Of course I dont believe it would work. But I do not subscribe to the spread the wealth philosophy

Laffer Curve. Cali is tapped out.

Liberal policies like what Obama wants for the nation has put us here
California taxes the crap out of the rich and business's, so they move away, I'm getting my LLC from Nevada
One county, San Bernardino, spent 67 million on anchor babies in welfare
We have safe havens for illegal aliens and cities, instead of dealing with this, they boycott Arizona
I don't want pot legalized, for some reason I just don't see regulation of my pot by the government as a good thing, too easy to get a script

Republicans believe in full personal responsibility ................

except for corporations and military. For that, they believe in limited responsibility.

And of course they only believe in full personal responsibility until they get caught doing something wrong.


My all time favorite is Rush Limbaugh railing against drug users and saying how people who get caught doing something illegal should just own up to it, admit their mistake and face the consequences. Until he gets busted for having his maid try to buy him 5,000 Oxy pills then he shut up, got a lawyer and got himself the best deal possible. I guess so much for taking your punishment.

Solution is simple:

All state employees and maybe retirees get a paycut. cut 10-30% or more if necessary. whatever it takes to balance the budget. reduce work week to 3-4 days if necessary.

On second thought, there is a better way to get more money. Just lobby the feds for a bailout. Why cut when you can get a free bailout?

They need to do what I have seen in other companies. I worked for an electronics manufacturer years ago. They owners sold the company. The new owners came in and made everyone re-apply for their jobs. You basically had to explain to them why they needed to keep you. They probably laid off about 30% of the workforce and never missed a beat on production or quality. There were so many people who had been hired on for one thing or another then ended up sticking around that they were just clogging up the system.

I see it in the little town I work in. There is the public works officer. His job really is about a 20 hour a week job, but he works it full time. Fine, if they want to pay him to be around full time just in case, no problem. But he has an assistant and a secretary. He has told me himself that on most days he gets 5-10 calls that are work related and about 10-20 emails. All his secretary does is answer the phones and respond to his email. His assistant gets his lunch, washes his car and does whatever including running the city wide fantasy sports leagues. He told me that if the city bought him a Blackberry or an Iphone (something email capable) they could get rid of both of them and he wouldn't miss them. Combined these two people probably make around 70-80K a year. They could replace that with a $100 a month phone, but won't, yet they say they don't have the money to fill a couple of huge potholes on some of the roads.

Your idea is very good, even better than mine. I forgot about firing everyone and hiring them back. I know it's been done with entire police departments before.

Even if they hire everyone back, it might be good to put a little fear into the employees (by firing them) to increase productivity. I dont know much about human resources, so I cant say for sure that it's a good idea.

With the company I worked for they did it in an interesting way. You filled out your application and handed it in just like you were applying for a job. Over the course of a week or so they called everyone in one at a time and interviewed them. Then after all the interviews were done they sent everyone home early on a friday, told you to take all your personal belongings and that you would be paid for the full day. They also and told you that you would hear from them over the weekend.

I got a call Friday afternoon telling me I would be brought back and to be in at regular time Monday morning. Those who didn't get brought back were told that their access keys had been shut off so they had no access to the building and that their last checks had already been mailed. I guess it worked well because this way they didn't have to deal with any angry employees doing something stupid. I once worked for a company that laid a bunch of people off at the beginning of their shift and had a guy flip out. He attacked his manager and it took a few guys to hold him down and restrain him.

All of that sounds great and trust me, I am all for it and so are many many more people. But the reality is, public unions are far too strong. What needs to be done with the public Works sector is going to be very difficult to pull off because of the unions. Any time the government tries to make the public sector a little more on par with what reality is, it falls out. Those unions have so many votes they can pull from a politician it just overpowers any other group.

Colorado is really swinging their dick right now, I'm really impressed. Democrat governor too, which are usually very pro union. Not only is he getting teacher tenure changed but he is also trying to work in changes to the pension program so that it doesn't crash and burn within the next decade.

If public jobs were more on par with what the private sector requires, I really think we would see a lot of changes taking place. And not just the financial aspect. I'm talking worker aspect. Now don't get me wrong, some public employees are fantastic and they love their job and do it well. But the ones that don't should face the same repercussions that bad private employees do.

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: