PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama and the Magic Tax Changes


HonestChieffan
05-30-2009, 03:49 PM
If you have never traveled to a country with a VAT, you need to study and listen and look very carefully. Looks like the no tax increase for under $250grand will soon be but a memory and everyone will be forking over the real money on everything you buy....Good news is that if you don't buy anything it wont make any difference

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909.html

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

This Story
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Special Report: Health-Care Reform
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.


Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue


The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line


What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum


Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."

SBK
05-30-2009, 03:50 PM
I'm not going to raise any taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2009, 04:12 PM
Never has the government found it difficult to raise taxes. Everybody gets a load of this one too. VATs are so pervasive and so easy to raise and the people wont know till it hits what they just got taken with.

banyon
05-30-2009, 04:48 PM
They could've printed this article 10 years ago and it wouldn't have made any difference then either. Despite your attempt to link this somehow to Obama, there's nothing to link him to it whatsoever. In fact, his policy people in the article seem to all be saying that it isn't practical.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2009, 04:51 PM
Have more koolaid. Rahm Emanuel's brother is the brains behind the VAT effort being discussed in Obama's Whitehouse.

banyon
05-30-2009, 05:01 PM
Have more koolaid. Rahm Emanuel's brother is the brains behind the VAT effort being discussed in Obama's Whitehouse.

Your article says they hired him to consult on healthcare.

Calcountry
05-30-2009, 05:09 PM
I'm not going to raise any taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.Senator Obama, how are you going to pay for that?

Are you going to raise taxes?

It was like pulling a string on an Obama doll.

String pull on/ "Everyone who makes less than 250k, will get a TAX CUT".

String pull/ "Everyone who makes less than 250k, will get a TAX CUT".

Obama doll had his index finger pointed straight in the air when his string was pulled.

Hydrae
05-30-2009, 05:21 PM
"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate,"

When my personal budget is out of whack I trim my expenses, not get another revenue stream.

To congress: **** you assholes, get the **** out of my wallet!!!



Hmm, that just didn't quite work.

**** YOU ASSHOLES!!!

Ok, that felt a little better.

jjjayb
05-30-2009, 05:25 PM
When my personal budget is out of whack I trim my expenses, not get another revenue stream.

To congress: **** you assholes, get the **** out of my wallet!!!



Hmm, that just didn't quite work.

**** YOU ASSHOLES!!!

Ok, that felt a little better.

What he said. :clap:

banyon
05-30-2009, 05:33 PM
Senator Obama, how are you going to pay for that?

Are you going to raise taxes?

It was like pulling a string on an Obama doll.

String pull on/ "Everyone who makes less than 250k, will get a TAX CUT".

String pull/ "Everyone who makes less than 250k, will get a TAX CUT".

Obama doll had his index finger pointed straight in the air when his string was pulled.

Your state is asking everyone else for a bailout after republican tax code changes, why don't you work on that?

Baby Lee
05-30-2009, 05:55 PM
Senator Obama, how are you going to pay for that?

Are you going to raise taxes?

It was like pulling a string on an Obama doll.

String pull on/ "Everyone who makes less than 250k, will get a TAX CUT".

String pull/ "Everyone who makes less than 250k, will get a TAX CUT".

Obama doll had his index finger pointed straight in the air when his string was pulled.


They are going to get A tax cut, . . . and a bajillion other taxes raised.

Not to mention regressive penalties on everything the poor have at their disposal to get forward in life, gas, electricity, cheap foodstuffs.

Calcountry
05-30-2009, 06:07 PM
Your state is asking everyone else for a bailout after republican tax code changes, why don't you work on that?My state? That's a laugh. ROFL

No habla espanol. This place went blue decades ago. 94 was the last time we had a Republican majority in the state house, even then, Slick willie Brown pulled a fast one and maintained control.

No, this one is on the Dumbassocrats. They have completely fugged this state into the ground with their liberal tax and spend policies. Governator is married to a Kennedy, pro choice, pro gay, pro big government. No way is he a conservative in any stretch of the immagination. I never voted for him. To try to lay the blame on this mess on "Republicans", fine if you think our party is Colin Power, Specter, and McCain.

Calcountry
05-30-2009, 06:08 PM
They are going to get A tax cut, . . . and a bajillion other taxes raised.

Not to mention regressive penalties on everything the poor have at their disposal to get forward in life, gas, electricity, cheap foodstuffs.Ahhh the Clinton legacy of parsing words. He did say he would give A tax cut.

Calcountry
05-30-2009, 06:11 PM
Your state is asking everyone else for a bailout after republican tax code changes, why don't you work on that?While you are at it, look at how Michigan democrats fugged things up as well.

SBK
05-30-2009, 06:18 PM
While you are at it, look at how Michigan democrats fugged things up as well.

Wherever people who are not fiscally conservative, no matter the party, rule the budget is fubar'd.

Every state and the federal government needs an infusion of fiscally conservative people in power.
Posted via Mobile Device

Calcountry
05-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Wherever people who are not fiscally conservative, no matter the party, rule the budget is fubar'd.

Every state and the federal government needs an infusion of fiscally conservative people in power.
Posted via Mobile DeviceI voted for Tom McClintock after the Gray Davis debacle. The dude was a budget freak, if only....

Calcountry
05-30-2009, 06:28 PM
Wherever people who are not fiscally conservative, no matter the party, rule the budget is fubar'd.

Every state and the federal government needs an infusion of fiscally conservative people in power.
Posted via Mobile DeviceHeck, let's not stop there. Look and NYC, and how fugged up it was before Rudi Giuliani took it over

Now they want to tax the shit out of all the people who will just leave.

What a bunch of utiopian dumb asses, combined with elitist know it alls, mix in a bunch of socialist unions and you have a recipe for COMPLETE AND UTTER FUGUPNESS>

banyon
05-30-2009, 06:52 PM
While you are at it, look at how Michigan democrats fugged things up as well.

The issue as I understand it is that property taxes were frozen back in 78' and that since California only relies on income taxes now, it's screwed in a bad recession. Here's this guy's take:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/28/EDRJ17SL82.DTL

How the Golden State got tarnished
Harold Meyerson

Friday, May 29, 2009


To understand why the woes of California's economy threaten the nation's, we must understand the state's road to insolvency. The Age of Reagan did not commence with the Great Communicator's inauguration in 1981. For its real beginning, we need to go back to June 1978, when Californians went to the polls and enacted Proposition 13.



By passing Howard Jarvis' malign initiative, California voters reduced the Golden State to baser metal. Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream. Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the nation's finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars and water - the state's lifeblood - to their destinations. All this was funded by some of the nation's highest taxes, which fell in good measure on the state's flourishing banks and corporations.

Amid the inflation of the late 1970s, however, the California model began to crumple. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared - but the parsimonious Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Prop. 13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes - effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and '60s, California sank to Mississippi-like levels - the mid-40s - by the 1990s.

Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded chiefly by personal income taxes. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. In the current recession, with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff.

But the problem with Prop. 13 wasn't merely that it reduced revenue. It also made it very difficult to increase revenue. Raising taxes now requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, though in 47 other states a simple majority suffices. California has become overwhelmingly Democratic in the past two decades, but Republicans have managed to retain footholds - representing just over one-third of the districts - in both houses of the Legislature.

The conservative backlash of 1978 also swept into the Legislature a proto-Reaganistic generation of Republicans, who dubbed themselves "the Neanderthals." Compared with today's GOP state legislators, though, the Neanderthals look like Diderot's Encyclopedists. The current Republican crop has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes (increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14 times it has come up for a vote). Abetted by little local (Rush) Limbaughs who inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the nation's highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.

But the myth of soak-the-rich high taxation persists among Republicans - so much so that the GOP front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in next year's gubernatorial election, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is calling for cuts in business tax rates even though the state is staring at a $21 billion deficit that it somehow has to close. In short order, unless the federal government steps in with a bridge loan, the state will throw 940,000 poor children off its health care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of teachers.

Because California is so much larger than any other state, and its unemployment rate among the nation's highest, the collapse of its capacity to spend will counteract some of the effect of the federal stimulus and retard the nation's recovery - much as its aerospace slump retarded the recovery of the mid-1990s. The Obama administration ignores California's plight at its own - and the nation's - peril. The nation's banks are stuck with so much bad paper from California mortgages gone awry that a huge contraction in state spending would make their assets even more toxic. In the short term, the only way to avoid a further downturn may be a federal loan to the state.

A more permanent, homegrown solution to California's woes (and it may take a state constitutional convention to get it) would require the state to eliminate the two-thirds threshold for enacting taxes, to repeal Prop. 13's freeze on the value of commercial properties (some of which are still assessed at their 1978 levels) and to end the process of ballot-box budgeting through the initiative process, which is now more dominated by monied interests than the Legislature ever was. In Washington, the Age of Reagan may have shuddered to an inglorious end, but we also need action from state governments - and Sacramento in particular - to move us toward a more sustainable economic future.


Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly. This commentary first appeared in the Washington Post.

KC native
05-30-2009, 08:11 PM
The issue as I understand it is that property taxes were frozen back in 78' and that since California only relies on income taxes now, it's screwed in a bad recession. Here's this guy's take:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/28/EDRJ17SL82.DTL

How the Golden State got tarnished
Harold Meyerson

Friday, May 29, 2009


To understand why the woes of California's economy threaten the nation's, we must understand the state's road to insolvency. The Age of Reagan did not commence with the Great Communicator's inauguration in 1981. For its real beginning, we need to go back to June 1978, when Californians went to the polls and enacted Proposition 13.



By passing Howard Jarvis' malign initiative, California voters reduced the Golden State to baser metal. Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream. Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the nation's finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars and water - the state's lifeblood - to their destinations. All this was funded by some of the nation's highest taxes, which fell in good measure on the state's flourishing banks and corporations.

Amid the inflation of the late 1970s, however, the California model began to crumple. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared - but the parsimonious Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Prop. 13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes - effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and '60s, California sank to Mississippi-like levels - the mid-40s - by the 1990s.

Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded chiefly by personal income taxes. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. In the current recession, with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff.

But the problem with Prop. 13 wasn't merely that it reduced revenue. It also made it very difficult to increase revenue. Raising taxes now requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, though in 47 other states a simple majority suffices. California has become overwhelmingly Democratic in the past two decades, but Republicans have managed to retain footholds - representing just over one-third of the districts - in both houses of the Legislature.

The conservative backlash of 1978 also swept into the Legislature a proto-Reaganistic generation of Republicans, who dubbed themselves "the Neanderthals." Compared with today's GOP state legislators, though, the Neanderthals look like Diderot's Encyclopedists. The current Republican crop has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes (increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14 times it has come up for a vote). Abetted by little local (Rush) Limbaughs who inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the nation's highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.

