The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
California's budget https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=749 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | California's budget |
I have to admit I have watched with a bit of amusement the problems with the California budget, and their insanity, but this is just a kick in the pants. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 77100.html Quote: Desperation grabs for revenue are nothing new in politics, but California is once again leading the way in creative financing.
To help close yet another gaping budget deficit, now estimated to be $7 billion this year and reach as high as $20 billion next, Sacramento lawmakers have authorized a 10% increase in the amount of taxes withheld from worker paychecks starting November 1 and through 2010. The extra withholding tax will reduce Californians' take-home pay by about $1.7 billion for the year. But the lawmakers say this isn't a tax increase. OK, how about calling it a compulsory interest-free loan from taxpayers to the state? According to the Franchise Tax Board, 10,004,000 Californians overpaid their state taxes last year and received an average refund of $903. The withholding penalty is expected to snatch between $20 and $90 a month from middle-class families. For those feeling the pinch of recession and living paycheck to paycheck, that penalty will hurt. Of course, the government is obliged to return this money next spring when workers get their tax refunds, so this is the ultimate budget gimmick. It borrows from taxpayers now and deepens the budget hole next year. And we almost hate to ask: What happens come April if the state doesn't have enough money to pay the tax refunds it owes its citizens? Will taxpayers get IOUs the way state contractors did last year when Sacramento ran out of money? Meanwhile, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the legislature now face their sixth "extraordinary session" to balance the budget. Income tax rates went up last year by 0.25%, bringing the top rate to 10.55%, but receipts are already coming in $1 billion below projections, according to the state controller. The politicians could use this continuing crisis as an opportunity to reform the state's tax code with lower rates and fewer deductions and loopholes, as recently proposed by the governor's tax reform commission. But that plan has been panned by the ruling classes in Sacramento. They claim to want to steal only from the rich, but their latest withholding ruse is showing that they'll steal from anyone with a paycheck. |
Author: | Micheal [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Meh, I was expecting it, was less than $10 a month for me. I dont like it, but at least we stand a chance of getting it back next year. It doesn't change the withholding tables, just the amount we pay monthly. Like most of Arnold's measures, weakly thought out and punish the State workers so he will look good to the public. dweeb. |
Author: | Hannibal [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
It's state sponsored theft. |
Author: | Micheal [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yes Hannibal, it is. |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I think that would be a great tipping point when people get IOU's back instead of their taxes. And really what does this solve for California? It just delays the problem |
Author: | Micheal [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Which is what Arnie wants. He wants to delay the fall until he can be out of office and blame it on someone else. I don't think he seriously believes California is going to get out of this without State Bankruptcy. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Sadly, this should come as no surprise to anyone here. I posted it back in July. Since this was introduced by Noreen Evans, and passed the Assembly and Senate (along party lines) I'd be hesitant to call this "Arnie's measure". <shrug> I adjusted my withholding #'s to compensate. |
Author: | Aethien [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Huh, thanks for the heads up. I hadn't paid attention to any of this. |
Author: | Raltar [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
One more reason to get the **** out. God, I wish I could afford to get out. |
Author: | Aethien [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You're still here?! Hope that fire out in Chino isn't too close to you, at least. |
Author: | SuiNeko [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The top rate to... 10.55? I pay 40% top rate income tax. And 17.5% VAT (Sales tax) And tax on savings and investments And national insurance holy **** |
Author: | Khross [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: California's budget |
That's just the State of California, Sui. Don't forget to add in the 39.6% Federal Highest Marginal on Income, 44.4% on Short Term Investments, 20% on Long Term Investments, 22% on Interest Bearing Dividend Accounts, and 8% Sales Tax average. |
Author: | DFK! [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
SuiNeko wrote: The top rate to... 10.55? I pay 40% top rate income tax. And 17.5% VAT (Sales tax) And tax on savings and investments And national insurance holy **** That's just the state. You also have 6.8% SS tax (employer portion matches) 6.2% tax on gross income for SUTA/FUTA Then there is income tax. With a median income of ~$54, that would produce a federal gross income tax rate of 25% Capital gains taxes. Fuel taxes Energy taxes Property taxes Etc etc Plus an 8.25% sales tax rate state-wide, and district rates of 0.1% to 1%. The top tax bracket of 35%, combined with the state income tax, puts them above you; in a bankrupt state. Add in other taxes after that including sales, cap. gains, FICA, SUTA/FUTA, or anything else that may apply. Not that I want to play "gee, whose taxes are higher." I'm just sayin'. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
