Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2009, 11:42 PM
 
6,497 posts, read 11,768,838 times
Reputation: 11122

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I thought a spending cap was a good idea to help cut waste and expenses but apparently not according to most voters.

This has more to do with just waste and expenses but how screwed up CA's revenue stream is, it's too volatile and needs a rainy day fund and spending cap to help mitigate that imo.

Do you actually believe prop 1A will institute an actual spending cap? A bit naive, aren't you? With the increase in taxes for 2 additional years, that means they'll be able to INCREASE SPENDING. Where is the cap? And since when will the legislature actually spend only what they actually have?

Geez, read the prop, stop listening to the ads for it.

 
Old 04-10-2009, 10:48 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,957 posts, read 32,418,045 times
Reputation: 13588
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelstress View Post
Do you actually believe prop 1A will institute an actual spending cap? A bit naive, aren't you? With the increase in taxes for 2 additional years, that means they'll be able to INCREASE SPENDING. Where is the cap? And since when will the legislature actually spend only what they actually have?

Geez, read the prop, stop listening to the ads for it.
That taxes have ALREADY have increased, they are not going to increase more if we approve 1a, but just for longer. Geez maybe some reading comprehension would help you out there. They are not increasing the tax rate so how will that lead to increased spending?

Well I guess you are expecting the legislature to spend only what they have WITHOUT a spending cap. But go ahead and reject 1A, watch another deficit rear its head b/c of that, and pray they don't raise taxes to cover it. Now how naive is that?
 
Old 04-10-2009, 12:21 PM
 
6,497 posts, read 11,768,838 times
Reputation: 11122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
That taxes have ALREADY have increased, they are not going to increase more if we approve 1a, but just for longer. Geez maybe some reading comprehension would help you out there. They are not increasing the tax rate so how will that lead to increased spending?

Well I guess you are expecting the legislature to spend only what they have WITHOUT a spending cap. But go ahead and reject 1A, watch another deficit rear its head b/c of that, and pray they don't raise taxes to cover it. Now how naive is that?

OMG, let my type slowly so you'll understand. Taxes increased for 2 years, for now. Upon passage of 1A, they will increase for the 2 years following. That means it's a tax increase, with a higher spending cap.

And no, I don't expect the legislature to spend only what they have without the cap. They've proved it every year that will spend more than what they have. Now, how naive are you to believe they'll actually abide by a cap?

A deficit will rear its ugly head WITH 1A, that's already being considered for the next budget. Prop 1A and the new tax increases will not prevent the next buget deficit. It's naive to believe a cap will solve these problems.
 
Old 04-10-2009, 12:48 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,957 posts, read 32,418,045 times
Reputation: 13588
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelstress View Post
OMG, let my type slowly so you'll understand. Taxes increased for 2 years, for now. Upon passage of 1A, they will increase for the 2 years following. That means it's a tax increase, with a higher spending cap.
Typing slow or fast doesn't really make a difference when I read it genius, but if you want to take your time go ahead.

The taxes already increased, they are NOT going to increase AGAIN after two years. We will just pay what we are paying now for an additional two years, nothing is increasing from what we are already paying now. The tax is just EXTENDED and not increased. The same tax rate you pay now is the same one you will pay in 3 years if 1A passes. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Quote:
And no, I don't expect the legislature to spend only what they have without the cap. They've proved it every year that will spend more than what they have. Now, how naive are you to believe they'll actually abide by a cap?
A cap is better than no cap.

Quote:
A deficit will rear its ugly head WITH 1A, that's already being considered for the next budget. Prop 1A and the new tax increases will not prevent the next buget deficit. It's naive to believe a cap will solve these problems.
But it will potentially make the next budget deficit worse than it otherwise might if there was a cap in place. And w/o a rainy day fund, tax increases are more likely. If CA had a rainy day fund today we wouldn't need such large tax increases. And I never said it will "solve" all the problems but help mitigate them.

