California Special Election May 19 (Los Angeles, San Diego: middle-class, vacation home, high income)

[sonarrat]

I'm voting no on everything - not because I'm rigidly opposed to new taxes for any reason, but because there's no indication that the additional revenues will have any positive effect. There are too many loopholes that would give the Governor the unique and unilateral ability to bury us even more, just like he did when he blissfully allowed spending to spin out of control as the General Fund soared over $100B on the back of a giant asset bubble, ignoring the lessons learned from the very same 2002 recession which placed him in office.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

I'm voting no on everything - not because I'm rigidly opposed to new taxes for any reason, but because there's no indication that the additional revenues will have any positive effect.

Please read my post earlier in the topic where I've showed that in the past these measures have little effect because the governor and legislature simply ignore them:

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Does anybody remember Proposition 58 in 2004, the California Balanced Budget Act? It passed with 71% of the voters in favor. It required the state legislature to pass a balanced budget every year, which means that budgeted recurrent expenditure, including repayment of past debt, does not exceed estimated revenue. The Act also created a reserve fund called the Budget Stabilization Account (i.e. "Rainy Day" fund) in case of future financial trouble. While Prop 58 was to provide balanced California budgets, the deficits continued in subsequent years, growing larger over time. (material from Wikipedia)

So now we have Proposition 1A of 2009, a "Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund. I'm sure considering Proposition 58 it's not surprising that I scoff at the new proposition. The governor and legislature can put any kind of propositions they like on the ballot, and irrespective of whether the people vote into law the legislature still does whatever it likes, spends whatever it wants, ignores limits even when enacted into law by the voters.

Go ahead and vote for 1A if you feel like it, but it won't change anything whether it passes or not. Same for Propositions 1B-1F. The legislature likes the voters to believe citizens are in control by encouraging us to vote for these measures, but the legislature ignores them whenever it suits their purposes.

I suppose some people will vote for 1A anyway, but it's going to have about as much effect in controlling the runaway state spending as Proposition 58: little or none.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Half a million for her first year? I guess it depends on whether you're giving it or getting it.

California voters are getting it okay? It's just that it hurts when we try to sit down.

She's getting it were giving it

[Lovehound]

I meant that we are getting it, in a painful spot.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by esmith143

Conservatives always moan about government waste and paying too much in taxes and always complain that we have to spend less.

When asked what exactly they would want to cut, they point to insignificant things like salaries of a few outliers in Sacramento. Which, if eliminated altogether, would reduce the budget by 0.001%.

Let me try this way.

There's NO room for any significant reductions in our budget. We could save a few million here and a few million there but we're 10+ billion short and that kind of hole cannot be closed by a few salary reductions and by closing some minor projects.
we're in the top 3 states for overall taxation. That tell's me we're paying enough taxes it's just not being spent correctly. It's got to start with
Our Governor is Republican and even he acknowledges after looking at numbers that we can't get out of this by cutting spending any more than we already did.

Two of our major spending categories are K-12 and prison systems.

Our K-12 is underfunded compared to the rest of the country. Our prison system is overcrowded and underfunded compared to the rest of the country.

Compared to other states, our state spending per capita is AVERAGE TO LOW.

Compared to other states, our effective property tax (something like 0.5%, thanks to prop 13) is LOW.

We have to repeal prop 13.

The state is in a very bad position financially and the only way to close the hole in the budget is to raise taxes.

We have to vote YES on all propositions on May 19 or all hell will break loose.

Cal is in the top 3 states for taxation so they are getting enough money they just don't spend it wisely. They take from programs that need it and use it somewhere else. The cuts should start with a few million here and a few million there and it will add up. That's how they got in this boat, spending a few million here and a few million there.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by happ

I agree. As a home-owner, of-course, the repeal of Prop 13 will mean higher taxes but if it means helping California then I will do my duty. I am voting YES on the governor's propositions because I know to do nothing will only make things worse. I don't, however, think the propositions will pass because it seems all spectrum of the political parties are urging NO Even the socialists\ Green party is asking members to vote no. California is going through a particularly hard time since the "housing crisis" & most other states are also in serious fiscal trouble.

Those that suggest cutting services are immature & irresponsible & why the Republican party is "dead on arrival" in California [nobody listens to them or votes for them - total losers

to do nothing would be to not vote. I'm doing something I'm voting no,

[4beanie]

48% of Cal taxes are paid by 1% of the top income earners. What would Cal do if that 1% hot feed up and left.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by esmith143

Conservatives always moan about government waste and paying too much in taxes and always complain that we have to spend less.

When asked what exactly they would want to cut, they point to insignificant things like salaries of a few outliers in Sacramento. Which, if eliminated altogether, would reduce the budget by 0.001%.

Let me try this way.

There's NO room for any significant reductions in our budget. We could save a few million here and a few million there but we're 10+ billion short and that kind of hole cannot be closed by a few salary reductions and by closing some minor projects.

Our Governor is Republican and even he acknowledges after looking at numbers that we can't get out of this by cutting spending any more than we already did.

Two of our major spending categories are K-12 and prison systems.

Our K-12 is underfunded compared to the rest of the country. Our prison system is overcrowded and underfunded compared to the rest of the country.

Compared to other states, our state spending per capita is AVERAGE TO LOW.

Compared to other states, our effective property tax (something like 0.5%, thanks to prop 13) is LOW.

We have to repeal prop 13.

The state is in a very bad position financially and the only way to close the hole in the budget is to raise taxes.

We have to vote YES on all propositions on May 19 or all hell will break loose.

I don't know what part of the State you own property... In my City, the Property Tax Rate is near 1.5% That would be 3 times .5%

I know you said effective rate... as one that bought at the height of the market... this 1.5% is my Real Rate.

All it takes is the support of 2/3 of the voters to increase property taxes... this mechanism is built into Prop 13 and for school construction bonds it's only 55%

So why would the repeal of Prop 13 be necessary when it provides a simple means for the voters to approve new taxes?

I live in Oakland CA... and the voters of my city routinely pass parcel tax measures above prop 13 limits.

Prop 13 is not the problem... it is the only bright light saving Californians from total financial devastation...

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Many people talk about how cushy the government pensions are. So, I decided to look into it. This is what I found:
1. Government workers do not pay into Social Security and will not get it when they retire.
2. The average pension paid to California state workers is $1,600 per month--with no social security.
3. Government workers who become disabled, not as a result of thier employment, are able to retire right then at the rate they would receive if they were at retirment age. So, if a worker gets sick after 10 years on the job at age 40, he will be able to retire for the same amount of money as he would if he worked on the job for 10 years and retired at age 65. This turns out on average to be about $100 more than social security disability pays---but it is not fully indexed to inflation.
4. Some government workers may get retirement healthcare, but not all. In fact, in San Bernardino County--a county worker has an average retirment pay of $1,700 per month. Health insurance for that worker runs $850 per month--deducted from the retirment pay.

So...IMHO the problem with govenment lagress is not worker pay and benefits. It is: 1) too many workers, 2) too many entitlement (welfare) programs, 3) too much out-and-out waste.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I still think the top pay for a kindergarden teacher, for nine months work is WAY too high. The top pay is $89,000 per year. WOW!!!!

VOTE NO NO NO NO NO NO

A govt work only has to work, what, five years in the private sector for SS. Not that many workers start and end work with the govt or at least that one job. They can also double pension by switching divisions of govt from what I've been told.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

A govt work only has to work, what, five years in the private sector for SS.

Social Security income is based upon your earnings over 20 of your best years (including of course the minimum 20 quarters). The less you earn and the fewer years the less you will get. In other words just 5 years wouldn't be a very big SS benefit.