As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

California is bankrupt, Schwazenegger promises vengeance upon those who oppose him

245

Posts

  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Jragghen wrote: »
    I could deal with a Constitutional Convention to remove the ability of ballot proposals to call for mandatory spending without equivalent increases in revenue.

    Good Lord, no. At least, not without a measure to remove the crippling handcuffs the CA Constitution places on the legislature. The legislature needs to be able to pass spending and tax increases with a simple majority. That's the way it's supposed to work.

    Matrijs on
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    California's constitution, state govt, and proposition system have an abundance of retardation. As a resident of CA, I just hope that we don't go bankrupt and maybe fix some of the stupidity.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    And here I thought recalling Gray Davis would fix all our problems.

    Boy is there egg on MY face.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    California - where a tax increase requires a 2/3 supermajority, and a constitutional amendment denying fundamental rights requires 50% + 1 vote.

    Man, what a fucking retarded state. You guys deserve all of this.

    It's a good job for you that DC has no trade connections with California and that the US economy as a whole is totally independant of Californias. Oh, wait. That's not true at all and in fact as we go, you go too.

    Seriously though, perhaps we have established the cause (absurd law forbidding taxes while loophole allows easy rises in spending) but what are we going to do about it. First we need to repeal the 2/3 majority rule, but then where will we get additional revenue from?

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    California - where a tax increase requires a 2/3 supermajority, and a constitutional amendment denying fundamental rights requires 50% + 1 vote.

    Man, what a fucking retarded state. You guys deserve all of this.

    It's a good job for you that DC has no trade connections with California and that the US economy as a whole is totally independant of Californias. Oh, wait. That's not true at all and in fact as we go, you go too.

    Seriously though, perhaps we have established the cause (absurd law forbidding taxes while loophole allows easy rises in spending) but what are we going to do about it. First we need to repeal the 2/3 majority rule, but then where will we get additional revenue from?

    Oh wait, because you have a huge economy I dont get to call your state idiotic? wrong, it is. deal with it.

    I mean you guys are actually way more fucked than the NY state government, which is barely possible.

    geckahn on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Tax gay marriages.

    Sort of win-win for everyone.

    You still have gay marriages.
    You get the extra revenues.
    You appease the fundies but placing an economic disincentive on gay marriages.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    For people discussing the size of CA's economy, CIA factbook estimates it as the 10th largest right now. Behind, in order, the combined United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Brazil. It would displace Italy.

    Jragghen on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Jragghen wrote: »
    For people discussing the size of CA's economy, CIA factbook estimates it as the 10th largest right now. Behind, in order, the combined United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Brazil. It would displace Italy.

    Blech, we used to be 5th.

    This is a disappointment.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    For people discussing the size of CA's economy, CIA factbook estimates it as the 10th largest right now. Behind, in order, the combined United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Brazil. It would displace Italy.

    Blech, we used to be 5th.

    This is a disappointment.

    BRIC caught up.

    Matrijs on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    However, I do know that there are immediate steps California could take to help. Aren't a lot of the state's property taxes frozen, or grandfathered in? So some dude in a mansion could conceivably pay less in property tax than a family in a bungalow. Rectifying that would probably be a good first step.

    Tax rates are frozen based on the last sale price of your house. Which means if a seventy year old man on fixed income in a modest house suddenly sees property values around him skyrocket, he won't suddenly have to find an extra $3k/year to cover the extra taxes.

    Yeah, people were losing their homes in the 70s which is what started the whole Jarvis movement.

    Removing Prop 13 across the board is a non-starter today anyways. Maybe you could get away with it by targeting the rich only, but the middle class is already losing homes with Prop 13 still in place, they're not going to go for a rollback that would instantly triple their property taxes. It'll just be seen as piling on, and would be a good way for any politician to get themself recalled.

    And residential landlords in rent-controlled areas would get killed. Corporate tenants could also be hit, which would be a good chunk of small businesses, since a lot of corporate leases mandate rent increases tied to property tax increases.