But the myth of soak-the-rich high taxation persists among Republicans - so much so that the GOP front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in next year's gubernatorial election, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is calling for cuts in business tax rates even though the state is staring at a $21 billion deficit that it somehow has to close. In short order, unless the federal government steps in with a bridge loan, the state will throw 940,000 poor children off its health care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of teachers.

Because California is so much larger than any other state, and its unemployment rate among the nation's highest, the collapse of its capacity to spend will counteract some of the effect of the federal stimulus and retard the nation's recovery - much as its aerospace slump retarded the recovery of the mid-1990s. The Obama administration ignores California's plight at its own - and the nation's - peril. The nation's banks are stuck with so much bad paper from California mortgages gone awry that a huge contraction in state spending would make their assets even more toxic. In the short term, the only way to avoid a further downturn may be a federal loan to the state.

A more permanent, homegrown solution to California's woes (and it may take a state constitutional convention to get it) would require the state to eliminate the two-thirds threshold for enacting taxes, to repeal Prop. 13's freeze on the value of commercial properties (some of which are still assessed at their 1978 levels) and to end the process of ballot-box budgeting through the initiative process, which is now more dominated by monied interests than the Legislature ever was. In Washington, the Age of Reagan may have shuddered to an inglorious end, but we also need action from state governments - and Sacramento in particular - to move us toward a more sustainable economic future.


Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly. This commentary first appeared in the Washington Post.

Oh noesssssss! We can have facts posted here in DC. It throws out many of the winger arguments. Shame on you Banyon.

alanm
05-30-2009, 08:56 PM
Wherever people who are not fiscally conservative, no matter the party, rule the budget is fubar'd.

Every state and the federal government needs an infusion of fiscally conservative people in power.
Posted via Mobile DeviceIt's going to be a bloodbath in 2010 for incumbents of both parties. I think fiscally conservative Independent candidates have a real shot as viable options. As they should these days.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2009, 09:38 PM
A VAT will not happen, anytime soon. The so-called "sin taxes" are much more likely.

Wanna bet? :hmmm:

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 09:45 PM
When my personal budget is out of whack I trim my expenses, not get another revenue stream.

To congress: **** you assholes, get the **** out of my wallet!!!





Are you having more intimate relations with your congressman than most of us want to know about?

googlegoogle
05-30-2009, 11:14 PM
The issue as I understand it is that property taxes were frozen back in 78' and that since California only relies on income taxes now, it's screwed in a bad recession. Here's this guy's take:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/28/EDRJ17SL82.DTL

How the Golden State got tarnished
Harold Meyerson

Friday, May 29, 2009


To understand why the woes of California's economy threaten the nation's, we must understand the state's road to insolvency. The Age of Reagan did not commence with the Great Communicator's inauguration in 1981. For its real beginning, we need to go back to June 1978, when Californians went to the polls and enacted Proposition 13.



By passing Howard Jarvis' malign initiative, California voters reduced the Golden State to baser metal. Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream. Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the nation's finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars and water - the state's lifeblood - to their destinations. All this was funded by some of the nation's highest taxes, which fell in good measure on the state's flourishing banks and corporations.

Amid the inflation of the late 1970s, however, the California model began to crumple. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared - but the parsimonious Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Prop. 13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes - effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and '60s, California sank to Mississippi-like levels - the mid-40s - by the 1990s.

Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded chiefly by personal income taxes. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. In the current recession, with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff.

But the problem with Prop. 13 wasn't merely that it reduced revenue. It also made it very difficult to increase revenue. Raising taxes now requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, though in 47 other states a simple majority suffices. California has become overwhelmingly Democratic in the past two decades, but Republicans have managed to retain footholds - representing just over one-third of the districts - in both houses of the Legislature.

The conservative backlash of 1978 also swept into the Legislature a proto-Reaganistic generation of Republicans, who dubbed themselves "the Neanderthals." Compared with today's GOP state legislators, though, the Neanderthals look like Diderot's Encyclopedists. The current Republican crop has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes (increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14 times it has come up for a vote). Abetted by little local (Rush) Limbaughs who inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the nation's highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.

But the myth of soak-the-rich high taxation persists among Republicans - so much so that the GOP front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in next year's gubernatorial election, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is calling for cuts in business tax rates even though the state is staring at a $21 billion deficit that it somehow has to close. In short order, unless the federal government steps in with a bridge loan, the state will throw 940,000 poor children off its health care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of teachers.

Because California is so much larger than any other state, and its unemployment rate among the nation's highest, the collapse of its capacity to spend will counteract some of the effect of the federal stimulus and retard the nation's recovery - much as its aerospace slump retarded the recovery of the mid-1990s. The Obama administration ignores California's plight at its own - and the nation's - peril. The nation's banks are stuck with so much bad paper from California mortgages gone awry that a huge contraction in state spending would make their assets even more toxic. In the short term, the only way to avoid a further downturn may be a federal loan to the state.

A more permanent, homegrown solution to California's woes (and it may take a state constitutional convention to get it) would require the state to eliminate the two-thirds threshold for enacting taxes, to repeal Prop. 13's freeze on the value of commercial properties (some of which are still assessed at their 1978 levels) and to end the process of ballot-box budgeting through the initiative process, which is now more dominated by monied interests than the Legislature ever was. In Washington, the Age of Reagan may have shuddered to an inglorious end, but we also need action from state governments - and Sacramento in particular - to move us toward a more sustainable economic future.


Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly. This commentary first appeared in the Washington Post.



More like socialist Paul Krugman.

God bless prop 13. You socialists just can't stop spending like whores.

Our land is what we fought for with blood. It's NOT YOURS!

Taxes on private property means you DO NOT OWN PROPERTY. If you miss one payment then guess who owns the land. The real greedy thief - Uncle Sam and his socialist puppets.

2bikemike
05-30-2009, 11:20 PM
The issue as I understand it is that property taxes were frozen back in 78' and that since California only relies on income taxes now, it's screwed in a bad recession. .

That not entirely true. The state relies on several streams of income. Property taxes are still collected. The Taxes will increase on a property everytime it is sold. Seeing how we have some of the highest prices in real estate in the nation they are drawing plenty from taxes. There has been tons of new contruction which equals new taxes. It is true my assessed value can't rise more than 2% but it still rises every year.

The problem in California is the mismanagement of funds. Billions of dollars of new spending is proposed every single election cycle for bond measures. We have high business taxes. Read up on the fiasco of prisoner health care for an example of mismanaged funds. When they are flush with cash they spend.

Government can't manage money never has been able to and never will. The more they make the more they spend. Hell they don't even have to make more. They just spend and spend.

IMHO that is why a VAT won't work. They will still spend on shit they can't afford and have to keep raising taxes and fees to pay for it.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 11:42 PM
When my personal budget is out of whack I trim my expenses, not get another revenue stream. Why not? You should have several sources of income anyway if you really want to do more than survive.

Now for a govt that's a different matter, because they don't produce anything and they just take from the people.



To congress: **** you assholes, get the **** out of my wallet!!!



Hmm, that just didn't quite work.

**** YOU ASSHOLES!!!

Ok, that felt a little better.
Yeah, that's exactly what I felt too.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 11:44 PM
IMHO that is why a VAT won't work. They will still spend on shit they can't afford and have to keep raising taxes and fees to pay for it.

That is so true. In fact when taxes go up spending increases. It never ends and the left has an endless litany of goodies they want to give away to stay in power while they claim it's for the public's welfare. Then the right has theirs. It's really in their interests.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 05:26 AM
Your article says they hired him to consult on healthcare.

And you still believe we will make free health Care?

Chief Faithful
05-31-2009, 06:30 AM
The conservative backlash of 1978 also swept into the Legislature a proto-Reaganistic generation of Republicans, who dubbed themselves "the Neanderthals." Compared with today's GOP state legislators, though, the Neanderthals look like Diderot's Encyclopedists. The current Republican crop has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes (increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14 times it has come up for a vote). Abetted by little local (Rush) Limbaughs who inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the nation's highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.



I was taking the article seriously until the stupid little comment about Limbaugh. All credibility down the tubes because he could not control his hate.

donkhater
05-31-2009, 08:11 AM
To all those who are proponents of tax increases on anyone or anything---

Do you think ANY of this increased revenue will go towards the national debt? If not then what's the point? If congress got a big boost in revenue do you trust any of these characters to spend down the debt or do you think they will see it as a license (validation?) to spend more of the GDP on government projects?

The ONLY way to make headway on the national debt and get our fiscal house in order is CLEARLY to make tough choices on what we as a nation want our government to do and put limits on their role---i.e. cut spending.

How many times in your own jobs have you heard this with regard to your budgets-- "If you don't spend it all, your budget will be cut next year." That's the federal government x10. The US taxpayer needs to tell Washington, "This is what you are authorized to spend our money on--nothing more."

Until that happens, all discussions on economic recovery are nothing but hot air with no real solutions.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 08:22 AM
Donkhater....the Tax increase folks have no care or worry about actual revenue produced. They will twist every statistic they can and scream till they cannot scream any more that the idea of Tax revenue is irrelevant and the great need is to tax with no regard for the revenue side.

When Obama moves to the VAT or some form of a VAT, no one will discuss the impact on sales from adding such a burden to the consumption side. And couple it with the impact on disposeable income from the increases in income tax when the Bush Tax cuts go away and you can begin to see the perfect storm of taxes slowing spending, taxes on spending slowing spending, and income overall dropping lowering tax revenues from all income taxes.

RINGLEADER
05-31-2009, 08:28 AM
Ahhh the Clinton legacy of parsing words. He did say he would give A tax cut.

That's true.

But he also said that no one making under $250,000 would pay any new taxes.

Then again...he didn't say what kind of taxes...he probably was only talking about income taxes.

He'll use some fancy words, everyone will nod, and the world will continue to turn.

banyon
05-31-2009, 08:51 AM
More like socialist Paul Krugman.

God bless prop 13. You socialists just can't stop spending like whores.

Our land is what we fought for with blood. It's NOT YOURS!

Taxes on private property means you DO NOT OWN PROPERTY. If you miss one payment then guess who owns the land. The real greedy thief - Uncle Sam and his socialist puppets.

You take away your city or county's property taxes, you are going to live in a pretty s****y place.

