Prepare to get the shaft from the State of California

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Oscar said:
no_vaseline said:
Oscar said:
I wonder how many republicans feel they are overtaxed to subsidize people whom they would not willingly support financially.
Click to expand...

The difference is I'm not crowing for a tax cut. I want taxes raised on those I have been subsidising. I'll glady continue to overpay.
Click to expand...
Which is skek's point: without cutting spending first, you are locking in tax hikes and deficits when the economy slumps because no one ever argues to lower spending when the economy is good. Your attitude is counter-intuitive to fiscal responsibility and if you managed your finances that way you'd be homeless.
Click to expand...

I don't have the voters cramming spending packages down my throat via the ballot box. Bad example.

The voters never saw a spending package they didn't like, and never saw a revenue (tax) increase they did like.
 
skek said:
I do feel Californians are overtaxed, but that's not my point. My point is that without addressing the systemic out of control growth of our spending obligations, raising taxes just defers the problem down the road.

Much like the Fed cutting interest rates to zero, at some point we can no longer raise taxes any further. In addition, when you raise tax rates, you might also have the effect of reducing tax revenues because you've encouraged people to shift taxable income into nontaxable income, move out of state, close businesses, etc. I think we're at that point. You don't. Fair 'nuff.

I have ideas about solutions and I'm willing to listen to yours. But I can guarantee you that I do not support the no_vas tax plan, namely, to raise taxes "radically" on all segments of society, except offering a tax cut to DINKs who don't want to pay for public education. I know you like to occasionally troll for your lulz, but that's a little too transparently self-serving, don't you think?
Click to expand...

in good economic times, there has been tax cuts and breaks....
 
skek said:
no_vaseline said:
I never wrote anywhere I wanted a tax break.

What I wrote is that I am overtaxed to subsidize property owners who are undertaxed and parents who are subsidized to make more kids that eat more tax dollars. There's lots of taxes like this. Booze and tobacco come to mind.

You're an attorney. I'm trained as a cost accountant. You want to argue about idology, I want to argue about transfer costing.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've ever said I was an attorney, but in any event, a good attorney, particularly a strict constructionist attorney, would interpret the plain meaning of your words:

Tax people with kids. Make them pay for thier fair share. Unburden those without kids.
Click to expand...

I feel citizens like me and my wife with no kids (DINKS) who rent are overtaxed to subsidize people who own property and those with kids. I have (overpaid) for services I don’t use long enough. The time to shoulder the burden back on those who have caused the cost in the first place has come!
Click to expand...

So, by "unburden" you meant "keep the same burden" and by "I have (overpaid) for services I don’t use long enough" you mean "I should continue to overpay for services I don’t use for a little longer," and by "The time to shoulder the burden back on those who have caused the cost in the first place has come!," you mean "The time to keep the burden on those who have not caused the cost in the first place is still here!"

Forgive me for misunderstanding your proposal and interpreting it as a request for a tax cut.

Snarkiness aside, I don't think I'm arguing ideology, or idology (I honestly am not sure which one you meant). I think I'm arguing first principles. First principles are important, and not the domain of attorneys or accountants, but of citizens who are worried about the mess their state is in.
Click to expand...

I googled SKEK because I didn't know what the hell it ment. Either your an attorney, or you went to law school. I'm guessing you aren't an accountant, but since I don't know you outside of here, anything is possible. There are things I know and things I don't know that I just make a smart guess at. I think you're a female attorney on the local GOP steering committee, mostly because you remind me of my third to last girlfriend before I got married.

Do you wear cute shoes?

I submit if there were more accountants and less attorneys involved with state gov, we'd be in a far better place. Both idology and ideology are applicable for my example.
 
skek said:
no_vaseline said:
I googled SKEK because I didn't know what the hell it ment. Either your an attorney, or you went to law school. I'm guessing you aren't an accountant, but since I don't know you outside of here, anything is possible. There are things I know and things I don't know that I just make a smart guess at. I think you're a female attorney on the local GOP steering committee, mostly because you remind me of my third to last girlfriend before I got married.

Do you wear cute shoes?

I submit if there were more accountants and less attorneys involved with state gov, we'd be in a far better place. Both idology and ideology are applicable for my example.
Click to expand...

A female attorney on the local steering committee? I'm hurt, no_vas. No, here's a picture of me:

sarah-palin-thumb.jpg


Remember me now?
Click to expand...

how come there's a "no thank you" button????
 
skek said:
no_vaseline said:
I googled SKEK because I didn't know what the hell it ment.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm an abnormally smart skateboarder?

Or maybe I'm this guy?

Or maybe I am an attorney or went to law school?
Click to expand...

You forgot to address the cute shoes comment.

I think Skek really has too much time on his hands living in his mom's basement pouring over court cases, just so that he can appear to be like an attorney. He really is 16 years old, and has a sick obsession with Hanna Montana, but deep down his true love is Justin Timberlake. I want my CD back, damn it! He drives a beat up Honda that smells like a junior high boys locker room. He bitches about taxes because he fantasizes having that problem by marrying Justin Timberlake.