    BubbaT on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    For people discussing the size of CA's economy, CIA factbook estimates it as the 10th largest right now. Behind, in order, the combined United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Brazil. It would displace Italy.

    Blech, we used to be 5th.

    This is a disappointment.

    BRIC caught up.

    What'd you say about my mother?

    Asshole.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    However, I do know that there are immediate steps California could take to help. Aren't a lot of the state's property taxes frozen, or grandfathered in? So some dude in a mansion could conceivably pay less in property tax than a family in a bungalow. Rectifying that would probably be a good first step.

    Tax rates are frozen based on the last sale price of your house. Which means if a seventy year old man on fixed income in a modest house suddenly sees property values around him skyrocket, he won't suddenly have to find an extra $3k/year to cover the extra taxes.

    Yeah, people were losing their homes in the 70s which is what started the whole Jarvis movement.

    Removing Prop 13 across the board is a non-starter today anyways. Maybe you could get away with it by targeting the rich only, but the middle class is already losing homes with Prop 13 still in place, they're not going to go for a rollback that would instantly triple their property taxes. It'll just be seen as piling on, and would be a good way for any politician to get themself recalled.

    And residential landlords in rent-controlled areas would get killed. Corporate tenants could also be hit, which would be a good chunk of small businesses, since a lot of corporate leases mandate rent increases tied to property tax increases.

    A better solution would be to eliminate Prop 13 and then marginally lower the actual property tax rate, which would leave most homeowners - particularly the most vulnerable ones who bought recently - above water, while increasing property tax on corporate owned land and retiree mansions to a reasonable rate.

    Matrijs on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    For people discussing the size of CA's economy, CIA factbook estimates it as the 10th largest right now. Behind, in order, the combined United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Brazil. It would displace Italy.

    Blech, we used to be 5th.

    This is a disappointment.

    BRIC caught up.

    What'd you say about my mother?

    Asshole.

    Bigger than Dethklok. Dayum.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • cheezcheez Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    And here I thought recalling Gray Davis would fix all our problems.

    Boy is there egg on MY face.

    Maybe we were supposed to elect the pornstar in his place?

    cheez on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    However, I do know that there are immediate steps California could take to help. Aren't a lot of the state's property taxes frozen, or grandfathered in? So some dude in a mansion could conceivably pay less in property tax than a family in a bungalow. Rectifying that would probably be a good first step.

    Tax rates are frozen based on the last sale price of your house. Which means if a seventy year old man on fixed income in a modest house suddenly sees property values around him skyrocket, he won't suddenly have to find an extra $3k/year to cover the extra taxes.

    Yeah, people were losing their homes in the 70s which is what started the whole Jarvis movement.

    Removing Prop 13 across the board is a non-starter today anyways. Maybe you could get away with it by targeting the rich only, but the middle class is already losing homes with Prop 13 still in place, they're not going to go for a rollback that would instantly triple their property taxes. It'll just be seen as piling on, and would be a good way for any politician to get themself recalled.

    And residential landlords in rent-controlled areas would get killed. Corporate tenants could also be hit, which would be a good chunk of small businesses, since a lot of corporate leases mandate rent increases tied to property tax increases.

    Prop 13 fixing property taxes isn't the big problem, Pro 13 requiring a super majority for any financial decisions is the problem. Ballot measures should require a super majority, the legislature should require 50% + 1 vote to do something.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    cheez wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    And here I thought recalling Gray Davis would fix all our problems.

    Boy is there egg on MY face.

    Maybe we were supposed to elect the pornstar in his place?

    Don't blame me, I voted for Flynt!

    juice for jesus on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I wouldn't put the blame on Arnold. I think he has a sensible balance to his idea to do some cutting and increasing some taxes. Of course, Democrats don't want to cut anything and Republicans don't want to tax anything, so we have a political deadlock that is going to put us into bankruptcy.