Levy mills have been around forever for a reason, it's just these new Grover Norquist myopic revolutionaries who want to sacrifice every tax so they can have an extra yacht or whatever and hope they can sucker everyone else to go with it. Yeah "property taxes are socialism" LOL.

patteeu
05-31-2009, 08:58 AM
I like the idea of a VAT. In fact, I'm in favor of it. It taxes consumption rather than production and it brings everyone into the tax payer boat. But I support it ONLY if the income tax is eliminated and the 16th Amendment is repealed.

banyon
05-31-2009, 09:04 AM
That not entirely true. The state relies on several streams of income. Property taxes are still collected. The Taxes will increase on a property everytime it is sold. Seeing how we have some of the highest prices in real estate in the nation they are drawing plenty from taxes. There has been tons of new contruction which equals new taxes. It is true my assessed value can't rise more than 2% but it still rises every year.

The problem in California is the mismanagement of funds. Billions of dollars of new spending is proposed every single election cycle for bond measures. We have high business taxes. Read up on the fiasco of prisoner health care for an example of mismanaged funds. When they are flush with cash they spend.

Government can't manage money never has been able to and never will. The more they make the more they spend. Hell they don't even have to make more. They just spend and spend.

IMHO that is why a VAT won't work. They will still spend on shit they can't afford and have to keep raising taxes and fees to pay for it.

Basically, we can't trust the government, so we can't ever balance the budget. Is that it?

donkhater
05-31-2009, 09:42 AM
You take away your city or county's property taxes, you are going to live in a pretty s****y place.

Levy mills have been around forever for a reason, it's just these new Grover Norquist myopic revolutionaries who want to sacrifice every tax so they can have an extra yacht or whatever and hope they can sucker everyone else to go with it. Yeah "property taxes are socialism" LOL.

Utter and complete ****shit.

Property taxes, like the VAT being proposed now, is the result of government rolling down the hill out of control and taking on more responsibilities for the everyday functions of Americans.

Much of the revenue genrated from property taxes go to functions that don't need and shouldn't have government control.

Much like any tax, though, once it is installed, the public is brainwashed into thinking that society couldn't function without it, that in someway people's lives would be worse off. It's this type of thinking that keeps moving the tax and spend ideology to complete socialism and manipulates the electorate by convincing them the wrold will end if their program isn't funded properly.

donkhater
05-31-2009, 09:43 AM
Basically, we can't trust the government, so we can't ever balance the budget. Is that it?

Balancing the budget is within the realm of even this administration. But reducing the national debt is a pipedream.

banyon
05-31-2009, 09:50 AM
Utter and complete ****shit.

Property taxes, like the VAT being proposed now, is the result of government rolling down the hill out of control and taking on more responsibilities for the everyday functions of Americans.

Much of the revenue genrated from property taxes go to functions that don't need and shouldn't have government control.

Much like any tax, though, once it is installed, the public is brainwashed into thinking that society couldn't function without it, that in someway people's lives would be worse off. It's this type of thinking that keeps moving the tax and spend ideology to complete socialism and manipulates the electorate by convincing them the wrold will end if their program isn't funded properly.

I don't know what your city or county spend their property taxes on, but I recently went to an overview of my city and county's budget. The taxes went to support police and fire service, road repair, sewer, the landfill, the local schools, the jail, and the hospital. What is "much of the revenue" going to that you didn't like?

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 09:50 AM
I like the idea of a VAT. In fact, I'm in favor of it. It taxes consumption rather than production and it brings everyone into the tax payer boat. But I support it ONLY if the income tax is eliminated and the 16th Amendment is repealed.

Betya a case of ice cold beer that that aint gonna happen. This trial baloon on a VAT is to set up for a tax thats dedicated to pay for this nut bag health care debacle. They wont lower any tax or eliminate any tax. Then they will discover the costs wont be close to the estimate and just as in Europe they will begin to add higher tax levy under the VAT.

donkhater
05-31-2009, 10:07 AM
I don't know what your city or county spend their property taxes on, but I recently went to an overview of my city and county's budget. The taxes went to support police and fire service, road repair, sewer, the landfill, the local schools, the jail, and the hospital. What is "much of the revenue" going to that you didn't like?

The most obvious from that list you gave is the hospital, schools, and landfill.

I am not opposed to local or even state taxes on corporations or even sales. At least the citizens of each state locality has a more direct say on how their taxes are being spent to benefit them.

If a city or state's citizens want to levy property taxes to pay for these things, then more power to them. They just have to realize the enormous cat they've let out of the bag.

However, I do wonder what expenses from that list you provided are due to Federal oversight, which really should have very limited jurisdiction into how the municipality spends it's money.

Call me old fashioned and outdated, I don't mind. I just believe that in the land of the free, that once you own a piece of property, you shouldn't have to pay the government for the privlage to keep owning it. I guess you believe differently.

banyon
05-31-2009, 10:12 AM
The most obvious from that list you gave is the hospital, schools, and landfill.

I am not opposed to local or even state taxes on corporations or even sales. At least the citizens of each state locality has a more direct say on how their taxes are being spent to benefit them.

If a city or state's citizens want to levy property taxes to pay for these things, then more power to them. They just have to realize the enormous cat they've let out of the bag.

However, I do wonder what expenses from that list you provided are due to Federal oversight, which really should have very limited jurisdiction into how the municipality spends it's money.

Call me old fashioned and outdated, I don't mind. I just believe that in the land of the free, that once you own a piece of property, you shouldn't have to pay the government for the privlage to keep owning it. I guess you believe differently.

You don't think there should be hospitals or schools? What are you going to do if someone shoots you? Just get some whiskey and try to stitch it up yourself? Schedule an appointment?

I guess kids are just f***ed too. Just let em run crazy on the streets, they'll get a good education that way. Also, i guess we'll just let trash pile up in our yards. LMAO

Then you say you don't mind if a city or state does it? Who do you think is levying them currently? There's no "national" property tax out there.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 10:21 AM
Banyon, wheres a link to the Ford County Budget? Therein will be the details so we could address the waste and unnecessary spending. No one wants schools to go away, criminals to go unpunished but we all know that in every county or city budget there is waste and unnecessary spending.

donkhater
05-31-2009, 10:22 AM
You don't think there should be hospitals or schools? What are you going to do if someone shoots you? Just get some whiskey and try to stitch it up yourself? Schedule an appointment?

I guess kids are just f***ed too. Just let em run crazy on the streets, they'll get a good education that way. Also, i guess we'll just let trash pile up in our yards. LMAO

Then you say you don't mind if a city or state does it? Who do you think is levying them currently? There's no "national" property tax out there.

Yeah, I don't think there should be hospitals or schools.:rolleyes: Way to dramatize.

I don't think that only landowners should foot the bill to pay for schools. Hospitals should be completely privatize and void of ANY government involvement. There are plenty of ways to educate and treat the ill without resorting to government intervention. How the hell did it ever happen before property taxes?

In fact I do mind that MY state and city levees property taxes. I just point out that it shouldn't be the defacto way to raise revenue. If the citizens of a certain city or state agree to it, then they do so at their demize with the knowledge that government NEVER shrinks it only expands. That is, unless the proper rules are in place like a Constitution or some wacky document like that.

How do you think California got into the mess it is in now? Because it restricted the amount of revenue the government could pull from the populace or over-extended itself on it's obligations?

banyon
05-31-2009, 10:29 AM
Yeah, I don't think there should be hospitals or schools.:rolleyes: Way to dramatize.

I don't think that only landowners should foot the bill to pay for schools. Hospitals should be completely privatize and void of ANY government involvement. There are plenty of ways to educate and treat the ill without resorting to government intervention. How the hell did it ever happen before property taxes?

In fact I do mind that MY state and city levees property taxes. I just point out that it shouldn't be the defacto way to raise revenue. If the citizens of a certain city or state agree to it, then they do so at their demize with the knowledge that government NEVER shrinks it only expands. That is, unless the proper rules are in place like a Constitution or some wacky document like that.

How do you think California got into the mess it is in now? Because it restricted the amount of revenue the government could pull from the populace or over-extended itself on it's obligations?

You said that hospitals schools and landfills were wasteful expenditures. I'm sorry if I took you at your word.

I still don't see how you completely privatize ER's unless you just want to tell people who don't happen to have cash in their wallet or an insurance card F you and dump them bloody on the curb. You ask how it was done before property taxes? I told you, whiskey and a hot iron, or you just died. People lived to be about thirty five, but taxes were really low, it was great!

And I still don't get how a landfill is a waste. I mean it's for waste, but what possible objection do you have to that?

banyon
05-31-2009, 10:34 AM
Banyon, wheres a link to the Ford County Budget? Therein will be the details so we could address the waste and unnecessary spending. No one wants schools to go away, criminals to go unpunished but we all know that in every county or city budget there is waste and unnecessary spending.

http://www.dodgecity.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=350

There's no link to the county budget. I think we saved some tax dollars on IT development.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 10:39 AM
I figured as much. No way to watch the commisioners that way. No sunshine law in Kansas?

donkhater
05-31-2009, 10:46 AM
You said that hospitals schools and landfills were wasteful expenditures. I'm sorry if I took you at your word.

I still don't see how you completely privatize ER's unless you just want to tell people who don't happen to have cash in their wallet or an insurance card F you and dump them bloody on the curb. You ask how it was done before property taxes? I told you, whiskey and a hot iron, or you just died. People lived to be about thirty five, but taxes were really low, it was great!

And I still don't get how a landfill is a waste. I mean it's for waste, but what possible objection do you have to that?

Yes I think landfills are a wasteful use of taxpayer money. Again you fail to imagine a private alternative.

ER's need not rely on government to fund them. It is the ridiculous intrusion of the government that has gotten costs and the access ot health insurance so out of whack that it has become self perpetuating to rely on the government to bail it out!!! Can I get an AMEN??

It's clear that you've been brainwashed into relying on big brother to provide services for you. I understand. It isn't like the free market or the american entreprenuer are particulary innovative:rolleyes:. The government is a much better alternative.

banyon
05-31-2009, 11:00 AM
Yes I think landfills are a wasteful use of taxpayer money. Again you fail to imagine a private alternative.

ER's need not rely on government to fund them. It is the ridiculous intrusion of the government that has gotten costs and the access ot health insurance so out of whack that it has become self perpetuating to rely on the government to bail it out!!! Can I get an AMEN??

It's clear that you've been brainwashed into relying on big brother to provide services for you. I understand. It isn't like the free market or the american entreprenuer are particulary innovative:rolleyes:. The government is a much better alternative.

I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared to accept that basic municipal services are communism or brainwashing. Indeed, there may be some brainwashing going on, namely you, and antigovernment rhetoric without consideration of the consequences of such policies.

