CA income taxes increasing 2.5%?

[meadandale]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Also CA should pass a law, that all purchases made on the internet shipped to CA is taxed with the state sales tax rate.[/quote]

There already IS a law that you are voluntarily supposed to pay sales tax in internet purchases that aren’t taxed.

When my accountant mentioned this to me I laughed at him and he said, “Yeah, I know…but I’m supposed to tell you.” Sorry, I’m not going to keep track of stuff I buy online and then voluntarily cough up another couple thousand in sales tax to the state. And raising the sales tax to 8.5, 9 or 10% is going to make me LESS likely to do so and MORE likely to buy more and more stuff online from out of state.

I think the graph posted above should give everyone pause. The state has fully doubled state spending in the last 10 years with property taxes at an all time high and it STILL managed to spend WAYYYYYY more than it had. Seems that the government is getting a little too fat for its own good. Hell, I can telecommute to my job; if they think they can keep raising taxes higher and higher and cut services more and more and we are just going to keep bending over to take it, they have another thing coming. Won’t take much for me to take all my earning and spending and just move it out of CA.

[Coronita]

Here we go..

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/california-legislature-passes-buget-with-a-0-39-per-gallon-gas/

California legislature passes budget with a $0.39 per gallon gas “user fee”

California hasn’t been able to borrow money for months, and according to the state’s treasurer, it will run out of money in February or March if it doesn’t pass a budget and get some income flowing. The majority Democratic legislature has sent Governor Schwarzenegger a budget that contains a suite of “revenue enhancements” that the Democrats call fees, not taxes. In addition to a jump in the state sales tax and personal income tax, there’s also a provision to apply a per gallon gas “fee” of 39 cents.

The biggest problem with the proposed budget is the way in which it was passed, which relies on the definition of the word “tax”. Democrats used a simple majority vote to pass the proposed budget, instead of the mandatory 2/3 majority needed to pass new taxes, because they say “it does not technically increase the amount of taxes on Californians.” For instance, because the gas “fee” would be set aside for transportation projects only, it isn’t a tax, it’s a user fee, and so it doesn’t require a 2/3 majority vote.

Call it what you want, Californians would be paying more money, so Republicans have vowed not to support what they call increased taxes. Citizen’s groups have also promised to sue the state if Schwarzenegger signs the proposed budget as is. The other problem is that Schwarzenegger has already vowed to veto it, but not over the tax vs. fee issue. He said he’ll let other people sort that out – what he really wants are bigger cuts in spending before he’ll approve anything. The budget discussions resume on Friday as lawmakers work to have something done by year’s end.

[Coronita]

Here we go..

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/california-legislature-passes-buget-with-a-0-39-per-gallon-gas/

California legislature passes budget with a $0.39 per gallon gas “user fee”

California hasn’t been able to borrow money for months, and according to the state’s treasurer, it will run out of money in February or March if it doesn’t pass a budget and get some income flowing. The majority Democratic legislature has sent Governor Schwarzenegger a budget that contains a suite of “revenue enhancements” that the Democrats call fees, not taxes. In addition to a jump in the state sales tax and personal income tax, there’s also a provision to apply a per gallon gas “fee” of 39 cents.

The biggest problem with the proposed budget is the way in which it was passed, which relies on the definition of the word “tax”. Democrats used a simple majority vote to pass the proposed budget, instead of the mandatory 2/3 majority needed to pass new taxes, because they say “it does not technically increase the amount of taxes on Californians.” For instance, because the gas “fee” would be set aside for transportation projects only, it isn’t a tax, it’s a user fee, and so it doesn’t require a 2/3 majority vote.

Call it what you want, Californians would be paying more money, so Republicans have vowed not to support what they call increased taxes. Citizen’s groups have also promised to sue the state if Schwarzenegger signs the proposed budget as is. The other problem is that Schwarzenegger has already vowed to veto it, but not over the tax vs. fee issue. He said he’ll let other people sort that out – what he really wants are bigger cuts in spending before he’ll approve anything. The budget discussions resume on Friday as lawmakers work to have something done by year’s end.

[Coronita]

Here we go..

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/california-legislature-passes-buget-with-a-0-39-per-gallon-gas/

California legislature passes budget with a $0.39 per gallon gas “user fee”

California hasn’t been able to borrow money for months, and according to the state’s treasurer, it will run out of money in February or March if it doesn’t pass a budget and get some income flowing. The majority Democratic legislature has sent Governor Schwarzenegger a budget that contains a suite of “revenue enhancements” that the Democrats call fees, not taxes. In addition to a jump in the state sales tax and personal income tax, there’s also a provision to apply a per gallon gas “fee” of 39 cents.

The biggest problem with the proposed budget is the way in which it was passed, which relies on the definition of the word “tax”. Democrats used a simple majority vote to pass the proposed budget, instead of the mandatory 2/3 majority needed to pass new taxes, because they say “it does not technically increase the amount of taxes on Californians.” For instance, because the gas “fee” would be set aside for transportation projects only, it isn’t a tax, it’s a user fee, and so it doesn’t require a 2/3 majority vote.

Call it what you want, Californians would be paying more money, so Republicans have vowed not to support what they call increased taxes. Citizen’s groups have also promised to sue the state if Schwarzenegger signs the proposed budget as is. The other problem is that Schwarzenegger has already vowed to veto it, but not over the tax vs. fee issue. He said he’ll let other people sort that out – what he really wants are bigger cuts in spending before he’ll approve anything. The budget discussions resume on Friday as lawmakers work to have something done by year’s end.

[Coronita]

Here we go..

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/california-legislature-passes-buget-with-a-0-39-per-gallon-gas/

California legislature passes budget with a $0.39 per gallon gas “user fee”

California hasn’t been able to borrow money for months, and according to the state’s treasurer, it will run out of money in February or March if it doesn’t pass a budget and get some income flowing. The majority Democratic legislature has sent Governor Schwarzenegger a budget that contains a suite of “revenue enhancements” that the Democrats call fees, not taxes. In addition to a jump in the state sales tax and personal income tax, there’s also a provision to apply a per gallon gas “fee” of 39 cents.

The biggest problem with the proposed budget is the way in which it was passed, which relies on the definition of the word “tax”. Democrats used a simple majority vote to pass the proposed budget, instead of the mandatory 2/3 majority needed to pass new taxes, because they say “it does not technically increase the amount of taxes on Californians.” For instance, because the gas “fee” would be set aside for transportation projects only, it isn’t a tax, it’s a user fee, and so it doesn’t require a 2/3 majority vote.

Call it what you want, Californians would be paying more money, so Republicans have vowed not to support what they call increased taxes. Citizen’s groups have also promised to sue the state if Schwarzenegger signs the proposed budget as is. The other problem is that Schwarzenegger has already vowed to veto it, but not over the tax vs. fee issue. He said he’ll let other people sort that out – what he really wants are bigger cuts in spending before he’ll approve anything. The budget discussions resume on Friday as lawmakers work to have something done by year’s end.

[Coronita]

Here we go..

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/california-legislature-passes-buget-with-a-0-39-per-gallon-gas/

California legislature passes budget with a $0.39 per gallon gas “user fee”

California hasn’t been able to borrow money for months, and according to the state’s treasurer, it will run out of money in February or March if it doesn’t pass a budget and get some income flowing. The majority Democratic legislature has sent Governor Schwarzenegger a budget that contains a suite of “revenue enhancements” that the Democrats call fees, not taxes. In addition to a jump in the state sales tax and personal income tax, there’s also a provision to apply a per gallon gas “fee” of 39 cents.

The biggest problem with the proposed budget is the way in which it was passed, which relies on the definition of the word “tax”. Democrats used a simple majority vote to pass the proposed budget, instead of the mandatory 2/3 majority needed to pass new taxes, because they say “it does not technically increase the amount of taxes on Californians.” For instance, because the gas “fee” would be set aside for transportation projects only, it isn’t a tax, it’s a user fee, and so it doesn’t require a 2/3 majority vote.

