Well...State employees have already taken a 15% paycut in the form of having to take 3 days off per month without pay. Pathfinder's oldest daughter is a State Health official and her job duties require her to inspect hospitals...old folks care centers...and jail facilities for medical care violations as well as issuing or revoking their license to operate...within a given area of operations. She is based in San Diego where the cost of living is high. She has two children under the age of five and it was costing her $1600 per month for day care and pre-school for the oldest child. The 15% loss of pay caused three problems for her. She could no longer afford to pay for day care and preschool for her children. Forntunately...or unfortunately...her boyfriend had been layed off from his job...and could not find another...so he became the care taker of the children. The oldest child had to drop out of preschool and her youngest child cannot now go to preschool. Another problem it caused is she had to move from a good neighborhood to a lesser neighborhood because she could no longer afford the rent. The third problem is she had to downgrade her car as she could no longer afford the payment for the car she had. If she were to take another 15% paycut she probably would not be able to live in her area of operation and would have to quit her job and relocate. She earns around $70,000 per year pre payrole deductions and taxes.

thanks.. it's funny, but the laffer curve is directly connected to californian politics.. what i was reading starts explaining how government spending influences the relevancy of the laffer curve etc

If it's about personal responsibility, why does California only get back $0.78 for every $1 they pay in federal taxes? They would be fine fiscally if they didn't have to prop up so many red states with their taxes.

The personal responsibility thing for Republicans kind of goes out the window when the red states are overwhelmingly the welfare states.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

In my opinion, they should take a pay cut and still work full time. Deflation is setting in. Salaries must go down as the money supply reduces. It takes a little longer for prices to go down but they should eventually follow salaries. In the mean time, you have to make cuts and move if necessary. No one is entitled to live in a good neighborhood or drive a nice car. Dropping out of pre-school is no big deal especially if the boyfriend will watch the kids.

In the soviet union, working in a government office was the most profitable and prestiguous work. They had power and could get themselves special perks. If the same happens in the usa (government work becomes higher paying then private business), then you can also expect it to eventually come to an end, somehow. People are losing their jobs or taking pay cuts. Its totally unreasonable that government employees should not take any paycuts. I do think the paycuts should be for all state employees, including retirees - not only education or medical.

Gov. Schwarz seems to want to protect certain departments from cuts. Is that true?

Everything you just listed is something that hundreds of thousands of families across the country are also dealing with. It's a shitty situation for all, but frankly she is lucky that she didn't get the pay cut and still have to work five days a week like many did.

The whole fucking system is unsustainable. It's not just California. Cali is just the next big impact. We can't just keep buying shit forever and expect it to never end. There are way too many people on this planet. Our entire way of life is based on 'Enjoy it now, because at some point, the party is over.'

Another problem she has...her job requires her to travel several days every month...sometimes by car but often by air. She has to pay all expenses out of pocket (gas...airplane ticket...food...lodging) and then is reinbursed by the State...that is when they get around to it...which often works a real hardship. She has often been reinbursed by the State with I.O.U's.

You may be right and she is "lucky" but if she gets "lucky" again the State will probably lose a good and dedicated employee and she will have to look to relocate...if possible.

That's a nice fairy tale. Unfortunately it is the welfare recipients within blue and red states that vote left. Regardless of which way an overall state leans, welfare trash votes left to keep their handouts rolling in, and everyone knows it. That's why your beloved party will never allow welfare recipients to be drug tested or meet any basic criteria for their handouts.

Perhaps California would be just fine if they didn't sustain themselves by buying votes with handouts. It hurts having to pay those handouts now, doesn't it?

Where do you get the $800 figure?

The highest fee quoted at the California Secretary of State is $150. The annual Statement of Information is $25. If your accountant is charging you an extra $775 for it, you better find a new accountant.

You're making the point to why spreading the wealth sucks :2 cents:

It is an annual corporate tax paid to the Franchise Tax Board (State of California), per corporate entity. The California Secretary of State fee is something else entirely. Then there are your local fees as well. Business license, etc. If you are a corporation, you've paid it. If you haven't paid it, your status will be revoked.

It's one of those things that 'just is'. It's the cost of doing business in California.
Hawaii has a General Excise Tax, that business owners are responsible for filing and paying. (it's involved of course, but that's the bottom line.)