    Hoz on
  • Mr. PokeylopeMr. Pokeylope Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think a major problem is both the democrats and republicans have basically carved up the state into safe Democrat and safe republican seats. If you don't have to worry about tracking to the center to win an election there is no reason to compromise, hell it might even hurt you, so nothing gets done.

    We've just been borrowing more and more money and now it's finally caught up with us. Though I would say that it's because of California being economically so powerful that the state has been able to be run so fucking retarded and get away with it for so long.

    Mr. Pokeylope on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    I wouldn't put the blame on Arnold. I think he has a sensible balance to his idea to do some cutting and increasing some taxes. Of course, Democrats don't want to cut anything and Republicans don't want to tax anything, so we have a political deadlock that is going to put us into bankruptcy.

    Arnold has been staunchly republican in his refusal to raise any taxes until quite recently.

    It is absolutely ridiculous to believe CA could ever overcome its budget problems strictly through cutting.

    tofu on
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    There has to be a "get to the choppah" joke somewhere in here.

    Speaker on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Get to the choppahn block?

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think a major problem is both the democrats and republicans have basically carved up the state into safe Democrat and safe republican seats. If you don't have to worry about tracking to the center to win an election there is no reason to compromise, hell it might even hurt you, so nothing gets done.

    We've just been borrowing more and more money and now it's finally caught up with us. Though I would say that it's because of California being economically so powerful that the state has been able to be run so fucking retarded and get away with it for so long.
    Centrists are twice as fucking retarded as partisans.

    Thanatos on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tofu wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I wouldn't put the blame on Arnold. I think he has a sensible balance to his idea to do some cutting and increasing some taxes. Of course, Democrats don't want to cut anything and Republicans don't want to tax anything, so we have a political deadlock that is going to put us into bankruptcy.

    Arnold has been staunchly republican in his refusal to raise any taxes until quite recently.

    It is absolutely ridiculous to believe CA could ever overcome its budget problems strictly through cutting.
    Well, Democrats were just as staunch about budget cuts. I'm going to take that article on faith that the only people blockading the way now are Republicans. I can't imagine all of them holding out. If they drive our state into bankruptcy playing chicken, people will go fucking nuts. The only reason most of these state politicians get elected is because the majority of their constituents don't pay any attention to them.

    Hoz on
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think a major problem is both the democrats and republicans have basically carved up the state into safe Democrat and safe republican seats. If you don't have to worry about tracking to the center to win an election there is no reason to compromise, hell it might even hurt you, so nothing gets done.

    We've just been borrowing more and more money and now it's finally caught up with us. Though I would say that it's because of California being economically so powerful that the state has been able to be run so fucking retarded and get away with it for so long.
    Centrists are twice as fucking retarded as partisans.

    This strikes me as needing some sort of explination because it's reading to me as "The people who don't favor extremes in terms of governing are worse for government than those who are" and you're a smart guy Than so I have trouble believing that was your intent.

    HappylilElf on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    However, I do know that there are immediate steps California could take to help. Aren't a lot of the state's property taxes frozen, or grandfathered in? So some dude in a mansion could conceivably pay less in property tax than a family in a bungalow. Rectifying that would probably be a good first step.

    Tax rates are frozen based on the last sale price of your house. Which means if a seventy year old man on fixed income in a modest house suddenly sees property values around him skyrocket, he won't suddenly have to find an extra $3k/year to cover the extra taxes.

    Yeah, people were losing their homes in the 70s which is what started the whole Jarvis movement.

    Removing Prop 13 across the board is a non-starter today anyways. Maybe you could get away with it by targeting the rich only, but the middle class is already losing homes with Prop 13 still in place, they're not going to go for a rollback that would instantly triple their property taxes. It'll just be seen as piling on, and would be a good way for any politician to get themself recalled.

