- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM #651185January 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM #650078
CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government.
If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
[/quote]Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…
I have relatives in AZ that skilled at working the system…
And yes, they are down with “la raza”…
For healthcare, for medical assistance, and so forth. I guarntee if you took these things away from them they would go out and secure these services on thier own and by thier nickel. But why should they the state is providing better levels of care for them then they could themselves.
I think our goals are the same here but with different targets…
Peace out!
CE
January 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM #650147Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government.
If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
[/quote]Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…
I have relatives in AZ that skilled at working the system…
And yes, they are down with “la raza”…
For healthcare, for medical assistance, and so forth. I guarntee if you took these things away from them they would go out and secure these services on thier own and by thier nickel. But why should they the state is providing better levels of care for them then they could themselves.
I think our goals are the same here but with different targets…
Peace out!
CE
January 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM #650729Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government.
If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
[/quote]Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…
I have relatives in AZ that skilled at working the system…
And yes, they are down with “la raza”…
For healthcare, for medical assistance, and so forth. I guarntee if you took these things away from them they would go out and secure these services on thier own and by thier nickel. But why should they the state is providing better levels of care for them then they could themselves.
I think our goals are the same here but with different targets…
Peace out!
CE
January 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM #650864Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government.
If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
[/quote]Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…
I have relatives in AZ that skilled at working the system…
And yes, they are down with “la raza”…
For healthcare, for medical assistance, and so forth. I guarntee if you took these things away from them they would go out and secure these services on thier own and by thier nickel. But why should they the state is providing better levels of care for them then they could themselves.
I think our goals are the same here but with different targets…
Peace out!
CE
January 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM #651190Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government.
If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
[/quote]Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…
I have relatives in AZ that skilled at working the system…
And yes, they are down with “la raza”…
For healthcare, for medical assistance, and so forth. I guarntee if you took these things away from them they would go out and secure these services on thier own and by thier nickel. But why should they the state is providing better levels of care for them then they could themselves.
I think our goals are the same here but with different targets…
Peace out!
CE
January 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM #650088bearishgurl
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG]In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”[/quote]
Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…[/quote]
CE, the way governments work is thru budgets. If its not budgeted, there is no money for the service/program. Like it or not, budgets exist for services for “legal deadbeats” in our country.
January 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM #650157Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG]In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”[/quote]
Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…[/quote]
CE, the way governments work is thru budgets. If its not budgeted, there is no money for the service/program. Like it or not, budgets exist for services for “legal deadbeats” in our country.
January 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM #650739Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG]In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”[/quote]
Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…[/quote]
CE, the way governments work is thru budgets. If its not budgeted, there is no money for the service/program. Like it or not, budgets exist for services for “legal deadbeats” in our country.
January 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM #650874Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG]In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”[/quote]
Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…[/quote]
CE, the way governments work is thru budgets. If its not budgeted, there is no money for the service/program. Like it or not, budgets exist for services for “legal deadbeats” in our country.
January 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM #651200Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG]In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”[/quote]
Why should we even take care of the legal deadbeats…[/quote]
CE, the way governments work is thru budgets. If its not budgeted, there is no money for the service/program. Like it or not, budgets exist for services for “legal deadbeats” in our country.
January 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM #650198CA renter
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=ILoveRegulation]Property tax is just one type of tax that Californians have to pay. Income tax is another huge tax in California. If property taxes are artificially limited via proposition 13 and other props, then the state will just increase income tax because that is the tax they can increase. In California, income-earners subsidize property owners.
Why should the taxes of property owners be limited while the taxes on income earners are unlimited? Young, productive workers are subsidizing the lifestyles of all those retired old fogeys in La Jolla.[/quote]
I strongly believe that if they got rid of Prop 13, they’re not going to reduce the income tax. That is mind bending to even contemplate. Some tell me an instance where the government reduced a tax so I can have hope of that possibility. I think that’s a fallacy. The best we can hope for is to freeze the government from raising taxes and Prop 13 does that on at least one thing, a house, something that we live in.
