|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 30, 2011 9:00:20 GMT -8
#1 The California state government is facing a potential state budget deficit of 19 billion dollars this year, and California debt is rapidly approaching junk status. One way or another the taxpayers of California are going to have to pay for this mess somehow.
#2 California Governor Jerry Brown recently unveiled a "draconian" budget plan for 2011 that includes 12 billion dollars more in spending cuts and that maintains 12 billion dollars in recent tax increases.
#3 The state of California currently has the third highest state income tax in the nation: a 9.55% tax bracketat $47,055 and a 10.55% bracket at $1,000,000.
#4 California has the highest state sales tax rate in the nation by far at 8.25%. Indiana has the next highest at 7%.
#5 Residents of California pay the highest gasoline taxes (over 67 cents per gallon) in the United States .
#6 California had more foreclosure filings that any other U.S. state in 2010. The 546,669 total foreclosure filings during the year means that over 4 percent of all the housing units in the state of California received a foreclosure filing at some point during 2010.
#7 Home prices in some areas of California have completely fallen off a cliff. For example, the average home in Merced , California has declined in value by 63 percent over the past four years.
#8 725 new laws (most of them either completely pointless or completely stupid) went into effect in the state of California on January 1st.
#9 20 percent of the residents of Los Angeles County are now receiving public aid of one kind or another.
#10 The number of people unemployed in the state of California is approximately equal to the populations of Nevada, New Hampshire and Vermont combined.
#11 In some areas of California , the level of unemployment is absolutely nightmarish. For example, 24.3 percent of the residents of El Centro , California are now unemployed.
#12 Residents of California pay some of the highest electricity prices in the entire nation.
#13 The state of California ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.
#14 According to one survey, approximately 1 out of every 4 Californians under the age of 65 has absolutely no health insurance.
#15 At one point last year it was reported that in the area around Sacramento , California there was one closed business for every six that were still open.
#16 In the late 70s, California was number one in per-pupil spending on education, but now the state has fallento 48th place.
#17 In one school district in California , children as young as five years old are being forced to watch propaganda films that tout the benefits of "alternative lifestyles", and parents are being told that no "opting out" will be permitted.
#18 The crime rate in the San Diego school system is escalating out of control. The following is what San Diego School Police Chief Don Braun recently told the press about the current situation....
"Violent crime in schools has risen 31 percent. Property crime has risen 12 percent. Weapons violations (have gone up) almost 8 percent."
#19 Oakland , California Police Chief Anthony Batts announced last year that due to severe budget cuts there are a number of crimes that his department will simply not be able to respond to any longer. The crimes that the Oakland police will no longer be responding to include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theftand vandalism.
#20 Things have gotten so bad in Stockton, California that the police union put up a billboard with the following message: "Welcome to the 2nd most dangerous city in California . Stop laying off cops."
#21 During one recent 23 year period, the state of California built 23 prisons but just one university.
#22 The farther you look into the future, the worse California 's financial problems become.. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, California 's unfunded pension liability is estimated to be somewhere between $120 billion and $500 billion at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jan 30, 2011 21:23:16 GMT -8
CA property taxes are .61% of home values on the average. Texas is 1.76% on the average. CA property taxes are well below other states. Prop 13 forced other taxes to help cover the loss of property tax revenue for the state. "Owners of commercial real estate have also benefited: if a corporation owning commercial property (such as a shopping mall) is sold or merged, but the property stays technically deeded to the corporation, ownership of the property can effectively change without triggering Proposition 13's provisions.[4] Since many properties owned by large companies are nominally owned by shell companies the sole assets of which are the properties in question, this has caused situations that many commentators, such as Steve Lopez and Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, consider absurd and unfair, with companies having a lesser percentage of the overall tax burden than private homeowners.[4] Smaller-property owners do not have the "shell company" advantage that large property owners do.[4] Critics of Proposition 13 have argued that this situation unfairly benefits commercial property owners and should be changed,[4] but recent attempted ballot initiatives have not succeeded in altering assessment formulas." Eliminate the corporate portion of prop 13 then CA is back on it's feet again. articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 31, 2011 6:39:52 GMT -8
CA property taxes are .61% of home values on the average. Texas is 1.76% on the average. CA property taxes are well below other states. Prop 13 forced other taxes to help cover the loss of property tax revenue for the state. "Owners of commercial real estate have also benefited: if a corporation owning commercial property (such as a shopping mall) is sold or merged, but the property stays technically deeded to the corporation, ownership of the property can effectively change without triggering Proposition 13's provisions.[4] Since many properties owned by large companies are nominally owned by shell companies the sole assets of which are the properties in question, this has caused situations that many commentators, such as Steve Lopez and Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, consider absurd and unfair, with companies having a lesser percentage of the overall tax burden than private homeowners.[4] Smaller-property owners do not have the "shell company" advantage that large property owners do.[4] Critics of Proposition 13 have argued that this situation unfairly benefits commercial property owners and should be changed,[4] but recent attempted ballot initiatives have not succeeded in altering assessment formulas." Eliminate the corporate portion of prop 13 then CA is back on it's feet again. articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspxYour own linked article does not support your contention. Also, your arguement about shares in a corporation changing hands is the way it should be. A corporation is an entity. On a larger scale, should a purchase of shares in a REIT trigger a taxable event? I think you need to look a little deeper. It is irresponsible spending and incurring unfunded liability that is sinking California. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Feb 5, 2011 18:22:40 GMT -8
As Kennedy said" Man caused this problem, man can solve this problem" Problem is the rich have too much power and money and can fight a tough fight. Makes it easier to attack the poor who do not have the resources to defend themselves or their programs. We need a tough Gov. that can fight special interest. Hopefully Brown can do that.
