CA State Budget Passed – State’s demise imminent

[cr]

[quote=UCGal]Despite the rumors, even with these tax increases, our taxes are lower than many New England/Mid-Atlantic states. But if you want to convince yourself we’re the highest, feel free.

I look at the state budget the same way I look at my personal budget. If I have more bills than I have income then there are two variables to adjust: Increase my income (take on a second job, for example.) Or decrease my expenses (downsize my lifestyle – eat out less, fire the housekeeper, give up luxuries like Starbucks, cancel my cable… lots of little cuts can be made.)

Sometimes the gap is too big to be overcome by just cutting costs. Certain fixed costs can’t be reduced to zero – food, shelter, healthcare… I have a moral obligation to provide basics for my children (food/shelter) and can’t reduce those expenses to zero.

So the solution is a combination. I increase my income and reduce my expenses to meet my obligations.

This budget does that. It has more $$ in cuts than it gets in tax increases. It’s not perfect, it’s not pretty… but it does get the state running again.[/quote]

CA’s high end income tax is 2nd only to Vermont.
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html …and about to go higher.

Your comparison of getting a second job to raising taxes doesn’t fit.

When you work, you produce a good or service. When the state raises taxes it’s not producing anything. In fact, for the reasons above it’s counterproductive.

I agree with the 2nd option of cutting spending, but they’re not doing that. Not in the right areas.

[afx114]

I agree that it must be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I know that there will always be a philosophical battle between the two extremes, but the world is not black and white and neither should our choices be.

I’m wondering, in general, if the tax cut side could provide some numbers on tax cuts actually working. Because from where I sit, the result of various tax policies of the last 16 years look like this:

• 1992-2000: taxes raised, budget surplus, increased employment, wages up, positive stock market, relative success across all income levels.
• 2000-2008: taxes lowered, deficit doubled, negative employment, wages down, negative stock market, success of the few at the expense of the many.

Granted, this is a simplification and taxes aren’t the only variable in the equation here, but how does the tax cut crowd reconcile this discrepancy? They believe that tax cuts are the answer, yet they have 16 years of evidence to the contrary looking them straight in the eye.

I suppose that on the microeconomic level it is true that because of taxes, it may be cheaper to run your business in Texas than in California. But what about on the macro level? Is it better to save a little bit of money by moving your business to Texas where the market may not be as large or supplies are harder to come by, or is it worth it to pay the extra taxes in California for the benefits that it might bring (larger market, supply lines, etc). Lets take it to the extreme to illustrate my point: I could move my business to Antarctica in order to pay no taxes, but what good will that do me? That would be a ridiculous business decision, but hey, I’d save a ton on taxes! There has to be a happy medium out there where the positives and negatives of taxes balance each other out. That is all any pragmatist is really looking for here.

Again, I am no economist, and I am here to learn. I am open to arguments on how and why tax cuts are better for society as a whole, and I can understand the philosophical argument against taxes, but based on the last 16 years, I’m not seeing any evidence supporting their position.

[afx114]

I agree that it must be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I know that there will always be a philosophical battle between the two extremes, but the world is not black and white and neither should our choices be.

I’m wondering, in general, if the tax cut side could provide some numbers on tax cuts actually working. Because from where I sit, the result of various tax policies of the last 16 years look like this:

• 1992-2000: taxes raised, budget surplus, increased employment, wages up, positive stock market, relative success across all income levels.
• 2000-2008: taxes lowered, deficit doubled, negative employment, wages down, negative stock market, success of the few at the expense of the many.

Granted, this is a simplification and taxes aren’t the only variable in the equation here, but how does the tax cut crowd reconcile this discrepancy? They believe that tax cuts are the answer, yet they have 16 years of evidence to the contrary looking them straight in the eye.

I suppose that on the microeconomic level it is true that because of taxes, it may be cheaper to run your business in Texas than in California. But what about on the macro level? Is it better to save a little bit of money by moving your business to Texas where the market may not be as large or supplies are harder to come by, or is it worth it to pay the extra taxes in California for the benefits that it might bring (larger market, supply lines, etc). Lets take it to the extreme to illustrate my point: I could move my business to Antarctica in order to pay no taxes, but what good will that do me? That would be a ridiculous business decision, but hey, I’d save a ton on taxes! There has to be a happy medium out there where the positives and negatives of taxes balance each other out. That is all any pragmatist is really looking for here.

Again, I am no economist, and I am here to learn. I am open to arguments on how and why tax cuts are better for society as a whole, and I can understand the philosophical argument against taxes, but based on the last 16 years, I’m not seeing any evidence supporting their position.

[afx114]

I agree that it must be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I know that there will always be a philosophical battle between the two extremes, but the world is not black and white and neither should our choices be.

I’m wondering, in general, if the tax cut side could provide some numbers on tax cuts actually working. Because from where I sit, the result of various tax policies of the last 16 years look like this:

• 1992-2000: taxes raised, budget surplus, increased employment, wages up, positive stock market, relative success across all income levels.
• 2000-2008: taxes lowered, deficit doubled, negative employment, wages down, negative stock market, success of the few at the expense of the many.

Granted, this is a simplification and taxes aren’t the only variable in the equation here, but how does the tax cut crowd reconcile this discrepancy? They believe that tax cuts are the answer, yet they have 16 years of evidence to the contrary looking them straight in the eye.

I suppose that on the microeconomic level it is true that because of taxes, it may be cheaper to run your business in Texas than in California. But what about on the macro level? Is it better to save a little bit of money by moving your business to Texas where the market may not be as large or supplies are harder to come by, or is it worth it to pay the extra taxes in California for the benefits that it might bring (larger market, supply lines, etc). Lets take it to the extreme to illustrate my point: I could move my business to Antarctica in order to pay no taxes, but what good will that do me? That would be a ridiculous business decision, but hey, I’d save a ton on taxes! There has to be a happy medium out there where the positives and negatives of taxes balance each other out. That is all any pragmatist is really looking for here.

Again, I am no economist, and I am here to learn. I am open to arguments on how and why tax cuts are better for society as a whole, and I can understand the philosophical argument against taxes, but based on the last 16 years, I’m not seeing any evidence supporting their position.

[afx114]

I agree that it must be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I know that there will always be a philosophical battle between the two extremes, but the world is not black and white and neither should our choices be.

I’m wondering, in general, if the tax cut side could provide some numbers on tax cuts actually working. Because from where I sit, the result of various tax policies of the last 16 years look like this:

• 1992-2000: taxes raised, budget surplus, increased employment, wages up, positive stock market, relative success across all income levels.
• 2000-2008: taxes lowered, deficit doubled, negative employment, wages down, negative stock market, success of the few at the expense of the many.

Granted, this is a simplification and taxes aren’t the only variable in the equation here, but how does the tax cut crowd reconcile this discrepancy? They believe that tax cuts are the answer, yet they have 16 years of evidence to the contrary looking them straight in the eye.

I suppose that on the microeconomic level it is true that because of taxes, it may be cheaper to run your business in Texas than in California. But what about on the macro level? Is it better to save a little bit of money by moving your business to Texas where the market may not be as large or supplies are harder to come by, or is it worth it to pay the extra taxes in California for the benefits that it might bring (larger market, supply lines, etc). Lets take it to the extreme to illustrate my point: I could move my business to Antarctica in order to pay no taxes, but what good will that do me? That would be a ridiculous business decision, but hey, I’d save a ton on taxes! There has to be a happy medium out there where the positives and negatives of taxes balance each other out. That is all any pragmatist is really looking for here.

Again, I am no economist, and I am here to learn. I am open to arguments on how and why tax cuts are better for society as a whole, and I can understand the philosophical argument against taxes, but based on the last 16 years, I’m not seeing any evidence supporting their position.

[afx114]

I agree that it must be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I know that there will always be a philosophical battle between the two extremes, but the world is not black and white and neither should our choices be.

I’m wondering, in general, if the tax cut side could provide some numbers on tax cuts actually working. Because from where I sit, the result of various tax policies of the last 16 years look like this:

• 1992-2000: taxes raised, budget surplus, increased employment, wages up, positive stock market, relative success across all income levels.
• 2000-2008: taxes lowered, deficit doubled, negative employment, wages down, negative stock market, success of the few at the expense of the many.

Granted, this is a simplification and taxes aren’t the only variable in the equation here, but how does the tax cut crowd reconcile this discrepancy? They believe that tax cuts are the answer, yet they have 16 years of evidence to the contrary looking them straight in the eye.

I suppose that on the microeconomic level it is true that because of taxes, it may be cheaper to run your business in Texas than in California. But what about on the macro level? Is it better to save a little bit of money by moving your business to Texas where the market may not be as large or supplies are harder to come by, or is it worth it to pay the extra taxes in California for the benefits that it might bring (larger market, supply lines, etc). Lets take it to the extreme to illustrate my point: I could move my business to Antarctica in order to pay no taxes, but what good will that do me? That would be a ridiculous business decision, but hey, I’d save a ton on taxes! There has to be a happy medium out there where the positives and negatives of taxes balance each other out. That is all any pragmatist is really looking for here.

Again, I am no economist, and I am here to learn. I am open to arguments on how and why tax cuts are better for society as a whole, and I can understand the philosophical argument against taxes, but based on the last 16 years, I’m not seeing any evidence supporting their position.

[an]

afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.

[an]

afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.

[an]

afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.

[an]

afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.

[an]

afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.

[afx114]

[quote=AN]afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.[/quote]

Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.

[afx114]

[quote=AN]afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.[/quote]

Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.

[afx114]

[quote=AN]afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.[/quote]

Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.

[afx114]

[quote=AN]afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.[/quote]

Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.

[Author]

Posts