    And residential landlords in rent-controlled areas would get killed. Corporate tenants could also be hit, which would be a good chunk of small businesses, since a lot of corporate leases mandate rent increases tied to property tax increases.

    A better solution would be to eliminate Prop 13 and then marginally lower the actual property tax rate, which would leave most homeowners - particularly the most vulnerable ones who bought recently - above water, while increasing property tax on corporate owned land and retiree mansions to a reasonable rate.

    Please define how we can realistically and objectively determine the difference between Mcmansion owners and those who simply are trying to house their 2.5 children.

    Corporate tax increases just discourage hiring. Other types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.

    Also, as a previous poster said, prop 13 exists to prevent grandpa from getting booted out on the street when the guy next door makes the neighborhood nice by building a second story. It's not optimal since there probably shouldn't be a property tax to begin with, a LVT would be superior, but it's still better than people losing homes because they can't afford housing they've lived in for 30 years on a fixed income.

    God forbid California stops spending money that isn't infrastructure related. The state infrastructure budget has gone from almost 50% to about 1% in the last 30 years. HHS is eating up all of the money.

    When we figure out that bonds are actually taxes on the future we'll realize it's actually 10 times worse than we think it is and then we'll hopefully start cutting bullshit programs.

    KevinNash on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's not like huge brand name Marijuana companies will spring up overnight, or that people will suddenly be able to close down supply chains for other crops and grow weed. The whole 'people will grow it themselves' thing is completely absurd though, I can make coffee myself, is Starbucks out of business. I can bake my own bread quite simply, are there no bakers?

    I thought I read somewhere that Marlboro already bought the rights to distribute pot the day it becomes legal. I'd imagine they could probably get it into stores in a matter of weeks.

    KevinNash on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Prop 13 fixing property taxes isn't the big problem

    It certainly is a problem however. Freezing property taxes in the way California did distorts the liquidity of the housing market, disincentivizing normal housing moves. It also allows a lot of free riders to piggy back on the poor retiree staying in his house. Direct tax relief of those who are actually harmed by excessive property taxes, or a decoupling of the tax structure from property taxes altogether would have been better options.

    Personally I think the incentives to own homes in the United States are perverse and most of them should be removed. I mean, if the idea is to force people to build equity in something, there are better ways than just providing all these skewed programs to encourage home ownership.

    Saammiel on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think a major problem is both the democrats and republicans have basically carved up the state into safe Democrat and safe republican seats. If you don't have to worry about tracking to the center to win an election there is no reason to compromise, hell it might even hurt you, so nothing gets done.

    We've just been borrowing more and more money and now it's finally caught up with us. Though I would say that it's because of California being economically so powerful that the state has been able to be run so fucking retarded and get away with it for so long.
    Centrists are twice as fucking retarded as partisans.

    This strikes me as needing some sort of explination because it's reading to me as "The people who don't favor extremes in terms of governing are worse for government than those who are" and you're a smart guy Than so I have trouble believing that was your intent.

    It is best to have strong beliefs, weakly held. Someone like Bernie Sanders I guess you could say - He has some very strong beliefs, to the point where he isn't even a member of a major party, but he also manages to get a lot of things done. i.e. he cares more about results than his perfect ideology. The flip side of this would be someone like Ron Paul, who has strong beliefs but manages to get nothing done.

    Centrists in your meaning tend to have weak beliefs with no strong foundation of ideology, and are thus more susceptible to a number of corrupting influences.

    geckahn on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    However, I do know that there are immediate steps California could take to help. Aren't a lot of the state's property taxes frozen, or grandfathered in? So some dude in a mansion could conceivably pay less in property tax than a family in a bungalow. Rectifying that would probably be a good first step.

    Tax rates are frozen based on the last sale price of your house. Which means if a seventy year old man on fixed income in a modest house suddenly sees property values around him skyrocket, he won't suddenly have to find an extra $3k/year to cover the extra taxes.

    Yeah, people were losing their homes in the 70s which is what started the whole Jarvis movement.