No_vas, with your card playing skills, I'm disappointed you didn't see the true Skekker for who he really is. You and him just went all in, and you got the rake.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm pissed about paying more taxes. I want to keep the money I make.

You do realize that this is going to happen for 5 years if passed, and that they probably won't repeal it afterward.

The Sac Bee has a great calculator which shows how much you just might have to pay yearly with the new taxes.

Calculate Your New CA Taxes
 
k.o. said:
I'm sorry, but I'm pissed about paying more taxes. I want to keep the money I make.

You do realize that this is going to happen for 5 years if passed, and that they probably won't repeal it afterward.

The Sac Bee has a great calculator which shows how much you just might have to pay yearly with the new taxes.

Calculate Your New CA Taxes
Click to expand...

Not a HUGE amount but about 100 a month combined. Again, which i'm not happy about since my 4% raise just got put on hold.... and we are looking at a 5% pay decrease.... joy.

-bix
 
no_vaseline said:
I’m really draconian on the whole issue of kids. If you want to have kids, fine – just don’t expect me to pay for them. Don’t go on welfare, and don’t expect my tax dollars to go to pay for their education. I didn’t create them, I don’t get the joy of having them, you shouldn’t ride on my checkbook to finance their upbringing. We should cut all tax breaks for children (earned income credit), and force parents to pay for schools.

GOPers love to talk about wealth redistribution. Thanks to Prop 98, 40% of the state budget goes to subsidizing kids. Kids are a tax on singles, childless couples (straight and gay) and the elderly. The luxury of public schools was great when we had the budget, but we don’t have it anymore, so we should stop transfer costing their existence onto those who had NOTHING to do with their fabrication. We enforce child support, and this is no different.

At least with illegal immigrants I get a crew to pick crops, do dishes and cook in restraunts, and mow my lawn. With kids I get a huge sponge of my hard earned resources, and they aren’t even mine.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with you No_V. My kids are my responsibility and I see no reason why you have to pay for them.
 
awgee said:
no_vaseline said:
I’m really draconian on the whole issue of kids. If you want to have kids, fine – just don’t expect me to pay for them. Don’t go on welfare, and don’t expect my tax dollars to go to pay for their education. I didn’t create them, I don’t get the joy of having them, you shouldn’t ride on my checkbook to finance their upbringing. We should cut all tax breaks for children (earned income credit), and force parents to pay for schools.

GOPers love to talk about wealth redistribution. Thanks to Prop 98, 40% of the state budget goes to subsidizing kids. Kids are a tax on singles, childless couples (straight and gay) and the elderly. The luxury of public schools was great when we had the budget, but we don’t have it anymore, so we should stop transfer costing their existence onto those who had NOTHING to do with their fabrication. We enforce child support, and this is no different.

At least with illegal immigrants I get a crew to pick crops, do dishes and cook in restraunts, and mow my lawn. With kids I get a huge sponge of my hard earned resources, and they aren’t even mine.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with you No_V. My kids are my responsibility and I see no reason why you have to pay for them.
Click to expand...

Think of it as very expensive insurance:

They will be less likely to be committing crimes, using UE/welfare, using healthcare, etc if they are at least somewhat educated.

In addition, they are more likely to pay into social security when you are retired, so you might get some of that.
 
freedomCM said:
In addition, they are more likely to pay into social security when you are retired, so you might get some of that.
Click to expand...
*dies laughing*
 
awgee said:
skek said:
no_vaseline said:
I googled SKEK because I didn't know what the hell it ment.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm an abnormally smart skateboarder?

Or maybe I'm this guy?

Or maybe I am an attorney or went to law school?
Click to expand...

Isn't a smart skateboarder an oxymoron? And wouldn't an abnormally smart skateboarder be any skateboarder with an IQ over 70?
Click to expand...

http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ge-La/Hawk-Tony.html

...He was very bright, with an IQ of 144...
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget20-2009feb20,0,5263469.story

And it ends.

If California didn't have term limits, it would of NEVER got done because Abel Maldanado wouldn't be able to vote for it, for fear of being run against in the next primary by some ultra right wing type in the primary. As it turned out, he's termed out, so it doesn't matter.

We have term limits in the state because the GOP couldn't get rid of Wille Brown. And thanks to term limits, somebody stood up and did the right thing because they cannot stand election next time.
 
no_vaseline said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget20-2009feb20,0,5263469.story

And it ends.

If California didn't have term limits, it would of NEVER got done because Abel Maldanado wouldn't be able to vote for it, for fear of being run against in the next primary by some ultra right wing type in the primary. As it turned out, he's termed out, so it doesn't matter.

We have term limits in the state because the GOP couldn't get rid of Wille Brown. And thanks to term limits, somebody stood up and did the right thing because they cannot stand election next time.
Click to expand...

And if you were annoyed this time, remember that for the 2010 ballot ... and vote yes to the open-primary measure to avoid having to do this whole budget thing again and again...

The open-primary measure would go on the June 2010 ballot, giving opponents plenty of time to work up opposition. The rules would apply not only to state legislators but also to members of Congress, who may tap their ample war chests to defeat it.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) predicted: "It is going to get killed for sport."
 
Oh yes, let's open the door for primary manipulation by opposing political parties, that will fix everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top