SuiNeko wrote: The top rate to... 10.55? I pay 40% top rate income tax. And 17.5% VAT (Sales tax) And tax on savings and investments And national insurance holy **** I'd say you should buy some ammo but... |
Author: | Lydiaa [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm pretty sure Sui's taken that into consideration. However on average the US still has lower taxes than Europe and Australia. Which is why I giggle when you guys complain about the cost of stuff over there, cause it's much worse here =P |
Author: | Rafael [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Except our taxes are much higher because the deficits between the budget and revenues collected from various taxes (the stated numbers), not to mention deficit which eventually gets funded by Treasury Securities which bare interest, gets glossed over and lost due to monetary inflation. M3 isn't published anymore so it's not really possible to say what this number is. Couple this with the fact that we are increasingly become a debtor nation at a magnitude much greater than we were ever a creditor (and we were once the world's largest creditor) and the inflationary money problem with government budgets funded by increasingly less desirable Treasury Securities and you have quite a Tax on the Average Working American who pays his way through life with his wage. This man or woman cannot measure the taxes, but he sure and **** can feel them. |
Author: | Leshani [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: California's budget |
Quote: Hillary Clinton
"We [the United States] tax everything that moves and doesn’t move" |
Author: | Lydiaa [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I’ll be the first to admit that I blink blankly at my accountant when he starts talking money haha… I’m just not good with numbers >.< But I guess I can say that as a whole, you guys tend to spend needlessly. Consuming has become a need, rather than a want, with many starting to think of it as some sort of warped right. It’s true that you guys have a lot to pay back and are starting to feel the burden of taxes, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that money is not being spent where it’s needed and at a economical rate simply because you guys have been the top dog for so long and are use to the perks. For something similar to what you guys are paying for, I’m currently sitting at 45% income tax (highest rank as of last year *shakes fist*), 10% goods and services tax, other taxes on imported consumables, fuel, blah blah blah, in return, I get free healthcare, semi decent public school systems, relatively cheap public transport (not always on time though), safety net if I lose my job without the worrying of it running out within a limited time with the option to go back to school (on a interest free government loan) during this time, rent assistance/free government housing, extra money if I chose to have a baby (or 3), well the list goes pretty far. I think if you guys had better social perks, you’d be less fussed about paying those taxes. |
Author: | Hannibal [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Well actually we'd be europe. The trade off is not worth it in the minds of most Americans. We are more of a DIY society. While we've got our share of those who refuse to cut apron strings, overall I think we tend to reject what comes along with those "perks". |
Author: | Lydiaa [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Unfortunately however, you're trend is moving towards been forced to pay taxes at a rate of country who get the perks, whilest getting well... none of the perks. Due to your deficite however, you do not have the choice of paying less taxes... The money has to be going somewhere to be spent, isnt it better spent for the people, rather than useless pet projects? |
Author: | Xequecal [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Rafael wrote: Except our taxes are much higher because the deficits between the budget and revenues collected from various taxes (the stated numbers), not to mention deficit which eventually gets funded by Treasury Securities which bare interest, gets glossed over and lost due to monetary inflation. M3 isn't published anymore so it's not really possible to say what this number is. Couple this with the fact that we are increasingly become a debtor nation at a magnitude much greater than we were ever a creditor (and we were once the world's largest creditor) and the inflationary money problem with government budgets funded by increasingly less desirable Treasury Securities and you have quite a Tax on the Average Working American who pays his way through life with his wage. This man or woman cannot measure the taxes, but he sure and **** can feel them. Every Western country has large amounts of public debt. European countries in general have our SS and Medicare problems times ten with their own social insurance. Even China, the country people like to trot out as "doing things right," has a large amount of public debt. I really have a hard time accepting that large public debts cause economic ruin because if that's true then the entire world economy is ruined forever. The fact is, pretty much everyone runs massive public debts. The only exceptions are the oil exporters, and not only is that going to dry up soon for them, but even some of them have started running large debts despite their massive oil wealth. (Saudi Arabia) If we want to be the 1950s economic powerhouse again we're going to have to take the Chinese philosophy regarding human life. China's economic growth is so high because human life is worthless there. Not only does the government only provide minimal social programs, but decades of Communism have left the country three-fourths atheist. Every Chinese citizen knows that if they get into ****, not only is the government not going to help them, but there's no Abrahamic charity that's going to help them either. In fact, their neighbors are more likely to spit on them and ask them to please die quickly to stop dragging our economic miracle down. That's why they all work 16 hours a day and save 25% of their income. |
