Apparently reality has a liberal bias.
@LilShieste: You have to be careful. Just as Proposition 13 helped stabilize property taxes for homeowners, it’s done the same for businesses. Thus, in the midst of an economy that would have driven massive increases in property taxes for business properties, businesses haven’t faced the decision of stay and pay a lot, or move and pay less. Removing the provisions of Prop. 13 as they apply to businesses would arguably create a real dent in the state’s economy. Not saying it shouldn’t be done, but it’s not an open and shut case.
I will thank you to not wish death upon myself and my family!
:dubious:
Ah, that is a very… naive view. I don’t mean to insult, but I don’t think you understand how that will affect California’s economy. They already have a very high tax rate there, and further increases will begin doing serious damage. Businesses are already wanting to move out of the state. That is to say, however it may seem that none of them were “onerous,” that plan takes a substantial chunk of change out of the hands of California’s consumers duing a very hard time, and takes it out of the hands of those most likely to invest in now-cheap stocks and real estate, or who might work extra to make more money. That’s risky in hard times.
More to the point, I think the simulation is being naive. it seems to assume that nothing will change - that people won’t earn less, or that the tax increases simply won’t hurt the economy more than it would earn. Tax and economic history since the 80’s across the US (nationally and state taxes, too) suggest that taxes are actually too high right now. Government would get more revenues within just a few years by cutting taxes instead of maintaining or raising them.
The problem is that California spent money it didn’t have on things it didn’t need in the last decade. Had they kept spending level, they wouldn’t be in a budget crisis right now. Likewise, their “social programs” have a history of, well, not actually helping society. They tend to go to large government jobs projects to shore up political support for somebody important. Unions are a huge beneficiary.
Finally, there’s the issue that the state has not historically wanted to drop taxes after the problem is over. This is no suprise - it’s basically the entire history of the 20th century. Governments tax, sopend till they’re broke, raise taxes, spend that till they’re broke, raise taxes again, and so on ad infinitum. Raise taxes now, and you weaken the economy in the long-term.
You know, I suggested something similar to this in GQ thread about the U.S selling off assets to moisten its incendiary debt. I was laughed off the stage. I am not familiar with the State of California or its assets; but if the State possesses coal, gold, and oil, they’d do well to start selling. California could turn the government’s hand by leasing / selling a portion of California to another country like Canada or one of those rich European countries. Why wouldn’t this work? If California produces over a trillion dollars a year, they must have something or a collection of goods that’ll be worth 23 billion dollars if sold.
- Honesty
Clearly the solution is to raise the excise on cigarettes by $30 per packet, thereby raising the additional $24 billion required.
Only if reality is a silly flash application for a newspaper.
Bah to that! Why should we have sell all our good stuff?
California has more than two and half times the population of all its neighbors combined. We should invade and loot Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. Surely there is 24 billion to be had from Las Vegas alone!
In fact that could prove a semi-permanent solution to lean years. Medieval monasteries used to replenish their looted silver chalices and gilded collection plates and the Vikings would just come back a few years later and take all their shit again. It was like harvesting a crop :). Every 6-8 years we Californians should just boil across the state borders, crush all those who defy us and pillage to our hearts content.
ETA: We even have the perfect Governor/Warlord for this task already in office!
Huh…you guys couldn’t raid a girl scout camp! 
Most of you would die (or get lost or start shooting each other in the traffic jam) trying to get to Las Vegas…and I think the citizens of Arizona are better armed. As for Oregon…hm, you might be onto something there. Of course, I’m unsure if there is $24 billion in the entire state, but you guys might be able to do something there after all. Be sort of like Gandhi fighting the Dali Lama in a cage match, but the amusement value would be priceless…
-XT
Done. $12.5b in cuts, $11.5b in tax increases, $60m surplus. Painful, but not impossible.
I don’t disagree with you on that. I just thought it was interesting that the interactive flash app had an option to rescind Prop 13 for commercial properties, but not a similar option for residential properties. I think that small detail is indicative of an underlying problem I see with a lot of Californian’s attitudes on this - namely, that they say they want “all options on the table”, but automatically filter out certain options that would affect them directly.
This is the type of thinking that leads to the deadlocks, etc. that have been plaguing the CA government, when trying to address this issue. (e.g., “All options are on the table… but we’re not going to even consider raising any taxes!”, or “All options are on the table… but don’t even think of making any cuts to education!”)
Yeah, but the average Nevadan or Arizonan has to be at least 3 times as good a fighter as the average Californian, right? You can’t show up to combat in sandals looking for the nearest fish taco or tofu stand when you run low on supplies.
It seems that modest increases to tax rates yield the best effect - a fraction of a percent here or there brings in billions. The whole attitude about tax increases that’s been programmed into people by the Republicans has crippled us. We don’t even consider tax increases as solutions to budgetary problems now until it’s a last resort. Of course we’re hesitant to talk about spending cuts too. Solution? BORROW BORROW BORROW!
I want minimal taxes - far less than what we have now - but what I dislike even more than taxes is government spending. If you’re unwilling to gut spending, you have to raise taxes. We’re going to collapse our entire economy on this ridiculous philosophy where when deciding on budgets, we can’t raise taxes or cut spending.
So cut the low hanging fruit in spending, and enact tax raises with a sunset clause.
I haven’t looked at the California budget, but that page looks a little incomplete to me. I put every single cut offered into the basket, and it still didn’t balance the budget. I’d like to see what the rest of the budget looks like. For example, the salaries paid to the millions of state workers, and the benefits they get. I thought one of California’s major problems was that it has a huge civil service and it pays them extremely well.
The header text on the application says that it includes all proposals currently on the table. Maybe no one has proposed massive layoffs to state workers.
I like SenorBeef’s idea of putting a sunset clause on all new taxes. That might be enough to sway one additional Republican.
An improbable but to-my-eye better solution? Divide California in twain. Northern California would tilt even more heavily Dem, southern California moderate Republican. Both would be smaller, more easily managed, and have somewhat more homogenous populations and fewer interest groups.
I know it sounds weird, but there’s a nontrivial argument that California is simply too big and too complex to run as a single state-level entity.
Last I checked, California wasn’t even in the top ten when it came to tax burdens.
You know, this is not going to be true no matter how many times you say it.
That’s exactly right, except for those pesky facts that disprove everything you said. Reagan cut taxes, and then he raised them again. Tax increases are not the work of Satan.
If you consider people a renewable resource then put all the illegal aliens in squirrel cages to make electricity.
Massive layoffs to state workers have been proposed. The problem is that even that would not do much to balance the budget, because state workers outside the categories listed in the application (education, law enforcement, etc.) don’t make up that much of the state expenses.
For example, there is proposal to close all the state parks (thereby laying off all the rangers). Not only is that a drop in the bucket, but today the federal governemt said that if that happens, they’ll take over many of the state parks themselves.
I’m assuming that a certain portion of the California budget is either mandated via constitutional amendments- like school funding- or is “already spent” via binding agreements, and so on.