I've also found that many public employees have little or no motivate to cut budgets, streamline and cut costs or really do anything to help. Most government jobs are not elected positions so once you have the job you have no real motivation to satisfy the voters. I have seen time and again where money is wasted, too many people are on payrolls for certain jobs and nobody cares.

I wish every city in the nation was required to bring in some kind of group made up of business owners, CEO's, accountants etc and have them take a long hard look at the city and cut the fat to make it run like a well oiled business would. Sadly, that will never happen. People work hard to get on the government tit, once they are latched on they fight tooth and nail to stay there.

If your argument is that Democrat voters are poor, than shouldn't the Blue states be the ones who are receiving money from the Red states? I mean they have a higher percentage of Democratic voters (poor people). Shouldn't California be pulling money from Alabama and Mississippi since those states are filled with Republican voters (rich people)?

Remember that in the last Presidential election, voters who made over $100k a year voted in favor of Obama by a decent margin.

And I don't belong or support any party. Just posting statistics that point to your statement being wrong.

I agree that it sucks to spread the wealth. Just pointing out that the talking point of Republicans being for personal responsibility is pure fiction. The numbers don't lie.

They do, they're called lobbyists.

Yes, so true. The taxation of the rich and the status quo with illegals has been a serious burden on this state. Now its time to pay the piper.



Very true and nice observation.


So true, but we need to go bankrupt before we ever learn that lesson. Sux, but true. Its like when all criminals seem to find Jesus while they are in jail. Why couldn't they find jesus before they stole or murdered people? Its as if jesus hangs out in prison or something :2 cents:

SoCal still the hottest women on planet earth because many of them move here and spread their genes :) Yes the state is fucked. Much of LA is a shithole. Fuck even some of the roads in Beverly Hills resemble that of a 3rd world country.

It's not quite as simple as chop 2 jobs and save 70K a year though.

Sack them and replace them with a phone and what are the costs of having them unemployed? Here they would get state benefits and also lots of subsidised other stuff which all adds up.

Please if you are already high earner how come they are living there NOW? Rich people live in California because they love living there. They can already afford the taxes. If that was an issue they'd come live in my current shithole state of Tennessee where there isn't a income tax. Hell in my area $200k can get you a 4000 square foot house and 10 acres of land MINIMUM. Total property tax would be maybe $2000 a year. So how come my area isn't full of millionaires? Oh because it sucks. You see some things are more important than money. Of course you're jewish so I can see how that idea is beyond your comprehension.

US taxes are too low, currently 28.2% of GDP OECD average is 36%. Most countries in Western Europe are above 36%. Sooner or later there will be a collapse if you don't raise taxes in the US.

My home country Sweden is the prime example of too high taxes currently at 49.7% of GDP main reasons for them being so much higher than most countries are very generous welfare system, very high immigration rate per capita from poor countries (all which get welfare from day 1) and highest foreign aid in the world related to GDP (1.1%).

Exactly. You can tell a Californian how much more they would get for their money in South Dakota, but no one wants to live there. Money is pointless if you aren't living how and where you want. The end goal isn't always to die with the most money in the bank.

They have been fleeing the state for some time now which fuels the problem.

Exactly and the sooner it all comes crashing down the sooner we can get on a sustainable path.

You're thinking of it the wrong way. The comparison you're trying to make has nothing to do with Red or Blue, it has more to do with taxation amounts based on populace (with a COL adjustment) vs amounts needed for Federal spending (on things like roads, schools, etc). The Blue states on average spend quite a bit more on social "benefits" like welfare. Keeping with your 2005 example, here is the welfare spending by state for that same fiscal time frame:

http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/welfarespending.htm


Here is an historic Red/Blue breakdown for comparison:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rpleNation.PNG

Exactly.

Do you even comprehend that just because some news source calls a state "red" because 51% of people voted one way, there is still 49% that voted the other way?

What's voter turnout? 51% of a small number of people who bothered to vote makes the people who didn't really want something even higher.

California: A $20 reporting fee and a statement of information are required 90 days after formation and then every two years. An annual $800 LLC tax is due 75 days after formation and every year thereafter. There is a minimum annual fee of $865 if the LLC's net income exceeds $250,000.
Nevada: A $125 fee and an Initial List of Managers and Members are due 30 days after formation. The annual report filing fee is $125. There is no state income tax or franchise tax.
Delaware: There is an annual LLC tax of $200 due each June 1, beginning the year following formation. There is no state income tax.
New York: Every LLC must publish notice of its formation in two newspapers in the county in which it was created. In some areas, the fees for this publication can run up to $2,000. The company must then submit a certificate of this publication to the state, together with a $50 filing fee. For LLCs that choose to be treated as a partnership, there are annual fees that increase based on the number of members the company has (from a minimum of $325 to a maximum of $10,000).

The California legislation does nothing but pass laws to deter business, raise taxes or create entitlements they cant afford. What the fuck have they been thinking. Now that they have chased away billions in business revenue and pissed away billions on entitlements, they expect everyone else to pay for their stupidity. They have the highest standard of living in the world and now we get to pay their debt.

Truth is the politicians in that state should be locked up as criminals if only they could afford jails. And on top of this insult to the rest of the country, they expect Arizonans to help them out when they say to boycott us. It has the riches recourse, the best climate and is the number one producer in over 50 agricultural products. Two counties have over 20% unemployment due to our government shutting down farms to save a small thumb sized fish.

Maybe Obama can blame this on George Bush as well.

I say fuck em and give it back to Mexico. Sorry if you're from there, I too was born in California as where my parents and grandparents. My great grandparents came to California in the early 1900's to work the railroads. Not many 3rd generation Californians and I was once very proud of my state and all it offers.

But we, as the American public, are retarded brain farts living on fast food where American Idol is more important that the American Government. We vote for anyone who gives us warm and fuzzies without putting a moments thought into their credibility. As long as we elect the least qualified to run our country, these things will happen. Oh well, more taxes for us to pay, YaY!! :mad:

First of all, to your last statement :321GFY Screw you and your racist Nazi pig views


Secondly, businesses and HNW Individuals are ALREADY leaving Cali, as well as hiding assets outside the state. If you don't think that additional tax raises on both corporations and individuals have an affect on lowering job availability and overall income to a state, then you need to re-learn modern history and economics. Why do you think states offer huge tax breaks to get corporations to move in? It is because they know that the offsets of that tax revenue will still result in a net gain in terms of returns to the state gov.


.

Looks like we got a bigot here.

I bet you your right.

My home town here in NorCal is pretty smart and pretty fair. They started merging positions that did similar things - They took two jobs that each made $80k a year, merged them together, and then reduced the pay to $70k - saving $90k per year.

In one respect we are lucky that we are a new town, and most of our parks are maintained by the HOA. However, the city recently announced that they were canceling both the July 4th parade and the fireworks. The parade is back on because most of the officers involved will be volunteers and the fireworks are on because a bunch of people got together and blanketed the small town with donation requests, and local businesses stepped up to pick up the tab.

Spend money on fireman and police. That's it. Problem solved. Everything else should be run by private companies. Roads and schools would be much better off if they were run like a business instead of the current idiocracy that has a track record of dismal failures.

It's funny how the media tries to use scare tactics when it comes to budget cuts.

"They're going to close 250 colleges and empty the prisons!"

Nobody in California goes to jail for smoking pot.

The reason our jails are full is because we've imported millions of criminals from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Our prisons are full of gangbangers, not pot smokers.

The states at the top of welfare spending are there because they can pay it. New York can afford more in social services because it's an extremely wealthy state. Alabama can't because it's an extremely poor state.

Sorry, but with a few exeptions, the more Democrats in a state means the richer it is. The more Republicans in a state means the poorer it is. That can't be a coincidence.

Nonetheless, it was arguing the point about personal responsibility. If it was about that, people in states like Alabama and Mississippi who elect Republican Senators would demand that they would not take more money than they pay in. But they don't, and thus are welfare states.

States that close are called purple or swing states.

I'm saying that if the statement that was made earlier about Democrats being poor and Republicans being rich was true, states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York would always be electing Republicans. They have the riches people.

With the expansion of the lower class all accustomed to, and wanting, government freebies, I wonder if it is reversible. Successful, wealthy people will move out because of the high crime and high taxes. Businesses will relocate. Money will continue to flee. What will be left?

Taxes and crime are at historic lows for our country. If they would have left over that, they would have done so decades ago when tax rates were at 90% for the rich.

Pick up a history book.

And I think that is the way it should be in many cases. If the people of a city really want a parade, they will find a way to make it happen and either get donations to pay for it or volunteers to work it and clean up after it. Same with the fireworks, if people really want them, cool, nothing wrong with collecting a few bucks in donations from a lot of different people and paying for it.

The town I grew up in started doing the same thing. They had fireworks every 4th of July and the it was nice display, but it was expensive. That town had a lot of people who lived out of town and would never see the fireworks. They complained about having to pay for them even though they never see them. Eventually the mayor caved in and got rid of them. The people who live in town took up collections and got them back (oddly enough at a huge discount, because as per normal the city was way overpaying) and everyone was happy.

So many people here are off the mark here as to what caused the problem. California is the victim of a wacky conservative economic experiment called Proposition 13. It forever hampered the state?s ability to raise revenue the way most other states do. That is why there are so many high fees and other things in California because they simply can?t generate revenue the way most of the other states in the country do through property taxes.

There are people that have multi-million dollar homes that get taxed on what the property was valued at 30-35 years ago. For example if you purchased a home that was valued at 100k in the mid 70s that is worth 10 million today you would only pays taxes on the 100k value even though you now rent the home out based on the 10 million dollar value. The same goes for commercial real-estate if a developer built an apartment complex for a million dollars in 1975, but because of location and inflation the complex is now worth 30 million dollars the developer still only pays taxes on the original value of 1 million dollars even though the rents he collects in 2010 reflect the 30 million dollar value.

The free riders are the long term residential and commercial real estate owners.

So what happens to the person who buys a home and eventually retires with a modest income at 70. If they live in a nice neighborhood that went up in value over the years you're advocating they need to hike up the property tax to the point where the retired 70 yr old would have to sell the home and downgrade. all became the neighborhood went up in value over time . The home may be worth more but that doesn't change what the owners income level . Once the home is sold they would need to pay capital gains on the profit but as long as they live there they shouldn't get fleeced on property tax.

Rental/Commercial property I can understand your point to an extent but when applied to a regular residential owner I don't agree.

Most every other state does that. Value is reassessed and you are taxed at current value, not purchase value. Surely you aren't suggesting that California has magical 70 year olds that the rest of the country does not?

Now granted, they couldn't just come out of the blue and raise the property tax. California has too many other taxes that are meant to help balance that out. A sudden raise that nobody planned for would be disastrous.

With that said, I am very rarely in favor of raising any taxes. :-)

Yeah...Buffet once said the same thing...and that the property taxes are ridiculously low.

I think people must go to the public library to read books for free.

Gotcha. Didn't realize how other states do it. So I take it that in most states when older people retire they better be able to afford there increasing property tax or be forced to downgrade. Kinda sucks for someone that lives in a home for 50 years and eventually has to sell cause the properties taxes just got too high. Home all paid off but just cause the neighborhood does well you're screwed at 80

That is how it works all over America with the exception of California. It has its drawbacks, but it is better than the alternative. And the truth of the matter is in most cases even in California the 70 year old still downgrades, but rather than selling the home he rents it out or transfers it to a family member (to avoid reassessment) who rents it out . This dynamic lead to the rapid escalation or real estate prices as people had to pay a large premium to get someone to give up their basis in a home.


Furthermore conservatives broke the system for good as most property owners are voters and having been given a free ride for numerous years they don?t want to start suddenly paying taxes on the current market value of their homes or real estate investments. That?s why you hear so much propaganda being put out blaming it on other things because the property owners simply don?t want to pay the piper. Honestly, to fix the system the state will probably have to file bankruptcy and write a new constitution. If the Feds bail them out it will only prolong the structural problem as the state still won?t be able to raise adequate revenues to cover their expenses no matter how much they cut those expenses.

Gotcha. I don't know, maybe I'm just bias cause I live in California and am also a property owner but I like the property tax the way it is.

In your scenario about buying a 100K home that is being rented at the new 10 mill price you're leaving out the fact the owner still pays income tax. Seems like in other states the taxes will just be that much higher. Basically your cost of doing business (property tax) keeps increasing to the point you may one day have to sell.

While I do think lots needs to be fixed here, I personally like the property tax part .