Tax The Rich: Says Brown….

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]”When you say “all creditors,” you’re referring to bondholders, too, right? After all, if labor is supposed to take a haircut, then capital should take a haircut as well.”

Of course!

As you know, there is generally a priority to any and all parties. So when there is a default and a liquidation occurs the established priority of ALL creditors shall be followed and the obligations shall be dealt with in that priority.

Unless of course, you want to change the laws to accommodate your argument. Sorry this is not Venezuela.[/quote]

Then we’re in agreement.

BTW, I’m not the one who wants to change laws to accomodate my beliefs (see Pri’s post, below).

Also, you might want to check on the impact of converting to DC pension plans. A lot of people regurgitate the rhetoric they hear from the megaphones of the 1% (the MSM and related propaganda pushers) without an understanding of how these pension plans work, or why they exist in the first place:

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=zobog9mfw8plhe&xid=znzbypzgrj1ez9

[quote=harvey]States cannot file for federal bankruptcy protection.

But states can change their constitution. In California this can be done through a popular vote.

The legal question would be whether a state can change its constitution in a way that can void existing contracts.

Pension reform will likely play out like this:

– Ballot initiative passes that modifies the state constitution; voids or modifies labor contracts

– Unions challenge legality of the state constitution in federal courts

– Federal courts decide whether they have the authority to overrule (probably Supreme Court), and then whether they will overrule even if they have the authority

The outcome depends upon whether the enforcement of contracts between a state and its citizens are under the authority of the federal government. This is probably an obscure area of law that hasn’t been tested often. I have no idea how it will play out.

Precedents will likely occur in other states (e.g. Michigan) before California reaches this point.

I’ve been corresponding with my state representative for a while about this. People are working on it. It’s going to be a tough fight, bit it is a necessary one.[/quote]

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, I’m not the one who wants to change laws to accomodate my beliefs (see Pri’s post, below).[/quote]

So that means you want gay marriage to continue to be illegal in California (can’t change the law!)

…and derivatives trading to continue to be unregulated (can’t change the law!)

And I’m not surprised, based on some of your past posts, that you opposed the changes made by the 13th Amendment.

Uh oh, you just lost your ability to vote! (Not me though!)

Nawwww…we should never change any laws.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Time to revisit the thread.

Today is the D-day! Sacramento needs to pass the budget today or else your assemblyman/woman and state senator will not get paid. And you know how important it is that they get paid! So a budget will be passed.

What’s in the budget? A lot of hot air!

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/walters-californias-budget-full-gimmicks

[quote]
The biggest of the shaky assumptions, of course, is about $8 billion in new sales and income taxes that require voter approval in November. Polls indicate that passage is no better than a 50-50 bet, and even if they do pass, they are likely to generate something less than the amount plugged into the budget.

Another assumption is that the deficit to be closed is what Brown says, $15.7 billion. Legislative analyst Mac Taylor has been telling his bosses in the Legislature that the gap between revenue and spending is probably $2 billion more but they chose the lower administration figure because it would be easier to cover.

Even without the increase in income and sales tax rates, the budget’s underlying revenue assumptions are questionable. It assumes, for instance, that the state will get about $2 billion from Facebook’s big stock offering, but the process was bollixed and the stock has been falling, not gaining in value.

The budget assumes that when the Air Resources Board auctions off cap-and-trade credits for carbon emissions next fall, it will generate a billion dollars and the state could use half of it for the general fund budget. But no one really knows how that auction will turn out, and using the proceeds, whatever they may be, for the general fund budget is of dubious legality.

By the same token, the budget would grab about $400 million from the national mortgage banking lawsuit settlement, even though it’s supposed to be used to relieve pressure on homeowners.

Also very questionable are the local redevelopment agency funds that the state is seizing after abolishing the program. Taylor, among others, questions whether it will generate anything close to what the budget assumes, but the Legislature’s budget uses an even higher number than the administration’s $1.4 billion.

And then there are the gimmicks, such as raiding transportation money and other special funds (i.e., child abuse prevention money from special license plates) and delaying payments on loans and to schools and other agencies dependent on Sacramento.

[/quote]

[Author]

Posts