U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2013, 04:48 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,427 posts, read 5,747,186 times
Reputation: 1530

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
It is difficult for you to be concerned with deeper debt when California is running a surplus. The OP's view of California's shortfall is undercut by the fact that the state is running a surplus.
you are aware that the long term spending has not been taking into account, such as the state pension, which are unfunded to the tune of $500,000,000,000.

that is just the cost of the state workers pension, not to fact in the cost of Obamacare and the raise cost of illegal Immigration...but then again its great to feel good in the moment,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2013, 05:03 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
you are aware that the long term spending has not been taking into account, such as the state pension, which are unfunded to the tune of $500,000,000,000.

that is just the cost of the state workers pension, not to fact in the cost of Obamacare and the raise cost of illegal Immigration...but then again its great to feel good in the moment,
Those figures were calculated in the middle of the financial crisis when stocks plunged. Since then, there was a historic rebound. These numbers are also used as a scare tactic. But the changed financial outlook does underscore an important point that defenders of public sector unions have been making for several years: Judging the financial prospects of a pension fund in the middle of a historic economic crash is a dumb thing to do. As the economy improves so too will fund performance.

Another point, compare the pension liability with total spending over, say, the expected remaining lifetimes of those workers, and it’s a real problem but not inconsistent with my point that these compensation issues have been grossly overstated.

To put this in perspective, CA spends about $478 billion each year, which is about the size of the claimed unfunding (although it is really much smaller.) But the state only needs to payout a small portion of its pension each year and can easily handle that.

Last edited by MTAtech; 05-13-2013 at 05:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 05:38 AM
 
3,576 posts, read 6,049,754 times
Reputation: 1432
Facts. Prop 30 was supposed to increase revenue by 6 billion a year.

So a surplus of 4.5 billion is already below projections.

2. With impending tax increases in 2013. Many wealthy families cash out on stocks at the end 2012. That probably accounted for some of the 4.5 billion.
Capital gains rate were going up by 5% long term for those over $400k along with personal income taxes going up by almost 5%. It's a no brainier for wealthy folks to cash out on stocks and pay a lower rate wit guaranteed tax savings. That creates a temp boost in the revenue generated in California.

I will be not surprised if there is no surplus for next year.

Remember during the 1990s Clinton had a slight surplus cause of the Internet boom cause a lot more tax revenue being generated by investors cashing out. But once the Internet bust happen. We hit a slight recession with deficit in 2000-2001.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 06:02 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Facts. Prop 30 was supposed to increase revenue by 6 billion a year.

So a surplus of 4.5 billion is already below projections.

2. With impending tax increases in 2013. Many wealthy families cash out on stocks at the end 2012. That probably accounted for some of the 4.5 billion.
Capital gains rate were going up by 5% long term for those over $400k along with personal income taxes going up by almost 5%. It's a no brainier for wealthy folks to cash out on stocks and pay a lower rate wit guaranteed tax savings. That creates a temp boost in the revenue generated in California.

I will be not surprised if there is no surplus for next year.

Remember during the 1990s Clinton had a slight surplus cause of the Internet boom cause a lot more tax revenue being generated by investors cashing out. But once the Internet bust happen. We hit a slight recession with deficit in 2000-2001.
That's pretty funny -- claiming "many wealthy families cash out on stocks at the end 2012." Since the stock market is up by 16.43% YTD, who is buying these stocks? Moreover, because wealthy people were afraid to pay 5% more taxes, they missed out a 16.43% rise in wealth.

Excuse me. Clinton had 4 straight years of surpluses that ended when Bush cut-taxes. 2000 and 2001 were both surplus years, not deficit years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Tianjin, China
3,113 posts, read 2,689,264 times
Reputation: 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Oh... don't worry. California has projected that they will have a surplus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Tianjin, China
3,113 posts, read 2,689,264 times
Reputation: 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
And the article clearly says that more cuts will be made to deal with the problem. What the F do you haters want? Oh wait, I know. You either want everyone in California to die, or you just want to complain about California until YOU die.
We want California to adopt sensible policies and start growing again. They don't have to become Texas, there are others states who do just fine.

If they keep the current path, then I won't shed any tears if they fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 07:16 AM
 
3,576 posts, read 6,049,754 times
Reputation: 1432
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
That's pretty funny -- claiming "many wealthy families cash out on stocks at the end 2012." Since the stock market is up by 16.43% YTD, who is buying these stocks? Moreover, because wealthy people were afraid to pay 5% more taxes, they missed out a 16.43% rise in wealth.

Excuse me. Clinton had 4 straight years of surpluses that ended when Bush cut-taxes. 2000 and 2001 were both surplus years, not deficit years.
End of Clinton term the Internet boom was going bust. I love it when people try to defend Clinton (and I like Clinton even as a republican and voted for him in 1996 election cause I thought Dole was too old).

Clinton left Bush 43 with a recession. Like how Dems will blame Bush 43 for the 2008 fall. Look at the stock market from 2000-2001. It tanked. It's on Clinton's clock and when he left market was still tanking. Clinton can receive all the credit for the economy during the boom but none of the Internet bust?

FactCheck.org : Clinton and Economic Growth in the ’90s

Of course people cashed out end of 2012. U aren't just dealing with a 5% raise in person income taxes. You are dealing with another 5% in capital gains taxes. U take the guaranteed thing over the uncertainties of the future.

And like I said. Prop 30 was suppose to get at least 6 billion more in revenue. Let see how much it gets for tax year 2013? It's already below projections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 10:36 AM
 
51,641 posts, read 41,606,703 times
Reputation: 32260
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
That's pretty funny -- claiming "many wealthy families cash out on stocks at the end 2012." Since the stock market is up by 16.43% YTD, who is buying these stocks? Moreover, because wealthy people were afraid to pay 5% more taxes, they missed out a 16.43% rise in wealth.
Let me help,

Bob bought a share of stock for $20, it's now worth $50. Bob sells the stock and pays taxes on the $30 capital gain so that it's recognized now at the lower rate.....and turns right back around and buys stock with his money resetting the basis to $50. That way, if he sells in 10 years for $100 he is only paying gains on $50 instead of $80 at the higher taxation rate.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:39 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top