- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM #678910March 16, 2011 at 11:09 PM #677785
CA renter
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.
March 16, 2011 at 11:09 PM #677840Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.
March 16, 2011 at 11:09 PM #678441Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.
March 16, 2011 at 11:09 PM #678577Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.
March 16, 2011 at 11:09 PM #678919Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.
March 16, 2011 at 11:35 PM #677799davelj
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.[/quote]
It ain’t that complicated. The big potential source of revenue is higher taxes on the Super Rich (and it’s politically popular too!). The big expenditures – and thus big sources of savings – are on pensions and health care benefits for public employees (as a group). Everything else is just fiddle-fucking around at the periphery of the problem.
As I’ve said many times… we were in pretty good shape back in 1998. CA’s 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth (and including illegal immigration) *should* be about $115 billion. Hell, let’s call it $120 billion. So, how did we get to $25 billion ABOVE that number over time? We hired a lot of new public employees and promised the ones that were already there unsustainable benefits… and here we are.
If I were running this state – and I thank the Fates that I’m not – I would just go to every department in the state and say, “Start with your 1998 budget, increase it by inflation + population growth (with a plug for illegal immigration) + an error factor… and that’s your budget. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you want to meet your budget – just do it. If you want to cut wages, then cut wages. If you want to fire people, then fire people. Just do it. Because everything was perfectly acceptable back then. So, it’s Back to the 90s, folks! Learn to love it! Otherwise… (to quote the Donald)… You’re fired!”
March 16, 2011 at 11:35 PM #677855Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.[/quote]
It ain’t that complicated. The big potential source of revenue is higher taxes on the Super Rich (and it’s politically popular too!). The big expenditures – and thus big sources of savings – are on pensions and health care benefits for public employees (as a group). Everything else is just fiddle-fucking around at the periphery of the problem.
As I’ve said many times… we were in pretty good shape back in 1998. CA’s 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth (and including illegal immigration) *should* be about $115 billion. Hell, let’s call it $120 billion. So, how did we get to $25 billion ABOVE that number over time? We hired a lot of new public employees and promised the ones that were already there unsustainable benefits… and here we are.
If I were running this state – and I thank the Fates that I’m not – I would just go to every department in the state and say, “Start with your 1998 budget, increase it by inflation + population growth (with a plug for illegal immigration) + an error factor… and that’s your budget. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you want to meet your budget – just do it. If you want to cut wages, then cut wages. If you want to fire people, then fire people. Just do it. Because everything was perfectly acceptable back then. So, it’s Back to the 90s, folks! Learn to love it! Otherwise… (to quote the Donald)… You’re fired!”
March 16, 2011 at 11:35 PM #678457Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.[/quote]
It ain’t that complicated. The big potential source of revenue is higher taxes on the Super Rich (and it’s politically popular too!). The big expenditures – and thus big sources of savings – are on pensions and health care benefits for public employees (as a group). Everything else is just fiddle-fucking around at the periphery of the problem.
As I’ve said many times… we were in pretty good shape back in 1998. CA’s 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth (and including illegal immigration) *should* be about $115 billion. Hell, let’s call it $120 billion. So, how did we get to $25 billion ABOVE that number over time? We hired a lot of new public employees and promised the ones that were already there unsustainable benefits… and here we are.
If I were running this state – and I thank the Fates that I’m not – I would just go to every department in the state and say, “Start with your 1998 budget, increase it by inflation + population growth (with a plug for illegal immigration) + an error factor… and that’s your budget. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you want to meet your budget – just do it. If you want to cut wages, then cut wages. If you want to fire people, then fire people. Just do it. Because everything was perfectly acceptable back then. So, it’s Back to the 90s, folks! Learn to love it! Otherwise… (to quote the Donald)… You’re fired!”
March 16, 2011 at 11:35 PM #678592Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.[/quote]
It ain’t that complicated. The big potential source of revenue is higher taxes on the Super Rich (and it’s politically popular too!). The big expenditures – and thus big sources of savings – are on pensions and health care benefits for public employees (as a group). Everything else is just fiddle-fucking around at the periphery of the problem.