Author: | DFK! [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Every Western country has large amounts of public debt. European countries in general have our SS and Medicare problems times ten with their own social insurance. Which European countries have social nets due to become insolvent within 8 years? I'm honestly curious. |
Author: | Rafael [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Rafael wrote: Except our taxes are much higher because the deficits between the budget and revenues collected from various taxes (the stated numbers), not to mention deficit which eventually gets funded by Treasury Securities which bare interest, gets glossed over and lost due to monetary inflation. M3 isn't published anymore so it's not really possible to say what this number is. Couple this with the fact that we are increasingly become a debtor nation at a magnitude much greater than we were ever a creditor (and we were once the world's largest creditor) and the inflationary money problem with government budgets funded by increasingly less desirable Treasury Securities and you have quite a Tax on the Average Working American who pays his way through life with his wage. This man or woman cannot measure the taxes, but he sure and **** can feel them. Every Western country has large amounts of public debt. European countries in general have our SS and Medicare problems times ten with their own social insurance. Even China, the country people like to trot out as "doing things right," has a large amount of public debt. I really have a hard time accepting that large public debts cause economic ruin because if that's true then the entire world economy is ruined forever. The fact is, pretty much everyone runs massive public debts. The only exceptions are the oil exporters, and not only is that going to dry up soon for them, but even some of them have started running large debts despite their massive oil wealth. (Saudi Arabia) If we want to be the 1950s economic powerhouse again we're going to have to take the Chinese philosophy regarding human life. China's economic growth is so high because human life is worthless there. Not only does the government only provide minimal social programs, but decades of Communism have left the country three-fourths atheist. Every Chinese citizen knows that if they get into ****, not only is the government not going to help them, but there's no Abrahamic charity that's going to help them either. In fact, their neighbors are more likely to spit on them and ask them to please die quickly to stop dragging our economic miracle down. That's why they all work 16 hours a day and save 25% of their income. It doesn't work like that. Not every nation can be a debtor nation. You are completely disregarding the fact that in order for debt to be issued, a creditor must have savings deposits at his disposal. In banking system where entities operate on fraction reserve, there can be a greater accumulation of commercial money than there is actual deposits. When nations do this with each other, it become more tricky to actually account for everything, as commercial money tends to get created faster than debt gets repaid. However, there are two fundamental indicators that show which economies outperform others in terms of keeping creation of commercial money (and money supply itself, which works definitely because it does not require deposits in a fiat system) growth in check: strength of currency and savings rates. What have both of those done in this country in the past months? You could say health of bond market, but that ties closely in with currency strength or things that affect currency strength (solvency of government). |
Author: | Xequecal [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DFK! wrote: Xequecal wrote: Every Western country has large amounts of public debt. European countries in general have our SS and Medicare problems times ten with their own social insurance. Which European countries have social nets due to become insolvent within 8 years? I'm honestly curious. Eight years? The quoted year for SS to fail I hear most is 2036. Most European social insurance will go insolvent long before that, usually in the 2020s. They have a much bigger problem with an aging population, Americans have 2.0 kids per woman and Europe is like at 1.6 or 1.7. |
Author: | Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Hannibal wrote: Well actually we'd be europe. Would that be such a bad thing? Universal health care, low cost education, lots of safety nets to help us in times of crisis. Sounds awesome. Sounds like a place where someone could really get ahead, where there would be plenty of opportunity to thrive no matter what economic situation the accident of birth placed a person in. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |