New California Taxes!

[meadandale]

[quote=lubenthrust]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.[/quote]

Right, and those original homeowners were paid 1/5..or less than the current buyers are in annual salary. Gas was also a dime a gallon once. Things change.

My next door neighbor is the original owner of his house. He paid about $15k for it brand new in 1954. Should he be paying north of $4k/yr in property tax (what I pay), more than a 1/4 of his purchase price, just because some new home buyer thinks this would be more fair? I certainly don’t think that THAT is fair. He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. And I know for a fact that he can’t afford that much in property tax nor can thousands or millions of people in his position.

[kewp]

[quote=meadandale]
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
[/quote]

WHAT?

Do you *really* think the consumer spending of literally *millions* of low and middle-income government employees has no economic impact?

And as I’ve just explained, any excess income I receive does not go into the local CA economy. For me personally its either going into Canadian silver and gold or short-selling (using an out-of-state discount broker).

If you raise my taxes and use it to pay policemen, firefighters and school teachers; not only does the state benefit by their service; but also the private sector by their consumption.

[kewp]

[quote=meadandale]
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
[/quote]

WHAT?

Do you *really* think the consumer spending of literally *millions* of low and middle-income government employees has no economic impact?

And as I’ve just explained, any excess income I receive does not go into the local CA economy. For me personally its either going into Canadian silver and gold or short-selling (using an out-of-state discount broker).

If you raise my taxes and use it to pay policemen, firefighters and school teachers; not only does the state benefit by their service; but also the private sector by their consumption.

[kewp]

[quote=meadandale]
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
[/quote]

WHAT?

Do you *really* think the consumer spending of literally *millions* of low and middle-income government employees has no economic impact?

And as I’ve just explained, any excess income I receive does not go into the local CA economy. For me personally its either going into Canadian silver and gold or short-selling (using an out-of-state discount broker).

If you raise my taxes and use it to pay policemen, firefighters and school teachers; not only does the state benefit by their service; but also the private sector by their consumption.

[kewp]

[quote=meadandale]
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
[/quote]

WHAT?

Do you *really* think the consumer spending of literally *millions* of low and middle-income government employees has no economic impact?

And as I’ve just explained, any excess income I receive does not go into the local CA economy. For me personally its either going into Canadian silver and gold or short-selling (using an out-of-state discount broker).

If you raise my taxes and use it to pay policemen, firefighters and school teachers; not only does the state benefit by their service; but also the private sector by their consumption.

[kewp]

[quote=meadandale]
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
[/quote]

WHAT?

Do you *really* think the consumer spending of literally *millions* of low and middle-income government employees has no economic impact?

And as I’ve just explained, any excess income I receive does not go into the local CA economy. For me personally its either going into Canadian silver and gold or short-selling (using an out-of-state discount broker).

If you raise my taxes and use it to pay policemen, firefighters and school teachers; not only does the state benefit by their service; but also the private sector by their consumption.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]

[…] He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. […]
[/quote]

I don’t begrudge him a thing either. But your analysis is also one sided: He has also benefited from plenty of government services over the years (that’s what taxes are for, right?).

So has he taken more than he has given? Hard to say for any particular individual, and the question is irrelevant at that level anyway. But we do know one thing: Americans as a whole have consumed more tax dollars than they have paid over the span of your neighbor’s lifetime. That’s why we have this massive debt at all levels of government.

The Prop 13 debate has been beaten to death, and there are plenty of anecdotal arguments for either side. However, I don’t see how someone should get a tax break just because they have lived a long life and thus have paid much over the years.

Fiscal policy, including tax policy, has be sustainable over the long run. Our current situation shows that something has to change.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]

[…] He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. […]
[/quote]

I don’t begrudge him a thing either. But your analysis is also one sided: He has also benefited from plenty of government services over the years (that’s what taxes are for, right?).

So has he taken more than he has given? Hard to say for any particular individual, and the question is irrelevant at that level anyway. But we do know one thing: Americans as a whole have consumed more tax dollars than they have paid over the span of your neighbor’s lifetime. That’s why we have this massive debt at all levels of government.

The Prop 13 debate has been beaten to death, and there are plenty of anecdotal arguments for either side. However, I don’t see how someone should get a tax break just because they have lived a long life and thus have paid much over the years.

Fiscal policy, including tax policy, has be sustainable over the long run. Our current situation shows that something has to change.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]

[…] He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. […]
[/quote]

I don’t begrudge him a thing either. But your analysis is also one sided: He has also benefited from plenty of government services over the years (that’s what taxes are for, right?).