I note you fail to describe how these private ER's would work for the indigent, nor why a municipally run landfill is more wasteful than a privately run one.

patteeu
05-31-2009, 11:15 AM
Betya a case of ice cold beer that that aint gonna happen. This trial baloon on a VAT is to set up for a tax thats dedicated to pay for this nut bag health care debacle. They wont lower any tax or eliminate any tax. Then they will discover the costs wont be close to the estimate and just as in Europe they will begin to add higher tax levy under the VAT.

Of course, I will NOT take that bet. :)

I agree that the current occupant of the WH has no intention of doing away with the income tax or any other significant tax for that matter. He may not implement a VAT, but any thought of doing so will surely be as an additional tax not as a substitute tax. In case it wasn't clear, I am very much opposed to VAT as an additional tax.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 11:18 AM
Government has no reward for efficiency, in fact in most cases government rewards inefficiency by hiring more people to do jobs that are not done well to begin with and expanding managenets span of control. There is no value placed on high performance in government as there is in private enterprise, reward for the best people cannot be differentiated. Average is the goal in government.

banyon
05-31-2009, 11:29 AM
Government has no reward for efficiency, in fact in most cases government rewards inefficiency by hiring more people to do jobs that are not done well to begin with and expanding managenets span of control. There is no value placed on high performance in government as there is in private enterprise, reward for the best people cannot be differentiated. Average is the goal in government.

That's because the highest goal of society shouldn't be efficiency. Educating kids isn't "efficient." Nazis were efficient, ran those camps like clockwork.

And LOL at the private reward comment. This is the same Wall Street CEO's that you're talking about that get paid billions whether their company is great or goes in the toilet, right? We should let them run everything, right?

HonestChieffan
05-31-2009, 11:41 AM
No, I didnt mention wall street ceos you dillweed. No CEO needs to run the Ford County landfill.

Why can't we be effective then. Since you have a distain for doing things well on the efficiency side and don't want to be measured or sdhow improvement, lets go for effective....but that would require measurement...sorry my bad.

Please try on occasion to not set your hair on fire.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2009, 11:52 AM
Government has no reward for efficiency, in fact in most cases government rewards inefficiency by hiring more people to do jobs that are not done well to begin with and expanding managenets span of control. There is no value placed on high performance in government as there is in private enterprise, reward for the best people cannot be differentiated. Average is the goal in government.

Inefficiency is the bane of big government. Despite protests otherwise though....greed is both the genius, and the bane, of private enterprise. Greed can foster industriousness, efficiency, and innovation; however, it often also fosters corruption, exploitation, and graft.

One need only look at the excesses of industry in the late 1800s, of Wall Street in the 1920s, of the savings and loan and junk bond debacles of the late 1980s, the dot.com illusion of the 1990s, and now the real estate and banking crisis of the last decade to see that business and private enterprise must, like government, also have checks and balances. Free market "checks and balances," obviously, do not work--despite the whining of radical libertarian types. Targeted government oversight, regulation, and intervention are, unfortunately, a necessary evil in times of crisis. Liberals and conservatives, of course, disagree over what constitutes a crisis. Personally, I prefer we err on the side of being proactive--but without being overly intrusive. It's a fine line to be sure.

The devil, of course, is in the details. Without government interventions to stop the excesses of private enterprise and greed, average citizens and workers in this country would continue to be exploited by so-called "Robber Barons" (as they were called in the late 1800s) as they still are around the world in most countries, and throughout history. On the other hand, without private enterprise the inefficiencies and bureaucracies of socialism stifle economic growth, innovation, and expansion.

In a republic such as ours, average citizens have the power of the ballot box to rein in the excesses of big government. On the other hand, average citizens have no similar device to rein in the excesses of big business and private enterprise--except the power of government. When the market and businesses are overcome by greed and excess, government is the only device we have to rein them in. It can be, unfortunately, messy and inefficient--but it's all we have, to ensure average Americans are NOT given the life of Russian serfs, Chinese peasants, or Mexican immigrants....who flee their own country, to seek the opportunities and protections that our, yes.... inefficient, government provides.

banyon
05-31-2009, 11:52 AM
No, I didnt mention wall street ceos you dillweed. No CEO needs to run the Ford County landfill.

Why can't we be effective then. Since you have a distain for doing things well on the efficiency side and don't want to be measured or sdhow improvement, lets go for effective....but that would require measurement...sorry my bad.

Please try on occasion to not set your hair on fire.

I thought you were supposed to be nitpicking the Dodge City budget, why don't you get to work on that?

And no I'm not against efficiency, I just recognize that it can't be the only value we have.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-31-2009, 12:53 PM
All I'm gonna say is when I heard NO new taxes for those making under 250k I believed it. This backdoor shit on tobacco for now, and more to come is not going to cut it for me. This is a major mark against the guy I voted for.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2009, 01:20 PM
All I'm gonna say is when I heard NO new taxes for those making under 250k I believed it. This backdoor shit on tobacco for now, and more to come is not going to cut it for me. This is a major mark against the guy I voted for.

A lot of folks will feel that way. That's why they are floating all these trial balloons, to try and decide what is the most politically palatable way to sell the inevitable tax increases. Unfortunately, I don't think there is really an alternative though. We are all going to have to pay more eventually. It's just a matter of who, and how much.

BigChiefFan
05-31-2009, 01:28 PM
Time to give the states their rights back and get the Fed out.

donkhater
05-31-2009, 01:39 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared to accept that basic municipal services are communism or brainwashing. Indeed, there may be some brainwashing going on, namely you, and antigovernment rhetoric without consideration of the consequences of such policies.