    Removing Prop 13 across the board is a non-starter today anyways. Maybe you could get away with it by targeting the rich only, but the middle class is already losing homes with Prop 13 still in place, they're not going to go for a rollback that would instantly triple their property taxes. It'll just be seen as piling on, and would be a good way for any politician to get themself recalled.

    And residential landlords in rent-controlled areas would get killed. Corporate tenants could also be hit, which would be a good chunk of small businesses, since a lot of corporate leases mandate rent increases tied to property tax increases.

    A better solution would be to eliminate Prop 13 and then marginally lower the actual property tax rate, which would leave most homeowners - particularly the most vulnerable ones who bought recently - above water, while increasing property tax on corporate owned land and retiree mansions to a reasonable rate.

    Please define how we can realistically and objectively determine the difference between Mcmansion owners and those who simply are trying to house their 2.5 children.

    Property value, via regular reassessments. Just like almost every other state does. Wow, that was easy.
    Corporate tax increases just discourage hiring. Other types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.

    Simply untrue. This would be true if we were on the right side of the Laffer curve. However, the effects of President Bush's tax cuts on our fiscal situation empirically demonstrate that we're on the left side of the Laffer curve, meaning that tax increases will increase revenue.
    Also, as a previous poster said, prop 13 exists to prevent grandpa from getting booted out on the street when the guy next door makes the neighborhood nice by building a second story. It's not optimal since there probably shouldn't be a property tax to begin with, a LVT would be superior, but it's still better than people losing homes because they can't afford housing they've lived in for 30 years on a fixed income.

    I don't want to kick out Grandpa any more than anybody else does. On the other hand, it seems to me that the solution to that problem is not to kneecap the state's ability to raise revenue. A better solution would be to provide a limited property tax credit to retirees, which would allow almost all of them to keep their homes without disproportionately subsidizing corporate property, which is a primary effect of Prop 13.

    Matrijs on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Laffer curve, you say?

    laffuercurvezc6.png

    Jragghen on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    geckahn on
  • RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Double post

    Roanth on
  • RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Just went over the California state page and looked at some budget stuff. The problem isn't just revenues. They are forecasting a $6 billion drop in revenues from the recession but the hole is projected to be somewhere between $18 and $24 billion. The reality is that the state is spending way too much money. For instance, on K-12 Cali spends $45 billion on approximately 6 million students. That is over $7k per student. You can get a fancy man private education for that kind of dough. We have the same issue here in MN (think we spend over $8k per student).

    The state cannot tax its way out of this problem given the size of the whole. I will agree that some increase in taxes is probably doable without creating major economic harm but trying to get $24 billion out of a state with 35 million people (that would be $685 for every man, woman, and child - break it down to people who actually pay taxes and the number skyrockets) is just not possible. The state needs to seriously sit down and figure out how it can reign in spending.

    Here are some docs from the state that outline how they got into this mess

    http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/Introduction.pdf

    To Tblox - the revenue shortfall caused by the recession is not even 1/3 of the budget hole. California created its own mess through irresponsible and unchecked spending. The state had a structural deficit problem dating back years so implying that this persistent issue (state specific) somehow spells doom for everyone else is, again, more than a little chicken litte. In fact, the deficit for 2008-2009 was projected at $14 billion last January, before the global economy went in the crapper.
    California's structural budget deficit persists. Slower rates of economic growth, softening state revenues and increased costs have widened California's budget gap. In January, the projected deficit for 2008-09 was $14.5 billion. Left unaddressed, the projected gap would grow to $24.3 billion based on updated revenue projections, revised caseload estimates and higher costs.

    To summarize, I am sorry your state can't get its shit together, spends like a drunken sailor, and has had persistent budget issues for years. This doesn't mean, however, that the self-inflicted destruction of the California budget means everyone else is fucked. I would submit that even had the global economy not slipped into recession that California would be in pretty much the same position as they are now (deficit would have been $14 billion). Only difference is that they probably would have been able to access the debt markets (lol more leverage!), as they have in the past, to fill the gap.

