the public you'll need to drastically expand them and the capital cost of doing that plus the cost of operating would most likely not be a profitable situation.

if you can figure out how to expand rail without charging me(who needs public transportation when you work at home?) im all for it.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

and many of those rail systems lose money and are propped up by taxpayers, which is the same case in many european countries that have very thorough light rail.

im fine with building rail, but with the geography and layout of workers and business in socal you will never have a truely efficient system.

an example of a place where rail works in the west is denver. you have a clearcut business area(downtown and denver tech center) and a big square that people live in. send a few spokes out from the middle(downtown) and its fairly efficient. you have business elsewhere, but because of the layout of the greater denver area its not difficult to reach it via public transport.

in LA you have many job areas all geographically split apart with no real rhyme or reason. you have long beach, downtown la, ventura, irvine, anaheim, el segundo, santa monica, carson, santa fe springs/cerritos, etc with heavy business and industry. the layout does not favor any specific system so instead you have rail lines that spider around haphazardly and in order to serve the needs of the public you'll need to drastically expand them and the capital cost of doing that plus the cost of operating would most likely not be a profitable situation.

if you can figure out how to expand rail without charging me(who needs public transportation when you work at home?) im all for it.

and do freeways somehow make money? Yes public transit is subsidized and it always will be b/c it a public good.

The SF Bay Area by far has the best rail system and public transit than anywhere west of the Mississippi River. Denver's system is good but it's not better than SF's, only 65k people use Denver's light rail daily compared to 173k for SF, 130k for LA, and 100k for SD.

If you look at a map of LA, with the exception of the Green Line, all the rail lines converge in downtown, like Denver. LA has corridors where many jobs are located that could easily accommodate successful transit. The Wilshire Corridor being the #1 place in America where a subway is needed, just look at all the jobs along that corridor in Mid Wilshire, Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Century City, and Santa Monica. Yeah rail lines won't be reach every single employment center but it can reach many of them and provide an alternative to driving. Rail in LA can work as it already does along certain corridors with it. Just look at the Orange Line busway and how popular it is despite it being fairly slow and a bus.

Freeways, roads, and public transit are called a public good for a reason. Do you think I want to help pay to expand freeways? That is such a selfish mentality you have there. I mean look at how few people work from home and since you're now of the few you think you shouldn't have to chip in like the rest of us?

[Zapparulez]

Politicians no longer understand the importance of budget restraint. They only know how to spend and if they run out of money they only think about raising taxes so they can continue to spend. We are losing a BILLION dollars a month in California, so it's time to tighten the belt and CUT SPENDING!!!

You can't just tax your way out of a recession...it just doesn't work that way. You **** off your constituents, because they are struggling to make it as well.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by calif

Low Property Tax? I don't know where you live, but I wouldn't consider it low here. What do you pay on a $500,000 property?

In Oakland CA you will pay $7,400 your first year based on a $500,000 purchase...


For pratical purposes I tell people to use 1.4%... and you will be very close.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

What difference does a a low percentage make when the property values are so out of line with the rest of the country? Would you rather pay 1% of $600k or 2% of $200k?

That chart says the tax as a percentage of home value is only .48% in CA. That's total BS and must factor in all those people who bought in 1977 and are paying $1500/yr on their $800k house. Buy a house today and you'll pay 1%+.

More like folks who bought for 28k back in the 1958 and now pay $1500 yearly property tax.

[Winston Smith]

Gray Davis (D) = $14.5 billion
Ahnold (R) = $15 billion

What the heck was the recall election about?