Call it what you want, Californians would be paying more money, so Republicans have vowed not to support what they call increased taxes. Citizen’s groups have also promised to sue the state if Schwarzenegger signs the proposed budget as is. The other problem is that Schwarzenegger has already vowed to veto it, but not over the tax vs. fee issue. He said he’ll let other people sort that out – what he really wants are bigger cuts in spending before he’ll approve anything. The budget discussions resume on Friday as lawmakers work to have something done by year’s end.

[EconProf]

Some background to understand K-12 education spending in CA:
Our per pupil spending ranks us in about the middle as compared to other states.
Yet our average teacher pay is highest or second highest in the nation.
Why is this? Simple, our average class sizes are huge. About 20 years ago, our strong teachers unions had a choice between higher pay accompanied by bigger class sizes, and smaller classes accompanied by more normal teacher paychecks.
They chose the money, to the detriment of the kids.

[EconProf]

Some background to understand K-12 education spending in CA:
Our per pupil spending ranks us in about the middle as compared to other states.
Yet our average teacher pay is highest or second highest in the nation.
Why is this? Simple, our average class sizes are huge. About 20 years ago, our strong teachers unions had a choice between higher pay accompanied by bigger class sizes, and smaller classes accompanied by more normal teacher paychecks.
They chose the money, to the detriment of the kids.

[EconProf]

Some background to understand K-12 education spending in CA:
Our per pupil spending ranks us in about the middle as compared to other states.
Yet our average teacher pay is highest or second highest in the nation.
Why is this? Simple, our average class sizes are huge. About 20 years ago, our strong teachers unions had a choice between higher pay accompanied by bigger class sizes, and smaller classes accompanied by more normal teacher paychecks.
They chose the money, to the detriment of the kids.

[EconProf]

Some background to understand K-12 education spending in CA:
Our per pupil spending ranks us in about the middle as compared to other states.
Yet our average teacher pay is highest or second highest in the nation.
Why is this? Simple, our average class sizes are huge. About 20 years ago, our strong teachers unions had a choice between higher pay accompanied by bigger class sizes, and smaller classes accompanied by more normal teacher paychecks.
They chose the money, to the detriment of the kids.

[EconProf]

Some background to understand K-12 education spending in CA:
Our per pupil spending ranks us in about the middle as compared to other states.
Yet our average teacher pay is highest or second highest in the nation.
Why is this? Simple, our average class sizes are huge. About 20 years ago, our strong teachers unions had a choice between higher pay accompanied by bigger class sizes, and smaller classes accompanied by more normal teacher paychecks.
They chose the money, to the detriment of the kids.

[CA renter]

Here’s what I think we should do:

1. Eliminate Prop 13 protection for all second homes and investment properties (can be some exceptions WRT multi-family, rental units, like apartment buildings).

2. Eliminate the Prop 13 protection for commercial RE which allows a new buyer to pay the old taxes when they sell the property as a corporation.

**I strongly favor Prop 13 protection for primary residences and a single commercial property per person/entity controlled by a particular person. IOW, one residence and one commercial property per person gets Prop 13 protection, all the rest floats. BTW Prop 13 is NOT what causes bubbles, it is a response to them…also it is NOT the cause of our funding problems, illegal immigration is (and the businesses that we taxpayers — whose wages are driven down by illegal labor — subsidize because these employers won’t properly pay/care for their employees).

3. Eliminate all government-paid entitlements for illegal immigrants (education, healthcare, housing, food stamps, AFDC, legal and law enforcement costs, etc.). Make the employers pay instead. In cases where an illegal immigrant shows up in an emergency room with a life-threatening illness/trauma, bill the country from which he/she came — or their employer — for the services.

4. Create a one-time “new California resident” fee whenever someone moves here from another state or country…to help pay for the extra burden on our infrastructure (including water supplies).

5. Additional gas tax and .5% sales tax increase.

I’ll bet that if the above were done, we wouldn’t have a budget problem in California.