If you like the rich not paying their fair share and you and I covering it for them then it is your right to vote republican. I for one do not like having to pay a higher % of my income in taxes so the rich do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 5, 2011 19:16:50 GMT -8
As Kennedy said" Man caused this problem, man can solve this problem" Problem is the rich have too much power and money and can fight a tough fight. Makes it easier to attack the poor who do not have the resources to defend themselves or their programs. We need a tough Gov. that can fight special interest. Hopefully Brown can do that. If you like the rich not paying their fair share and you and I covering it for them then it is your right to vote republican. I for one do not like having to pay a higher % of my income in taxes so the rich do not. Do you want to set up an even worse system? Do you want to chase anyone with money or those willing to invest in job creating business out of the State? |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Feb 6, 2011 8:02:54 GMT -8
We need to fix the system so loopholes like prop 13-commercial properties-are closed so those cheating the system can no longer do so. I don't know how getting CURRENT on commercial property taxes kills jobs? The corporations leasing these buildings are still paying top $ for their leases. The owners of these properties are not paying the taxes they are collecting with the huge rent $'s they are receiving. Plus the owners of these properties may or may not be located in CA. If they are part of a REIT investment then this will have no impact on losing jobs in CA>
Use that money to invest in CA to make it more attractive to business and especially to the tax payers who do pay their own share in order to get back the list of stuff that was taken away from us. Make sure loopholes in the tax system that only the very rich or corporations outside of the state can take advantage of are closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 6, 2011 8:50:31 GMT -8
All of the tax loopholes favor the government. The fact the IRS is attacking small businesses left and right these days, such as targeting private sector S corporations but not the S corporations of the government employees and politicians is a double standard.
SD Tolstoy you say to fix the loopholes is right on except you have it backwards. You want to explain why the government has passive loss rules, limits any child care credit to $5,000, eliminated the investment tax credit.
Prop 13 limited in the increase in property taxes because the government couldn't control inflation on housing. Retired, fixed income, and poor people were getting their homes taken by local government employees.
Aztecwin is right on about how we are past the death level of taxation. Except he understated the sales tax rate in California. Sales tax rates in California are above ten percent.
