But seriously, what's the likelyhood of taxes going up EVEN MORE under Brown? (foreclosure, credit)

[wellyouknow]

He said after the win he will be a "frugal governor that won't increase taxes UNLESS VOTERS APPROVE IT"

When I read that with that qualifier my red flags went up immediately. Given that the majority of the folks that voted for him would BENEFIT from tax increase I'm sure "the voter will approve it" Why would he even phrase it like that? Is he saying he will at least attempt to push tax increases through? So that he can "give back" to his bum electorate.

Time for the working folks to grip our ankles and hide our wallets,... again?

[Fontucky]

I expect crippling indirect taxation via feel-good horse**** such as the CO2 cap and trade baloney. I hope I'm wrong.

[Vascodagama]

Prop 13 is a goner

[TimC2462]

I, for one, do not think that Prop 13 will be repealed repealed due to the dismal economy. The last thing Brown would want is to add more to the foreclosure inventory. Secondly, Californians (including the liberals/Democrats) do not want to pay higher property taxes than it already is.

Lastly, since the Democrats and Independent voted Brown into office, all he has to do is rely on the voters to approve additional taxes. They will probably vote for it.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

What most people call a "tax increase" or a "tax cut" is just a tax redistribution scheme. The total amount of revenue is always about the same: enough to cover government services, or a little less than that. Bush proposed "tax cuts" for the wealthy and a larger percentage of the tax burden and/or service privation ended up falling on the lower and middle classes. Odd, that the same people who are shouting for tax cuts are also advocating deficit control. How is it that you can make the candle longer by burning it at both ends?

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

What most people call a "tax increase" or a "tax cut" is just a tax redistribution scheme. The total amount of revenue is always about the same: enough to cover government services, or a little less than that. Bush proposed "tax cuts" for the wealthy and a larger percentage of the tax burden and/or service privation ended up falling on the lower and middle classes. Odd, that the same people who are shouting for tax cuts are also advocating deficit control. How is it that you can make the candle longer by burning it at both ends?

There was a redistribution of taxes towards the lower class??? Really

The top 1% pay 38% of all federal taxes
Top 10% pay like 73%

50% of all people pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 - broken link)

Get your facts straight

It sucks to be in CA right now, I am sure it is a beautiful state, but no employer will move there, taxes are too high

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

There was a redistribution of taxes towards the lower class??? Really

The top 1% pay 38% of all federal taxes
Top 10% pay like 73%

50% of all people pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 - broken link)

Get your facts straight

It sucks to be in CA right now, I am sure it is a beautiful state, but no employer will move there, taxes are too high

The flaw in your reasoning is that you seem to think that the people who pay no federal income tax are in the bottom half of the economic castes. Not so. Many of the people who pay no taxes are wealthy, which was part of my initial point: Bush-era tax cuts have made it possible for many high-income earners to take a free ride on the taxmobile.

They Earn $200,000 and Pay No Taxes - ABC News

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

The flaw in your reasoning is that you seem to think that the people who pay no federal income tax are in the bottom half of the economic castes. Not so. Many of the people who pay no taxes are wealthy, which was part of my initial point: Bush-era tax cuts have made it possible for many high-income earners to take a free ride on the taxmobile.

They Earn $200,000 and Pay No Taxes - ABC News

Err... the article shows because 7000 americans paid foreign taxes, they get a tax credit and pay no US tax.

That doesnt make your original point that the poor pay a higher percentage of taxes. It isn't true. The wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

a larger percentage of the tax burden and/or service privation ended up falling on the lower and middle classes.

What do the poor have to pay more for? They don't pay taxes, they don't pay for anything.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

The wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes.

I've never claimed that the lower and middle classes pay a higher GDP-share of taxes than the wealthy. Only that their GDP-share has gone up over time -- compared to their own past history of tax burden. Many of the tax cuts for the wealthy don't show up in theoretical income-tax liability data charts because they involve capital gains reductions, lowered taxes on dividend income and greatly reduced estate taxes. Many of the burdens on the lower class segment shows up in the form of reduced government services for the less fortunate. If you have a physical disability, get cancer while working a minimum-wage job, or have a kid with Downs Syndrome, you are on your own now much more so than in the past.

My point is one of the trending of tax policy, not one of absolute dogma.