[CA renter]

Here’s what I think we should do:

1. Eliminate Prop 13 protection for all second homes and investment properties (can be some exceptions WRT multi-family, rental units, like apartment buildings).

2. Eliminate the Prop 13 protection for commercial RE which allows a new buyer to pay the old taxes when they sell the property as a corporation.

**I strongly favor Prop 13 protection for primary residences and a single commercial property per person/entity controlled by a particular person. IOW, one residence and one commercial property per person gets Prop 13 protection, all the rest floats. BTW Prop 13 is NOT what causes bubbles, it is a response to them…also it is NOT the cause of our funding problems, illegal immigration is (and the businesses that we taxpayers — whose wages are driven down by illegal labor — subsidize because these employers won’t properly pay/care for their employees).

3. Eliminate all government-paid entitlements for illegal immigrants (education, healthcare, housing, food stamps, AFDC, legal and law enforcement costs, etc.). Make the employers pay instead. In cases where an illegal immigrant shows up in an emergency room with a life-threatening illness/trauma, bill the country from which he/she came — or their employer — for the services.

4. Create a one-time “new California resident” fee whenever someone moves here from another state or country…to help pay for the extra burden on our infrastructure (including water supplies).

5. Additional gas tax and .5% sales tax increase.

I’ll bet that if the above were done, we wouldn’t have a budget problem in California.

[CA renter]

Here’s what I think we should do:

1. Eliminate Prop 13 protection for all second homes and investment properties (can be some exceptions WRT multi-family, rental units, like apartment buildings).

2. Eliminate the Prop 13 protection for commercial RE which allows a new buyer to pay the old taxes when they sell the property as a corporation.

**I strongly favor Prop 13 protection for primary residences and a single commercial property per person/entity controlled by a particular person. IOW, one residence and one commercial property per person gets Prop 13 protection, all the rest floats. BTW Prop 13 is NOT what causes bubbles, it is a response to them…also it is NOT the cause of our funding problems, illegal immigration is (and the businesses that we taxpayers — whose wages are driven down by illegal labor — subsidize because these employers won’t properly pay/care for their employees).

3. Eliminate all government-paid entitlements for illegal immigrants (education, healthcare, housing, food stamps, AFDC, legal and law enforcement costs, etc.). Make the employers pay instead. In cases where an illegal immigrant shows up in an emergency room with a life-threatening illness/trauma, bill the country from which he/she came — or their employer — for the services.

4. Create a one-time “new California resident” fee whenever someone moves here from another state or country…to help pay for the extra burden on our infrastructure (including water supplies).

5. Additional gas tax and .5% sales tax increase.

I’ll bet that if the above were done, we wouldn’t have a budget problem in California.

[CA renter]

Here’s what I think we should do:

1. Eliminate Prop 13 protection for all second homes and investment properties (can be some exceptions WRT multi-family, rental units, like apartment buildings).

2. Eliminate the Prop 13 protection for commercial RE which allows a new buyer to pay the old taxes when they sell the property as a corporation.

**I strongly favor Prop 13 protection for primary residences and a single commercial property per person/entity controlled by a particular person. IOW, one residence and one commercial property per person gets Prop 13 protection, all the rest floats. BTW Prop 13 is NOT what causes bubbles, it is a response to them…also it is NOT the cause of our funding problems, illegal immigration is (and the businesses that we taxpayers — whose wages are driven down by illegal labor — subsidize because these employers won’t properly pay/care for their employees).

3. Eliminate all government-paid entitlements for illegal immigrants (education, healthcare, housing, food stamps, AFDC, legal and law enforcement costs, etc.). Make the employers pay instead. In cases where an illegal immigrant shows up in an emergency room with a life-threatening illness/trauma, bill the country from which he/she came — or their employer — for the services.

4. Create a one-time “new California resident” fee whenever someone moves here from another state or country…to help pay for the extra burden on our infrastructure (including water supplies).

5. Additional gas tax and .5% sales tax increase.

I’ll bet that if the above were done, we wouldn’t have a budget problem in California.

[Author]

Posts