Also, Aztecwin did not mention the new Use tax attack being levied on us Californians who have managed to save a few dollars and keep a business above the bottom of the ocean.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 6, 2011 8:56:38 GMT -8
If you like the rich not paying their fair share and you and I covering it for them then it is your right to vote republican. I for one do not like having to pay a higher % of my income in taxes so the rich do not. So you're saying that the Hollywood moguls are all republicans? And weathly Bel Air and Malibu tycoons like Barbra S., Diane Feinstein etc. are republicans? So you're saying Oprah is a republican? HAM |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 6, 2011 9:03:55 GMT -8
CA property taxes are .61% of home values on the average. Texas is 1.76% on the average. CA property taxes are well below other states. Prop 13 forced other taxes to help cover the loss of property tax revenue for the state. "Owners of commercial real estate have also benefited: if a corporation owning commercial property (such as a shopping mall) is sold or merged, but the property stays technically deeded to the corporation, ownership of the property can effectively change without triggering Proposition 13's provisions.[4] Since many properties owned by large companies are nominally owned by shell companies the sole assets of which are the properties in question, this has caused situations that many commentators, such as Steve Lopez and Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, consider absurd and unfair, with companies having a lesser percentage of the overall tax burden than private homeowners.[4] Smaller-property owners do not have the "shell company" advantage that large property owners do.[4] Critics of Proposition 13 have argued that this situation unfairly benefits commercial property owners and should be changed,[4] but recent attempted ballot initiatives have not succeeded in altering assessment formulas." Eliminate the corporate portion of prop 13 then CA is back on it's feet again. articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspxMello-Roos. I pay $200 in the property tax payment each year to fund the City of Huntington Beach employee's pension plan. Talk about the rich taking it from the poor. Texas has yet to charge a State income tax. The property taxes are 3 percent in Texas. And so what? Just because another State has a higher rate, justifies California raising a tax rate? Why not lower a tax rate to another State's lower level? HAM |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Feb 6, 2011 20:26:53 GMT -8
The reality is that the tax structure determines the rate of unemployment in a state. California has been grossly stupid in taxing medium wage earners to fund social programs that are very costly.
In addition that that, the sales tax is running people out of the state. The only people who are not fleeing are the poor who are on the social welfare programs that we can no longer afford to fund.
What a mess!
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Feb 6, 2011 22:11:31 GMT -8
So I think we are in agreement that the middle class pay more then their fair share in taxes. Then we can all agree that if a corporation sells a property then the tax accessed should be on the final sales price. That is not happening in commercial real estate sales. They are using a loophole that has them paying circa 1979 taxes while collecting circa 2011 rent. If you don't want commercial property owners to pay their fair share due to prop 13 then shut up and pay higher taxes on your income , property and sales taxes. BTW here lists ALL the taxes collected in Texas: www.window.state.tx.us/taxes/California ranks 32nd in property taxes: lowpropertytax.net/California ranks 21st in state and local taxes collected: www.retirementliving.com/tax_burden_2009.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 7, 2011 12:03:33 GMT -8
So I think we are in agreement that the middle class pay more then their fair share in taxes. Then we can all agree that if a corporation sells a property then the tax accessed should be on the final sales price. That is not happening in commercial real estate sales. They are using a loophole that has them paying circa 1979 taxes while collecting circa 2011 rent. If you don't want commercial property owners to pay their fair share due to prop 13 then shut up and pay higher taxes on your income , property and sales taxes. BTW here lists ALL the taxes collected in Texas: www.window.state.tx.us/taxes/California ranks 32nd in property taxes: lowpropertytax.net/California ranks 21st in state and local taxes collected: www.retirementliving.com/tax_burden_2009.pdfIt goes much deeper than this. You need to think about how entities that invest in real property are structured before you can think about how to tax fairly. In my opinion, we are looking on the wrong side of the equation. First thing would be to get spending under control and then we can figure out a fair and equitable tax formula. Here is an idea that I have had from time to time, but never really flesh it out. Maybe residential property tax should only be paid for the first 30 years of ownership or until the owners reach a certain age. Who wants their Grandma to have to move out just to pay taxes on a family home? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 7, 2011 12:21:43 GMT -8
The rate of increase in govt. employees has been much, much greater than the rate of increase in the population generally for many years. That has got to stop.
As for the rich paying their fair share, the super rich always have ways to avoid much of any new increases in the rate of taxation. Those who are reasonably well off, but who are far from rich, do not have the same advantages.
As I have suggested elsewhere, I am waiting for the Left to propose a "wealth tax," one which would collect a hefty percentage (e.g., 10%, 15%) of one's net worth above a certain amount. If the cut off beyond which the new tax would take effect were, let's say, 50 million dollars, and you were worth 75 million, a 10% "wealth tax" would yield a tax of 2.5 million. That would be above any income tax owed. Come on! Let's see Diane Feinstein or John Kerry propose that! Of course they won't do that; too many Democrats these days happen to be very wealthy!
I will add this. Even if we instituted the kind of "wealth tax" I have mentioned, there still wouldn't be enough income to balance the federal budget so long as the feds keep increasing spending with wild abandon.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 7, 2011 15:24:13 GMT -8
So I think we are in agreement that the middle class pay more then their fair share in taxes. Then we can all agree that if a corporation sells a property then the tax accessed should be on the final sales price. That is not happening in commercial real estate sales. They are using a loophole that has them paying circa 1979 taxes while collecting circa 2011 rent. If you don't want commercial property owners to pay their fair share due to prop 13 then shut up and pay higher taxes on your income , property and sales taxes. BTW here lists ALL the taxes collected in Texas: www.window.state.tx.us/taxes/California ranks 32nd in property taxes: lowpropertytax.net/California ranks 21st in state and local taxes collected: www.retirementliving.com/tax_burden_2009.pdfIt goes much deeper than this. You need to think about how entities that invest in real property are structured before you can think about how to tax fairly. In my opinion, we are looking on the wrong side of the equation. First thing would be to get spending under control and then we can figure out a fair and equitable tax formula. Here is an idea that I have had from time to time, but never really flesh it out. Maybe residential property tax should only be paid for the first 30 years of ownership or until the owners reach a certain age. Who wants their Grandma to have to move out just to pay taxes on a family home? Your last paragraph has some merit, if narrowly focused. I would think it should be aimed for the Grandmas that can not afford their property tax. Not simply because they are Grandma. I would not want the tax to be not forgiven, but accrued. I would think a lien on the property for the amount of deferred taxes would be appropriate. When title changes hands the tax would be due. Years ago there was something like this in place in CA. Don't know if it is still about. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 7, 2011 15:27:56 GMT -8
The rate of increase in govt. employees has been much, much greater than the rate of increase in the population generally for many years. That has got to stop. As for the rich paying their fair share, the super rich always have ways to avoid much of any new increases in the rate of taxation. Those who are reasonably well off, but who are far from rich, do not have the same advantages. As I have suggested elsewhere, I am waiting for the Left to propose a "wealth tax," one which would collect a hefty percentage (e.g., 10%, 15%) of one's net worth above a certain amount. If the cut off beyond which the new tax would take effect were, let's say, 50 million dollars, and you were worth 75 million, a 10% "wealth tax" would yield a tax of 2.5 million. That would be above any income tax owed. Come on! Let's see Diane Feinstein or John Kerry propose that! Of course they won't do that; too many Democrats these days happen to be very wealthy! I will add this. Even if we instituted the kind of "wealth tax" I have mentioned, there still wouldn't be enough income to balance the federal budget so long as the feds keep increasing spending with wild abandon. AzWm Your second paragraph is troubling. Are suggesting that the super rich should simply not be taxed, as it is too much trouble for the government to enforce compliance? Surely not. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 7, 2011 17:25:26 GMT -8
The rate of increase in govt. employees has been much, much greater than the rate of increase in the population generally for many years. That has got to stop. As for the rich paying their fair share, the super rich always have ways to avoid much of any new increases in the rate of taxation. Those who are reasonably well off, but who are far from rich, do not have the same advantages. As I have suggested elsewhere, I am waiting for the Left to propose a "wealth tax," one which would collect a hefty percentage (e.g., 10%, 15%) of one's net worth above a certain amount. If the cut off beyond which the new tax would take effect were, let's say, 50 million dollars, and you were worth 75 million, a 10% "wealth tax" would yield a tax of 2.5 million. That would be above any income tax owed. Come on! Let's see Diane Feinstein or John Kerry propose that! Of course they won't do that; too many Democrats these days happen to be very wealthy! I will add this. Even if we instituted the kind of "wealth tax" I have mentioned, there still wouldn't be enough income to balance the federal budget so long as the feds keep increasing spending with wild abandon. AzWm Your second paragraph is troubling. Are suggesting that the super rich should simply not be taxed, as it is too much trouble for the government to enforce compliance? Surely not. Troubling or not, it is the fact that those with means can avoid taxes much better than the average person. With people taking advantage of Foundations, Trusts, off shore assets and the like, it can be very expensive and time consuming to fairly tax the very rich. By fairly tax the rich, I do not mean some confiscatory way to redistribute their assets to non-producers. Somehow I always come back to thinking that some sort of consumption tax is the fairest of all methods. It is regressive for sure and some allowance for things exempt from tax like food and healthcare must be thought of. I see nothing wrong with a flat tax rate on cars for instance. Five percent of a Lexus is much stiffer than five percent on a Ford Focus. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 8, 2011 7:35:40 GMT -8