As I’ve said many times… we were in pretty good shape back in 1998. CA’s 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth (and including illegal immigration) *should* be about $115 billion. Hell, let’s call it $120 billion. So, how did we get to $25 billion ABOVE that number over time? We hired a lot of new public employees and promised the ones that were already there unsustainable benefits… and here we are.
If I were running this state – and I thank the Fates that I’m not – I would just go to every department in the state and say, “Start with your 1998 budget, increase it by inflation + population growth (with a plug for illegal immigration) + an error factor… and that’s your budget. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you want to meet your budget – just do it. If you want to cut wages, then cut wages. If you want to fire people, then fire people. Just do it. Because everything was perfectly acceptable back then. So, it’s Back to the 90s, folks! Learn to love it! Otherwise… (to quote the Donald)… You’re fired!”
March 16, 2011 at 11:35 PM #678934Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.[/quote]
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. 🙂
See, hell does freeze over every once in awhile.[/quote]
It ain’t that complicated. The big potential source of revenue is higher taxes on the Super Rich (and it’s politically popular too!). The big expenditures – and thus big sources of savings – are on pensions and health care benefits for public employees (as a group). Everything else is just fiddle-fucking around at the periphery of the problem.
As I’ve said many times… we were in pretty good shape back in 1998. CA’s 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth (and including illegal immigration) *should* be about $115 billion. Hell, let’s call it $120 billion. So, how did we get to $25 billion ABOVE that number over time? We hired a lot of new public employees and promised the ones that were already there unsustainable benefits… and here we are.
If I were running this state – and I thank the Fates that I’m not – I would just go to every department in the state and say, “Start with your 1998 budget, increase it by inflation + population growth (with a plug for illegal immigration) + an error factor… and that’s your budget. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you want to meet your budget – just do it. If you want to cut wages, then cut wages. If you want to fire people, then fire people. Just do it. Because everything was perfectly acceptable back then. So, it’s Back to the 90s, folks! Learn to love it! Otherwise… (to quote the Donald)… You’re fired!”
March 17, 2011 at 3:41 AM #677809ParticipantLike I’ve suggested before…I’m sure most public workers would be happy to roll back their compensation to 1995 levels. But in order for them to maintain their ~1995 purchasing power, we’d have to see asset prices fall to 1995 levels. That means “the rich” would take some pretty significant losses. Not only that, but we should restore ~1995 tax rates in order to correct all the imbalances as well.
In other words, let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels.
Would you agree to those terms?
March 17, 2011 at 3:41 AM #677865ParticipantLike I’ve suggested before…I’m sure most public workers would be happy to roll back their compensation to 1995 levels. But in order for them to maintain their ~1995 purchasing power, we’d have to see asset prices fall to 1995 levels. That means “the rich” would take some pretty significant losses. Not only that, but we should restore ~1995 tax rates in order to correct all the imbalances as well.
In other words, let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels.
Would you agree to those terms?
March 17, 2011 at 3:41 AM #678466ParticipantLike I’ve suggested before…I’m sure most public workers would be happy to roll back their compensation to 1995 levels. But in order for them to maintain their ~1995 purchasing power, we’d have to see asset prices fall to 1995 levels. That means “the rich” would take some pretty significant losses. Not only that, but we should restore ~1995 tax rates in order to correct all the imbalances as well.
In other words, let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels.
Would you agree to those terms?
March 17, 2011 at 3:41 AM #678602ParticipantLike I’ve suggested before…I’m sure most public workers would be happy to roll back their compensation to 1995 levels. But in order for them to maintain their ~1995 purchasing power, we’d have to see asset prices fall to 1995 levels. That means “the rich” would take some pretty significant losses. Not only that, but we should restore ~1995 tax rates in order to correct all the imbalances as well.
In other words, let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels.
Would you agree to those terms?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.