    Roanth on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    It's the only argument that can be put forth to support the assertion, made by KevinNash, that
    Other [non-corporate-income] types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.

    And it fails, naturally, because even if you assume that the Laffer Curve represents something real about the way the world works, we're still clearly on the left side of it, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bush tax cuts did not raise revenue equal to or greater than their cost.

    Matrijs on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    tofu wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I wouldn't put the blame on Arnold. I think he has a sensible balance to his idea to do some cutting and increasing some taxes. Of course, Democrats don't want to cut anything and Republicans don't want to tax anything, so we have a political deadlock that is going to put us into bankruptcy.

    Arnold has been staunchly republican in his refusal to raise any taxes until quite recently.

    It is absolutely ridiculous to believe CA could ever overcome its budget problems strictly through cutting.
    Well, Democrats were just as staunch about budget cuts. I'm going to take that article on faith that the only people blockading the way now are Republicans. I can't imagine all of them holding out. If they drive our state into bankruptcy playing chicken, people will go fucking nuts. The only reason most of these state politicians get elected is because the majority of their constituents don't pay any attention to them.

    If Democrats were just as staunch about budget cuts why do we have them?

    tofu on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    It's the only argument that can be put forth to support the assertion, made by KevinNash, that
    Other [non-corporate-income] types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.

    And it fails, naturally, because even if you assume that the Laffer Curve represents something real about the way the world works, we're still clearly on the left side of it, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bush tax cuts did not raise revenue equal to or greater than their cost.

    Mathematically speaking 0% of 70% is still 0%. If the laffer curve doesn't represent something real then we may as well just raise taxes to 100% and see how that works out.

    KevinNash on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Roanth wrote: »

    To summarize, I am sorry your state can't get its shit together, spends like a drunken sailor, and has had persistent budget issues for years. This doesn't mean, however, that the self-inflicted destruction of the California budget means everyone else is fucked. I would submit that even had the global economy not slipped into recession that California would be in pretty much the same position as they are now (deficit would have been $14 billion). Only difference is that they probably would have been able to access the debt markets (lol more leverage!), as they have in the past, to fill the gap.

    It certainly does mean everyone else is fucked. You understand that if Californias economy fails, yours is done too right? Who do you think buys your goods and food? Californians. You understand that if things go south in California, and temporarily do not do so in other states, then people from California (who have already shown themselves to be a mobile workforce willing to go where the work is) will just come to your states and look for work. Meaning our problem immediately becomes your problem.

    I agree that the whole "spending increases are easy, tax rises are impossible" thing is absurd, and cuts do need to be made but unfortunately this is the worst possible time for spending cuts. Property tax changes could be disasterous too, the last thing we need is more burden on homeowners, and with the only affordable housing in many cities being so only due to rent control we can't change the burden on those owners.

    I've not heard any proposals for how we get ourselves out of this mess even if we can cat past the 2/3 law other than legalizing marijuana (which I think is too slow), or a gas tax (which I guess would have problems because it would raise the price of California foods compared to other states who wouldn't be willing to have the tax too)

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    It's the only argument that can be put forth to support the assertion, made by KevinNash, that
    Other [non-corporate-income] types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.

    And it fails, naturally, because even if you assume that the Laffer Curve represents something real about the way the world works, we're still clearly on the left side of it, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bush tax cuts did not raise revenue equal to or greater than their cost.

    Mathematically speaking 0% of 70% is still 0%. If the laffer curve doesn't represent something real then we may as well just raise taxes to 100% and see how that works out.

    Just because two points on the curve (0 and 100) work doesn't mean any other point does.

    Phoenix-D on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    It's the only argument that can be put forth to support the assertion, made by KevinNash, that
    Other [non-corporate-income] types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.

