[quote=briansd1]CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.
What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.[/quote]
All solutions will take time to implement. If the “emergency” is dire enough to void contracts with employees, then it’s dire enough to immediately make the changes I’ve recommended above.
[quote=briansd1]Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?[/quote]
I’d be happy to visit each state and see what I can do. 😉
Actually, I think it only requires minor tweaking in many cases. In Wisconsin, it’s my understanding that the entire “deficit” is due to recent tax cuts. Reverse those, and the “budget crisis” is fixed.
[quote=briansd1]BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.[/quote]
Prop 13 was sold as a way to “keep granny from being taxed out of her home.” I’m all for it as far as a SINGLE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE goes, and I even favor it for a single commercial building (possibly, some size exemptions, but not sure about that).
Prop 13 would never have passed if it was sold as a way to increase investors’/landlords’ profit margins, nor if it were proposed as a way to keep property taxes down for people who have “vacation homes” in California (displacing local workers and residents). Not a chance.
Also, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize corporations/LLCs who don’t want to pay taxes on the value at which they bought the property.
It’s not a tax increase as much as it’s the removal of a tax subsidy that should never have been there in the first place.
As for enforcing the rule requiring employers to pay for their “illegal” labor force, we have E-Verify, already:
If an applicant isn’t here legally, they have to list their dependents, and a set fee (paid monthly by the employer) will be required in order to pay for these dependents. The dependents get a number that enables them to attend public schools, use hospitals, etc. All public institutions would be required to demand proof of citizenship, legal residency, or “dependent status” (via the number/I.D. — can use fingerprint or iris scan for verification) of one of these workers.
We wouldn’t be enforcing federal law, as we’re not deporting anyone or dealing with border issues. We’d just be making sure that the responsible parties are the ones paying for it. All costs associated with this program would be factored into this “fee” the employers would have to pay for dependents.
[quote=briansd1]And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.[/quote]
The “American Way” does not include rewarding criminal behavior. Rewarding criminal behavior begets more criminal behavior, so it needs to stop.
My mother was an immigrant, so it’s not about “immigrant-bashing.” It’s about making sure we don’t take on more than we can handle, and ensuring the well-being of our citizens before taking on the burdens of others. I know you have a more “global” approach, and that’s fine. We just disagree.
