CA income taxes increasing 2.5%?

[afx114]

[quote=rnen]if Obama legalizes all of them…….. which is on his and the Dems agenda.[/quote]

Care to back up this claim with a source?

[tucker…]

i have a question if california files for bankruptcy will all those social programs stop ?
if so let california file for bankruptcy.

[tucker…]

i have a question if california files for bankruptcy will all those social programs stop ?
if so let california file for bankruptcy.

[tucker…]

i have a question if california files for bankruptcy will all those social programs stop ?
if so let california file for bankruptcy.

[tucker…]

i have a question if california files for bankruptcy will all those social programs stop ?
if so let california file for bankruptcy.

[tucker…]

i have a question if california files for bankruptcy will all those social programs stop ?
if so let california file for bankruptcy.

[ucodegen]

It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[ucodegen]

It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[ucodegen]

It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[ucodegen]

It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[ucodegen]

It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[/quote]

Absolutely agree with this.

One thing to consider though, is when govt agencies bank “excess” money, certain taxpayer advocates and special interest groups will claim that they have an excess because they are taxing too much or that they are not allocating enough to certain sectors. Unfortunately, you’re damned if you save, and damned if you don’t. Of course, this is where a fully transparent government that values educating the masses about finances would come into play. Don’t see that happening so far. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[/quote]

Absolutely agree with this.

One thing to consider though, is when govt agencies bank “excess” money, certain taxpayer advocates and special interest groups will claim that they have an excess because they are taxing too much or that they are not allocating enough to certain sectors. Unfortunately, you’re damned if you save, and damned if you don’t. Of course, this is where a fully transparent government that values educating the masses about finances would come into play. Don’t see that happening so far. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[/quote]

Absolutely agree with this.

One thing to consider though, is when govt agencies bank “excess” money, certain taxpayer advocates and special interest groups will claim that they have an excess because they are taxing too much or that they are not allocating enough to certain sectors. Unfortunately, you’re damned if you save, and damned if you don’t. Of course, this is where a fully transparent government that values educating the masses about finances would come into play. Don’t see that happening so far. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]It looks like some people are not paying attention to things that the graph reveals.

1) Whenever state revenues increased, so did expenditures.. with a time-lag. Expenditures also overshot revenues when this occurs. It looks like the legislature felt ‘wealthy’ and quickly increased spending when there was a surplus in tax revenue, ignoring that it might be better to pay down debt. In times of surplus, you should be ‘banking’ the money so it is there in times of crisis.

2) State revenues increased from 58.6B in 1999 to projected 100.6B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

3) State expenditures increased from 57.8B in 1999 to projected 118.8B in 2009. (nearly doubling)

I don’t think that increases in population and inflation justify this size of increases. I consider the pattern of increases of expenditures following increases in revenues highly suspect and indicative of the lack of fiscal responsibility upon the part of the California legislature.

[/quote]

Absolutely agree with this.

One thing to consider though, is when govt agencies bank “excess” money, certain taxpayer advocates and special interest groups will claim that they have an excess because they are taxing too much or that they are not allocating enough to certain sectors. Unfortunately, you’re damned if you save, and damned if you don’t. Of course, this is where a fully transparent government that values educating the masses about finances would come into play. Don’t see that happening so far. 🙁

[Author]

Posts