    And it fails, naturally, because even if you assume that the Laffer Curve represents something real about the way the world works, we're still clearly on the left side of it, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bush tax cuts did not raise revenue equal to or greater than their cost.

    Mathematically speaking 0% of 70% is still 0%. If the laffer curve doesn't represent something real then we may as well just raise taxes to 100% and see how that works out.

    Just because two points on the curve (0 and 100) work doesn't mean any other point does.

    The laffer curve is an absolutely unneccesary tool that makes no functional sense as to why it exists. It's used to justify slashing taxes without cutting spending, and it first took hold in a Republican party that wasn't particularly horrible fiscally. Look where it got them.

    Yes, government revenue will fall if you increase taxes so high that it discourages incentives to create new wealth. This is an obvious truth, and why things like the 70% tax rate on the upper bracket post WW2 was not a very good thing.

    But you do not need any laffer curve to tell you this, because its fucking obvious - and people use the laffer curve to pretend that we are somehow past the point of ridiculously high taxes when we are nowhere even close.

    geckahn on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »

    To summarize, I am sorry your state can't get its shit together, spends like a drunken sailor, and has had persistent budget issues for years. This doesn't mean, however, that the self-inflicted destruction of the California budget means everyone else is fucked. I would submit that even had the global economy not slipped into recession that California would be in pretty much the same position as they are now (deficit would have been $14 billion). Only difference is that they probably would have been able to access the debt markets (lol more leverage!), as they have in the past, to fill the gap.

    It certainly does mean everyone else is fucked. You understand that if Californias economy fails, yours is done too right? Who do you think buys your goods and food? Californians. You understand that if things go south in California, and temporarily do not do so in other states, then people from California (who have already shown themselves to be a mobile workforce willing to go where the work is) will just come to your states and look for work. Meaning our problem immediately becomes your problem.

    I agree that the whole "spending increases are easy, tax rises are impossible" thing is absurd, and cuts do need to be made but unfortunately this is the worst possible time for spending cuts. Property tax changes could be disasterous too, the last thing we need is more burden on homeowners, and with the only affordable housing in many cities being so only due to rent control we can't change the burden on those owners.

    I've not heard any proposals for how we get ourselves out of this mess even if we can cat past the 2/3 law other than legalizing marijuana (which I think is too slow), or a gas tax (which I guess would have problems because it would raise the price of California foods compared to other states who wouldn't be willing to have the tax too)


    This is ridiculous. No doubt the impending budget catastrophy of California is a Big Deal, but sorry the world doesn't revolve around California regardless of what some of its citizens might think. First of all, you don't have some magically fluid labor force that other states lack. In fact, prop 13 inhibits labor fluidity by disincentivizing home moves. No doubt it will hurt other states, but you are making the wild assumption that a majority of any given state's trade is conducting with California, which is ludicrous as a generality.

    I also fail to see how a governmental budget crisis will lead to some post apocalyptic scenario where throngs of refugees will be fleeing to North Dakota to steal their jobs.

    Also, rent control is pretty much retarded. If you want to give people housing credits, fine, but distorting the entire rental market is dumb. Especially since there isn't anything like 'housing price appreciation controls'. If you really were so enamored with the mobility of Californians you would be fine with letting them be priced out of their rental units so they could move somewhere cheaper and embrace that new lifestyle.

    And California is pretty much SOL unless they can beg the federal government for some sort of bailout. Collectively its citizens helped dig it into this mess and I have no idea how they will dig themselves out. No one is going to lend them money and I doubt they can raise taxes or cut spending enough to make up the shortfall with their retarded restrictions. So welp.

    Also, the laffer curve is stupid and no one should ever use it. Yeah it holds at the extremes of 0% taxation and 100% taxation. Yay, since that is oh so useful for crafting policy. Just like the thought that there is an inverse link between inflation and unemployment, it should be left in the dustbin of terrible economic ideas.

    Saammiel on
Sign In or Register to comment.