But go ahead and vote no and just keep the status quo b/c it really seems to be working out well
 
Old 04-10-2009, 12:55 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,032 posts, read 12,565,080 times
Reputation: 1508
Polling feedback appears that most Californians have no idea what the propositions are & if confused, will likely vote no. Plus, turnout is expected to be very low. Schwarzenegger is doing a lousy job promoting his initiatives; he needs to get out & speak to the state. Where are the TV ads? [that we all hate anyway]. This special election looks like a dud.

California needs more federal money. We are the largest state & have a huge number of jobless\ immigrants\ children w/o medical insurance\ unfunded mandated programs\ needy schools\ broken down prison system\ rail project delays\ Sacramento delta dikes ready to collapse in an earthquake, etc. We need more stimulus $ pronto
 
Old 04-10-2009, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Wayward Pines,ID
2,054 posts, read 4,252,803 times
Reputation: 2314
People are justified in calling it an increase since the higher tax would not exist if 1A did not exist. Calling it an extension is fine also. The liars that created it do not call it either one. It is not a real cap either, it is a Ponzi scheme.
 
Old 04-10-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,727 posts, read 6,195,759 times
Reputation: 4257
Default Problems

California does not have an income problem,and never has.California has a spending problem.There are ballot initiatives passed many years ago on the books,but the tax and spend politicians keep asking for more.Vote no on every initiative that takes more from our citizens,and keep voting no until they get it.Ignore the phony scare propaganda that is starting to circulate.California will not slide into the sea if the bureaucrats do not get more of your money.
 
Old 04-10-2009, 03:57 PM
 
Location: In Transition
1,637 posts, read 1,901,421 times
Reputation: 931
Default Tax X zero income = zero revenue

How much more revenue from a tax increase will you get from a person when a person is homeless? ZERO How much more revenue will you get from a tax increase when a person is unemployed? ZERO How much more revenue from a tax increase will you get from a person who moved out of California? ZERO How much more revenue from a tax increase from a person who is severely underemployed? virtually ZERO How much more revenue from a tax increase will you get from an immigrant who is getting paid under the table not reporting and making $10000/yr? just about ZERO

People who think the state will get more money by increasing taxes in a severe recession are the most brain-dead morons I've ever seen.

Guess what people, CA can raise taxes all they want! They're never ever going to make up the revenue they will need without reducing the structural expenditures that are forcing this state down the drain (ie, pensions, health care, etc for unions / immigrants).

Oh yeah, where did I see a "balanced budget" reform prop before? Prop 58. Yeah, sure went far, didn't it...
 
Old 04-10-2009, 08:00 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,032 posts, read 12,565,080 times
Reputation: 1508
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkbatca View Post
How much more revenue from a tax increase will you get from a person when a person is homeless? ZERO How much more revenue will you get from a tax increase when a person is unemployed? ZERO How much more revenue from a tax increase will you get from a person who moved out of California? ZERO How much more revenue from a tax increase from a person who is severely underemployed? virtually ZERO How much more revenue from a tax increase will you get from an immigrant who is getting paid under the table not reporting and making $10000/yr? just about ZERO

People who think the state will get more money by increasing taxes in a severe recession are the most brain-dead morons I've ever seen.

Guess what people, CA can raise taxes all they want! They're never ever going to make up the revenue they will need without reducing the structural expenditures that are forcing this state down the drain (ie, pensions, health care, etc for unions / immigrants).

Oh yeah, where did I see a "balanced budget" reform prop before? Prop 58. Yeah, sure went far, didn't it...
"pensions, health care, etc for unions"

Why would we want to hurt Californians? The state government benefits [as well as federal benefits - ie. congress\ assembly\ courts\ police, etc.] are what all public companies should provide. They can't & why the government will take over the health system

In many ways it is impossible to function beyond debt since the needs of the state exceed the ability to resolve some of these problems. We can succeed but our way of life will change [ie. more rail instead of more freeways].
 
Old 04-10-2009, 08:11 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,308,419 times
Reputation: 29336
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia View Post
Giving politicians more money is like giving drug addicts more drugs.
You have that right. They're like the ex-wife. They've never seen a penny I earned that they didn't want and couldn't spend!
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 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.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top