So has he taken more than he has given? Hard to say for any particular individual, and the question is irrelevant at that level anyway. But we do know one thing: Americans as a whole have consumed more tax dollars than they have paid over the span of your neighbor’s lifetime. That’s why we have this massive debt at all levels of government.

The Prop 13 debate has been beaten to death, and there are plenty of anecdotal arguments for either side. However, I don’t see how someone should get a tax break just because they have lived a long life and thus have paid much over the years.

Fiscal policy, including tax policy, has be sustainable over the long run. Our current situation shows that something has to change.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]

[…] He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. […]
[/quote]

I don’t begrudge him a thing either. But your analysis is also one sided: He has also benefited from plenty of government services over the years (that’s what taxes are for, right?).

So has he taken more than he has given? Hard to say for any particular individual, and the question is irrelevant at that level anyway. But we do know one thing: Americans as a whole have consumed more tax dollars than they have paid over the span of your neighbor’s lifetime. That’s why we have this massive debt at all levels of government.

The Prop 13 debate has been beaten to death, and there are plenty of anecdotal arguments for either side. However, I don’t see how someone should get a tax break just because they have lived a long life and thus have paid much over the years.

Fiscal policy, including tax policy, has be sustainable over the long run. Our current situation shows that something has to change.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]

[…] He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. […]
[/quote]

I don’t begrudge him a thing either. But your analysis is also one sided: He has also benefited from plenty of government services over the years (that’s what taxes are for, right?).

So has he taken more than he has given? Hard to say for any particular individual, and the question is irrelevant at that level anyway. But we do know one thing: Americans as a whole have consumed more tax dollars than they have paid over the span of your neighbor’s lifetime. That’s why we have this massive debt at all levels of government.

The Prop 13 debate has been beaten to death, and there are plenty of anecdotal arguments for either side. However, I don’t see how someone should get a tax break just because they have lived a long life and thus have paid much over the years.

Fiscal policy, including tax policy, has be sustainable over the long run. Our current situation shows that something has to change.

[rnen]

[quote=lubenthrust][quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]

Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.

[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]

If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.[/quote]

And this somehow makes illegal immigration into the country OK??? The blue collar worker should just suck it up because the white collar worker is seeing his job outsourced????

Are the workers in thier own countries also having thier kids education and families health care provided by the American tax payer while contributing very little or nothing to the tax base?

Point taken on the SS issue, I’ll give you that one although I have not heard him make any objection to its removal. As wrong as it is I can see the motivation for a republican to want this out of the bill, being that they are corrupted by big business and all, but what motivates democrates to screw the very people they say they are here to protect? They are the party for the working man arent they?

Ugh… can’t seem to shake the sarcasm… sorry:)

[rnen]

[quote=lubenthrust][quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]

Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.

[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]

If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.[/quote]

And this somehow makes illegal immigration into the country OK??? The blue collar worker should just suck it up because the white collar worker is seeing his job outsourced????

Are the workers in thier own countries also having thier kids education and families health care provided by the American tax payer while contributing very little or nothing to the tax base?

Point taken on the SS issue, I’ll give you that one although I have not heard him make any objection to its removal. As wrong as it is I can see the motivation for a republican to want this out of the bill, being that they are corrupted by big business and all, but what motivates democrates to screw the very people they say they are here to protect? They are the party for the working man arent they?

Ugh… can’t seem to shake the sarcasm… sorry:)

[rnen]

[quote=lubenthrust][quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]

Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.

[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]

If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.[/quote]

And this somehow makes illegal immigration into the country OK??? The blue collar worker should just suck it up because the white collar worker is seeing his job outsourced????

Are the workers in thier own countries also having thier kids education and families health care provided by the American tax payer while contributing very little or nothing to the tax base?

Point taken on the SS issue, I’ll give you that one although I have not heard him make any objection to its removal. As wrong as it is I can see the motivation for a republican to want this out of the bill, being that they are corrupted by big business and all, but what motivates democrates to screw the very people they say they are here to protect? They are the party for the working man arent they?

Ugh… can’t seem to shake the sarcasm… sorry:)

[rnen]

[quote=lubenthrust][quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]

Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.

[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]

If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.[/quote]

And this somehow makes illegal immigration into the country OK??? The blue collar worker should just suck it up because the white collar worker is seeing his job outsourced????

Are the workers in thier own countries also having thier kids education and families health care provided by the American tax payer while contributing very little or nothing to the tax base?

Point taken on the SS issue, I’ll give you that one although I have not heard him make any objection to its removal. As wrong as it is I can see the motivation for a republican to want this out of the bill, being that they are corrupted by big business and all, but what motivates democrates to screw the very people they say they are here to protect? They are the party for the working man arent they?

Ugh… can’t seem to shake the sarcasm… sorry:)

[Author]

Posts