I note you fail to describe how these private ER's would work for the indigent, nor why a municipally run landfill is more wasteful than a privately run one.

Basic municipal services are one thing. However, I don't consider health care a basic municipal service or a "right". It is a service provided by those who wish to provide it. How the federal government ever stuck it's nose in business of my relationship with my doctor is one of the biggest f***ups to ever happen to this country.

Banyon, you seem like an intelligent fellow. But for the life of me, I don't get why you advocate more services to be handed over to bureaucrats who have no motivation to see them work well.

Because of the recent downturn in the economy, I think many, including you apparently, point to corporate greed as the cause. Sure there was some of that, but screwy government rules and a lack of accountability on those responsible for regulating against fraud are even more to blame IMO.

The market can reset itself in a way that values what is valuable, if we let it. Those assests which have no worth will need to be written off, but the correction could then occur and we can move forward. But propping up companies which are failing with taxpayer money is assinine. These companies are failing for a reason. Either 1) they don't have a product the consumer wants or 2) their business model is crap. Either way allowing the bankruptcy of said companies teaches the next entrprenuer what NOT to do, thus REAL innovation and advances can be made.

This doesn't just work in the coroporate world, it can work in the municipal sectors as well. But people are just nervous because they've never really known any other way. But in many cases the current models don't work. There are no consequences because taxpayer money is always there. The consumer can't take his business elsewhere.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-31-2009, 01:52 PM
A lot of folks will feel that way. That's why they are floating all these trial balloons, to try and decide what is the most politically palatable way to sell the inevitable tax increases. Unfortunately, I don't think there is really an alternative though. We are all going to have to pay more eventually. It's just a matter of who, and how much.

I definitely understand that at times promises made aren't reasonable to keep. This one however, does not fall in that category. This was developed solely to fund one of Obama's pet projects. He must've decided that the project was more important than his word.

Chief Faithful
05-31-2009, 02:10 PM
Time to give the states their rights back and get the Fed out.

Wow! Common ground.

2bikemike
05-31-2009, 02:34 PM
Basically, we can't trust the government, so we can't ever balance the budget. Is that it?

Change Can't to Won't.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2009, 04:39 PM
Banyon, you seem like an intelligent fellow. But for the life of me, I don't get why you advocate more services to be handed over to bureaucrats who have no motivation to see them work well.
Because he's a bureaucrat too. Pretty easy to figure that one. :D

googlegoogle
06-05-2009, 02:59 AM
Because he's a bureaucrat too. Pretty easy to figure that one. :D

Haha.

No doubt about it. He either lives off their services or profits from them.

We don't need government run hospitals just like we need government owned car companies.

Banyon should be forced to live in Moscow a few years out of the USA and hear the stories of his dream world.

***SPRAYER
06-05-2009, 04:47 AM
Heck, let's not stop there. Look and NYC, and how fugged up it was before Rudi Giuliani took it over

Now they want to tax the shit out of all the people who will just leave.




You can add Maryland and the City of Wash DC (marion barry lol) to that list, too.

***SPRAYER
06-05-2009, 04:48 AM
Because he's a bureaucrat too. Pretty easy to figure that one. :D

He's a dirtbag.

KC Dan
06-05-2009, 09:16 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think there is really an alternative though. We are all going to have to pay more eventually. It's just a matter of who, and how much.
CUT SPENDING! Isn't that what you and your family would do? It really isn't rocket science. The economy coming back will give them plenty of revenue to cover spending if they just cut the crap out of it. But, if they cut - they lose votes....

banyon
06-05-2009, 07:18 PM
Because he's a bureaucrat too. Pretty easy to figure that one. :D

Haha.

No doubt about it. He either lives off their services or profits from them.

We don't need government run hospitals just like we need government owned car companies.

Banyon should be forced to live in Moscow a few years out of the USA and hear the stories of his dream world.

You really know you've won the battle of substance when you get people who can't argue with you on the facts, but have to make petty mean-spirited jabs at you. You guys should get some kind of little club to comfort yourselves in your apparently unrewarding and embittered lives.

KC Dan
06-05-2009, 07:25 PM
Banyon,
At what level of raising current taxes (property, income, state) on you will you protest the hikes? What "floated" new taxes do you have a problem with or agree with - VAT? National Sales Tax? Soda Tax?

Just curious where you draw the line since this discussion has deteriorated into name calling.

banyon
06-05-2009, 07:33 PM
Banyon,
At what level of raising current taxes (property, income, state) on you will you protest the hikes? What "floated" new taxes do you have a problem with or agree with - VAT? National Sales Tax? Soda Tax?

Just curious where you draw the line since this discussion has deteriorated into name calling.

I would say that some level that approached what we had in the 60s or before would be objectionable. Rates were too high then on the wealthy. I am not wealthy, but I live pretty comfortably on my modest salary and am able to pay off debts and set a good chunk aside to invest.

I don't find our current tax scheme oppressive at all. I do find the loopholes that MNC's use to evade liability to be repugnant, but that's about it.

If taxes go up to fund universal health care, but the cost of health care is controlled, or likely goes down, then that's a net gain. I'm not going to complain about that. And health care is an inelastic good, so this record price increase is causing people some pretty serious problems. Again, I doubt that all of thes taxes will be enacted just because they were discussed as Honestchieffan fears.