Problem is the rich have too much power and money and can fight a tough fight. If you like the rich not paying their fair share and you and I covering it for them then it is your right to vote republican. So are you saying Oprah is a Republican? Are all the Hollywood Moguls Republicans? Is gal gore a Republican? HAM |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 8, 2011 9:00:39 GMT -8
Your second paragraph is troubling. Are suggesting that the super rich should simply not be taxed, as it is too much trouble for the government to enforce compliance? Surely not. Troubling or not, it is the fact that those with means can avoid taxes much better than the average person. With people taking advantage of Foundations, Trusts, off shore assets and the like, it can be very expensive and time consuming to fairly tax the very rich. By fairly tax the rich, I do not mean some confiscatory way to redistribute their assets to non-producers. Somehow I always come back to thinking that some sort of consumption tax is the fairest of all methods. It is regressive for sure and some allowance for things exempt from tax like food and healthcare must be thought of. I see nothing wrong with a flat tax rate on cars for instance. Five percent of a Lexus is much stiffer than five percent on a Ford Focus. If it is expensive and time consuming to enforce the law we should just ignore it? I am sure a lot of drug dealers are fine with that. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 8, 2011 10:01:06 GMT -8
The rate of increase in govt. employees has been much, much greater than the rate of increase in the population generally for many years. That has got to stop. As for the rich paying their fair share, the super rich always have ways to avoid much of any new increases in the rate of taxation. Those who are reasonably well off, but who are far from rich, do not have the same advantages. As I have suggested elsewhere, I am waiting for the Left to propose a "wealth tax," one which would collect a hefty percentage (e.g., 10%, 15%) of one's net worth above a certain amount. If the cut off beyond which the new tax would take effect were, let's say, 50 million dollars, and you were worth 75 million, a 10% "wealth tax" would yield a tax of 2.5 million. That would be above any income tax owed. Come on! Let's see Diane Feinstein or John Kerry propose that! Of course they won't do that; too many Democrats these days happen to be very wealthy! I will add this. Even if we instituted the kind of "wealth tax" I have mentioned, there still wouldn't be enough income to balance the federal budget so long as the feds keep increasing spending with wild abandon. AzWm Your second paragraph is troubling. Are suggesting that the super rich should simply not be taxed, as it is too much trouble for the government to enforce compliance? Surely not. That is a strange interpretation of what I wrote. Right now, the very rich pay a huge percentage of federal income tax. The top 1% of wage-earners (and they are not all in the Bill Gates class, either) pay something like 40% of the total income tax. That seems like a pretty fair share to me. At the other end, 50% of the wage-earners pay nothing or next to nothing in income taxes, though of course they pay sales tax, etc. (See the chart for 2008 below.) I was merely saying that the Democrats always . . . ALWAYS . . . imply or say outright that the "rich" are not paying their fair share. Well, what is their fair share? Apparently, "fair share" is always more than what the wealthy currently pay. Furthermore, I was saying that if you do raise taxes the very wealthy (as opposed to the well-off upper middle class) can invest in muni bonds and other instruments that shield them from much of the tax increase. The taxpayers at the lower end of what the Dems call "rich" get hit harder by those increased tax rates. My "wealth tax" proposal, which of course I do not actually advocate, would indeed hit the super wealthy, those whose wealth exceeds 100 million dollars. That idea should appeal to anyone who is serious about "social justice." I'm sure that anyone of the far Left would agree that it's just not right for any one person to have a wealth of 100 million dollars, which would be 200, 300, or more times the wealth of the average poor person. So, why not just confiscate all net wealth over 100 million dollars? Anyone should be able to live quite well on 100 million. And if that is too harsh, make the super rich pay 10% or 15% of their next worth over 100 million each year. As I said, since there are plenty of rich Democrats (including not a few in the U.S. Senate), that will not happen. The Dems would rather demagogue the issue than do anything serious (serious from a leftist/collectivist point of view, at least). Here is a chart showing who paid what in fed. income tax in '08. Tax Year 2008Column 1= Percentiles Ranked by AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) Column 2= AGI Threshold on Percentiles Column 3= Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1%.....$380,354.....38.02% Top 5%.....$159,619.....58.72% Top 10% ...$113,799....69.94% Top 25%.... $67,280.....86.34% Top 50%.....$33,048.....97.30% Bottom 50%.. <$33,048...2.7% AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 8, 2011 10:52:28 GMT -8
William, please review the lead sentence in the second paragraph. I don't my interpretation is all that strange. I thought it was a strange thing for you to say. That is why I wanted you to clarify your statement. By the way how do wage earners convert their wages to muni bond interest? The answer is, of course, they can't. They pay their taxes on their earned income. If they want to invest the earnings, after tax, into munis they can have non-taxable interest from the bonds, under defined circumstances.
|
|
