Home Arts & Entertainment Culture & Lifestyle Economy Food Health News & Politics Offbeat People Products Science & Technology Sports Travel

News & Politics

Rant

Tax Hikes

Posted 27 months ago|16 comments|414 views

TAGS

Taxes , Outrageous , California

Written by

scotmanster

Well California just raised the sales tax a 1/2 percent. The Mayor say that LA citizens voted for this and are behind this. He says 7 out of 10 residents want this. According to a source "At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax, which can total up to 10.75% with local sales tax included"

So it will be at 11.25% now with the new tax increase. The highest rated tax state in the US. When is enough enough though? I am from NY we are a high tax state. Should we be paying for incompetent state and federal Government programs? Is it our fault because the economy is tanking? Who holds the blame and why should we be the ones to pay for it? Where is the transparency we where promised? Are we getting duped again?

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST

To:

From:

COMMENTS

16 comments|ADD A COMMENT|JUMP TO MOST RECENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: State constitutions demand that the budget be balanced (unlike the Federal government). Ever since proposition 13 was passed in California in 1995, the government has had trouble balancing the budget. Since then they have cut budgets wherever possible, they have instated lotteries to help pay for schools, and their prison system is so overcrowded that the courts have demanded that prisoners be released to relieve the over-crowding.
Most state governments have a three legged stool of taxation. Property, Income, and sales taxes. The lottery revenue provides a fourth.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: With limitations on property taxes and with Republicans in control, the most regressive of taxes, sales taxses, were increased to try to balance the budget. Still there is a lot of smoke and mirrors and a lot of borrowing going on to make it look balanced while it really isn't.
Here in Oregon we have similar budget problems (as do all states except Alaska which gets lots of oil money). We used to have tax revenue from all of the trees they chopped down but much of that has stopped. Every state has cut their budgets to the bone and their infrastructure and schools are suffering. In Oregon however we don't have any sales taxes, so property and income taxes are among the highest in the nation. It is a more equitable solution, but the super rich are still getting off relatively unscathed.
We need new revenue sources. Minerals and fossil fuels on public lands are essentially given away subject to the 137 year old General Mining Act of 1872. Obama is trying to update this law and raise fees 7%.
It would also be good for the country to have a very small 0.1% transaction tax that would generate revenue from all of the derivitive trading and short sales of stocks that Goldman Sach etc. are getting rich on. This is the type of risky speculation that helped cause the economic collapse.
Another revenue source that seems to be the most acceptible is sin taxes. Figure out what harms the economy the most and tax that activity. Obama is trying to do that with the cap and trade energy legislation, but this is not nearly as effective as a simple carbon tax.
All of these alternative revenue sources would relieve pressure on the middle classes so they wouldn't have to pay such regressive sales taxes.
Republicans solution to every problem is further tax cuts, but someone has to pay the bills eventually. The question is, will it be the rich folk that have more money than god, or is it going to be more regressive taxes on the middle class?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

scotmanster

27 months ago: Yea here in NY lotteries pay for a big portion of our schooling. Sometimes I wonder though I used to go to a small school, only 20 kids in the classroom. Should we be merging these small schools with bigger schools? Maybe giving tax breaks and incentives to parents that home school their kids as well.

Small businesses get replaced quickly by big chain stores, though they do create jobs they undercut local businesses on purpose to get as much business as they can. It seems like these large corporations are not interested in community like regular locals would be.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

scotmanster

27 months ago: "We used to have tax revenue from all of the trees they chopped down but much of that has stopped."

Yea was watching American Logger or one of those reality television shows but they where saying when the economy does bad that lumber mills no longer need the wood. So yea I could see where that effects a budget without that extra revenue coming in from the wood.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Gezabelle

27 months ago: Wow, I am seriously considering saying in Asia until things get undercontrol in the USA.

How about fixing the underlying big government problems in California, before taxing the crap outta hard working people.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

The Cypress Gang

27 months ago: Al, did you forget the future 5th? 6th? 7th? 8th? to infinity?

Please lay all of the taxes / fees out on the table.

Your liberal friends might be blind. Maybe not able to read a bill that they receive in the mail. Maybe not able to really add the deductions from their payroll check and deferenciat what is a tax. Maybe not able to see the school tax, county tax, city tax, water tax, gas tax, battery tax, tire tax, garbage tax, landscaping tax, telephone tax, cable tax, internet tax, recycle tax....

Should I continue?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

The Cypress Gang

27 months ago: Yeah, I'm feeling another round ready.

Sin Taxes? How about Non-Sin Taxes to be fair since your soooo liberal with other peoples money?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: Scott the small schools are indeed better for the kids because they get more attention. Homeschooling is good for that although few parents can match the education, skills or time for home schooling. One thing that might bring costs down drastically is on line education.
Jezabelle and TCG they have been trying to cut programs in California. They have no choice any tax increase needs a super majority so even though the Repubs are a minority they can keep the government from raising taxes. The Republican governor has tried to cut programs but people demand services like schools and prisons they just don't want to pay for them. TCG I am aware of all of those other fees and taxes. That is what happens when The Federal and State doesn't tax the super rich. Local authorities have to raise revenue somehow to keep programs going so it hurts the middle class more.
Only the Fed can pay off the $12 trillion National Debt and thus reduce the $387 billion we have to pay in interest on that debt each year.
How would you folk get rid of the debt without taxes?
If we don't increase taxes and continue borrowing soon the interest will crowd out all other programs until the country goes bankrupt.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Gezabelle

27 months ago: One of the problems is just what you mentioned, Alt they want but they can't pay for it.

California has some tough choices to make. I think all government has to set priorities and see where cuts can be made. It will be hard and people will have to make sacrifices. Unfortunaltely IMHO people do not want to make sacrifices for long term good. It is the entitlement attitude.

When the USA went through WWI & WWII everybody had to make personal sacrifices for the war effort. People from all walks of life made contributions. In WWI they even saved the pits from eating peaches so they could be used in gas masks for the soliders.

Where is the personal effort now? No it's "the government has to take care of us", this is the attitude that many of us conservatives talk about. Not looking to government but to ourselves.

When I came here I made sacrifices, for economic reasons. I wanted to keep some highly paid staff in the states, but revenue was not going to be flowing in for about 4 months. So I had to budget, and I cut my own compensation first. But I had to set priorities on what would make the company successful in the long term.

Schools & Prisions are needed but what about the bloated beaucracy in CA. They could cut costs if they made government smaller. Think about it if the state were your household Alt what would you do? How would you handle it?
Be practical and compassionate, and what sacrifices are needed?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

scotmanster

27 months ago: The thing is Al I was looking at it from the economic end of it. Combining school districts would bring down costs. Are school was only 10 miles from a larger school. That is just one more school wanting federal aid.

If you want to fix things you cut Local Government help..look at the salaries these people are getting. They are making 5 times more than I am. For what though? To raise my taxes? Oh hell no. We had a few convictions of politicians here in Buffalo a few years ago using the system purposely. Politicians raking in money through expenses.

I would like to cut down big government jobs. You would be troubled to find out how much our local, state and federal government pays out in salaries. Cut federal funding for all special interest groups. If a special interest group wants to start a company and make money they can simply create a company like everyone else has to. We could pay for our roads if you use them through tolls.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

scotmanster

27 months ago: The biggest problem in the US is credit cards. I can see giving a company credit to use to pay for their payrolls but otherwise credit cards should be outlawed. We didn't let the mob get away with charging huge interest rates why should we let a credit card company do it.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: Gezabelle and Scott I am all for tough choices and I would probably go with Scott in reducing the size of government. Government agencies and programs get a life of their own and you can't eliminate them long after they have lost their usefulness. I would favor a sunset rule for all government programs that would require a cost effectiveness investigation every five years and if a program was not fulfilling it's purpose it should either be eliminated or changed. That goes for the current health care proposals also. If the program doesn't save money it should be changed so it does.
I agree that during WWII everyone sacrificed to aid the war effort. There was also a 90% top tax rate to keep war profiteers from getting too rich. With the current wars the rich got tax breaks and Cheney's buddies got super rich from the war. Obama is finally being fiscally honest and put the wars on the budget (which is why the deficit is so huge).
I would like to see more honesty and see where Blackwater and the other mercenaries are getting their money. There are more mercenaries than troops and they make 5-10 times what a grunt makes. Military spending accounts for 80% of discretionary spending if you exclude health. That would be my priority for cuts.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Gezabelle

27 months ago: Hey I am all for shrinking the Government.
For the record i did not at all support Bush and do not feel he is a true conservative.
I would also like to see some transparency.

I do not support Obama, he is too much like Bush. And he is a big Government type.
Go look up some critics on this argument.

It comes down to being realisic more than just holding on to an ideaology. Being practical over being "right or wrong" We need solutions, we need some leadership that has the American people's interests at heart over politics or cronys.
I like where you say we should investigate if something is actually working before continuing funding it.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: I agree about transparency and am unhappy about Obama not doing enough, but he is stuck in a bureaucratic system that resists change. I think the health care should have been done in 20 pages, but the system demanded a special deal with each rep so everyone gets something. I think we need to get money out of government so the reps just work for the people that elected them, instead of the special interests that fund their campaigns.
Obama is totally different than Bush , thank god, but he is still a politician.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: To TCG "Your liberal ---- Maybe not able to see the school tax, county tax, city tax, water tax, gas tax, battery tax, tire tax, garbage tax, landscaping tax, telephone tax, cable tax, internet tax, recycle tax...."
TCG as you point out taxes are ubiquitous. The total revenue of government remains fairly constant at about 33% of GDP. During Republican Administrations, income taxes are shifted so high income people pay less revenue, but because the cost of government remains fairly constant, and it must be paid for, the tax burden shifts to the middle income people in hidden forms like local taxes and all of the fees you listed above. Democratic administrations on the other hand tax the rich more, and give more money to state and local governments in the form of additional services to the poor, so all of the above fees and hidden taxes are reduced. The result is that the middle class have fewer overall taxes and then they have more money to spend, and then there are more jobs creating the stuff people buy.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

27 months ago: Because the rich and the powerful control the media, many low and middle income people have been convinced that taxing the rich is bad for the economy, but in reality what happens is that taxing the rich gives the middle class a break, so they end up paying less, which helps the economy and creates jobs. Giving tax breaks to the rich inevitably leads to more taxes on the middle income people which is bad for the economy, and results in higher unemployment. Most anti tax folk are shooting themselves in the feet.

Of course giving everyone, rich and poor, tax breaks, lets everyone party, but that is unsustainable because you have to borrow to do that. You can live high on credit cards but you suffer when the bills come. Each of the four great tax cuts in our history had exuberant spending and growth, but high deficits followed by bubbles that burst, followed by major recessions or depressions.
The stable periods in our history with constant economic growth, low unemployment, and no economic crises, all had tax rates for the super rich of over 70%, which also minimized income inequality.

FLAG THIS COMMENT