I already addressed older people in LJ. As sdr said, there are old people elsewhere that need Prop 13. Also someday you will be old, too, and you will be thankful that Prop 13 is allowing you to keep a lid on your taxes. Don’t be so shortsighted. Anyone that owns a home benefits from Prop 13. I think renters do, too. If property taxes are high, certainly landlords will pass the bill to the renter in the form of higher rent. Nobody kid anyone here and don’t kid yourself. We are all lucky to have Prop 13.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more, jp.
January 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM #650267Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=ILoveRegulation]Property tax is just one type of tax that Californians have to pay. Income tax is another huge tax in California. If property taxes are artificially limited via proposition 13 and other props, then the state will just increase income tax because that is the tax they can increase. In California, income-earners subsidize property owners.
Why should the taxes of property owners be limited while the taxes on income earners are unlimited? Young, productive workers are subsidizing the lifestyles of all those retired old fogeys in La Jolla.[/quote]
I strongly believe that if they got rid of Prop 13, they’re not going to reduce the income tax. That is mind bending to even contemplate. Some tell me an instance where the government reduced a tax so I can have hope of that possibility. I think that’s a fallacy. The best we can hope for is to freeze the government from raising taxes and Prop 13 does that on at least one thing, a house, something that we live in.
I already addressed older people in LJ. As sdr said, there are old people elsewhere that need Prop 13. Also someday you will be old, too, and you will be thankful that Prop 13 is allowing you to keep a lid on your taxes. Don’t be so shortsighted. Anyone that owns a home benefits from Prop 13. I think renters do, too. If property taxes are high, certainly landlords will pass the bill to the renter in the form of higher rent. Nobody kid anyone here and don’t kid yourself. We are all lucky to have Prop 13.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more, jp.
January 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM #650847Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=ILoveRegulation]Property tax is just one type of tax that Californians have to pay. Income tax is another huge tax in California. If property taxes are artificially limited via proposition 13 and other props, then the state will just increase income tax because that is the tax they can increase. In California, income-earners subsidize property owners.
Why should the taxes of property owners be limited while the taxes on income earners are unlimited? Young, productive workers are subsidizing the lifestyles of all those retired old fogeys in La Jolla.[/quote]
I strongly believe that if they got rid of Prop 13, they’re not going to reduce the income tax. That is mind bending to even contemplate. Some tell me an instance where the government reduced a tax so I can have hope of that possibility. I think that’s a fallacy. The best we can hope for is to freeze the government from raising taxes and Prop 13 does that on at least one thing, a house, something that we live in.
I already addressed older people in LJ. As sdr said, there are old people elsewhere that need Prop 13. Also someday you will be old, too, and you will be thankful that Prop 13 is allowing you to keep a lid on your taxes. Don’t be so shortsighted. Anyone that owns a home benefits from Prop 13. I think renters do, too. If property taxes are high, certainly landlords will pass the bill to the renter in the form of higher rent. Nobody kid anyone here and don’t kid yourself. We are all lucky to have Prop 13.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more, jp.
January 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM #650984Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=ILoveRegulation]Property tax is just one type of tax that Californians have to pay. Income tax is another huge tax in California. If property taxes are artificially limited via proposition 13 and other props, then the state will just increase income tax because that is the tax they can increase. In California, income-earners subsidize property owners.
Why should the taxes of property owners be limited while the taxes on income earners are unlimited? Young, productive workers are subsidizing the lifestyles of all those retired old fogeys in La Jolla.[/quote]
I strongly believe that if they got rid of Prop 13, they’re not going to reduce the income tax. That is mind bending to even contemplate. Some tell me an instance where the government reduced a tax so I can have hope of that possibility. I think that’s a fallacy. The best we can hope for is to freeze the government from raising taxes and Prop 13 does that on at least one thing, a house, something that we live in.
I already addressed older people in LJ. As sdr said, there are old people elsewhere that need Prop 13. Also someday you will be old, too, and you will be thankful that Prop 13 is allowing you to keep a lid on your taxes. Don’t be so shortsighted. Anyone that owns a home benefits from Prop 13. I think renters do, too. If property taxes are high, certainly landlords will pass the bill to the renter in the form of higher rent. Nobody kid anyone here and don’t kid yourself. We are all lucky to have Prop 13.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more, jp.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.