OT: California Is Sinking
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 18, 2009 1:09 PM PST
33 comments
When I was a kid we didn't worry about Global Warming or asteroids hitting the Earth, but we Californians were bombarded regularly with alarming reports of impending seismic doom. The San Andreas Fault was overdue for a major earthquake and California would "tumble into the sea." We were doomed to drown like rats.
California again faces massive deficit, projected at $21 billion
The state's chief budget analyst foresees a fiscal mess extending past the recession for years to come. He puts much of the blame on unrealistic budgeting assumptions.
By Shane GoldmacherReporting from Sacramento - California government is again beset with red ink, facing a nearly $21-billion deficit over the next year and half, according to a report released today by the state's chief budget analyst.
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor projected state spending severely out of line with tax collections not just amid the current recession but for years to come. Solving the fiscal mess will require "painful choices" in both cutting services and raising revenue, Taylor warned.
The gloomy forecast, which comes after Sacramento officials have already raised taxes and slashed programs this year, portends a fierce budget battle again in 2010.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who last week predicted more across-the-board budget cuts, in January must unveil his plan to address the deficit.
"We look forward to receiving the governor's new budget proposal in January," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement, "and will immediately begin work on crafting budget solutions that will once again require both difficult spending reductions and additional revenues."The legislative analyst, whom both Republicans and Democrats look to for fiscal advice, reported that the current budget year accounts for $6.3 billion of the deficit. Much of that is the result of unrealistic budgeting assumptions that have evaporated in the four months since lawmakers and Schwarzenegger agreed on a spending plan.
Nice, looking forward to it. BTW, the UC Board of Regents just announced massive tuition increases. Let the games begin:
BERKELEY, CA (KGO) -- From UC Berkeley to UCLA thousands are protesting to try to stop the UC Regents from raising tuition and cutting budgets again. Police have already arrested eight people at UCLA Wednesday morning. A massive rally is scheduled to take place in Berkeley.
These protests coincide with the Board of UC Regents meeting at UCLA, where it's voting on a proposed student fee hike of 32-percent.
Note to self: Avoid Wilshire Boulevard in Westwood on the way home tonight.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors.
0 recs |
33 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yep a lot of BS in the Cal system will have to change!
Please don't tell me what to do or think, what I might say is a personal opinion.
by so.cal.native1952 on Nov 18, 2009 1:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
it’s also a much deeper problem of not enough tax revenue due to an old law basically tying the hand of the state gov’t in trying to raise taxes. As a state, California has to spend less across the board. the UC & CSU system have to cut down. Not everyone can go to college, there’s just not the money for it. It’s sad, but true. The basic problem is that most Americans want European-esque governmental programs without paying European-esque taxes. It just can’t work
by impaulv on Nov 18, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Free stuff paid for by others is indeed very popular these days…
Hey! Korea doesn’t sound so bad after all. They do have DirecTV.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 18, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well if our state and government would just go to a 15-20% flat tax, then the write off folks would actually have to play their way.
Please don't tell me what to do or think, what I might say is a personal opinion.
by so.cal.native1952 on Nov 18, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
flat taxes are unfair IMO. well, fair to millionaires… 20% of $10-150K hurts a lot more than 20% of $500k+
by impaulv on Nov 18, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except that millionaires are highly portable and they’re moving to low tax states, along with their businesses. The reported unemployment in LA County is nearing 13% and no sane company wants to set up shop here.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 18, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Class warfare is an old game my man.
It would make the economy run much smoother and would probably ensure there were a lot more people that were actually paid $500K…but we can discuss that another time or off this board.
by BruinFan1 on Nov 18, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s regressive but efficient. The argument in favor of a flat tax is that it’s straightforward and superficially equitable. The relative impact is different depending on your actual income, that’s the fundamental difference between regressive and not.
However, the tax code is so screwed up with all these subsidies – and tax breaks are a de facto subsidies – that all you do is create a ton of extra work and massive inefficiencies.
So you could achieve a lot of those efficiencies by simply eliminating deductions, and lowering the marginal rate on a graduated income tax structure. It would have the benefit of clarity. It would have the downside of making a lot of accountants and lawyers surplus to requirements. (You may not think that’s a downside of course…)
Another alternative would be to lower income taxes and institute a national VAT. While that is somewhat regressive, it has the civic virtue that everyone chips in to VAT even if their income tax is low to nonexistent. I’m a big believer that everyone should be chipping in.
As for class warfare… come on. It’s not like anyone’s going up against the wall here ;)
by DC Trojan on Nov 19, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This!
I’m a big believer that everyone should be chipping in.Everyone needs to be invested in the system or it will break down. You can’t support a permanent tax consuming class voting themselves ever greater benefits on the back of a dwindling taxpayer class.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 19, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfair?
Paying $2k for a $10k income vs $100k for a $500k income is unfair? You’ve got to be kidding. Especially when the $10k income almost certainly makes more use of public services than the $500k income. And, of course, there would be an income floor that would have to be reached before your income would become taxable.
The flat tax is the most fair approach. Simplification is critical.
by DFWTrojan on Nov 19, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lets face it, even if a person earning $10K uses more public services, losing 2K is hurting him a lot more than the $100K is hurting the 400K guy
by impaulv on Nov 19, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since when are you such a pinko commie? ;-)
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 19, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the $400k guy works 40x harder
and, owns a business employing 20 people. How much of a disproportionate burden do you expect this economic fountain in our free market society to bear? At what point does he say “screw it” and quit working so hard for the primary benefit of others? And, maybe the $10k guy is happy to live off of welfare and only net $8k while loafing around all day. The $10k guy could easily make $20-30k if he is not handicapped, willing to work, and willing to take night classes at fU¢La.
by DFWTrojan on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pablo is a system guy, he’ll never understand. He just sees “rich assholes” out there and says “make ’em pay!” This way of thinking will destroy American Capitalism and the ingenuity, hard work and prosperity that it has brought this Nation. To these guys misery is a good thing as long as the elite classes (our American Royalty, pols, Wall Streeters and entertainers) don’t suffer.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 20, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah, and I’m totally a system guy. I’ve been living off of it since I was 17… USMC, to college, to the Navy. I appreciates your tax dollars. GIMMIE MOAR!!!!
by impaulv on Nov 20, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and yeah, too bad he’s not willing to take on a massive debt load or didn’t have the common sense to be born into a well-off family to afford night school at U$C
oh but wait… if they raise the fees at fU¢La, then he won’t be able to afford either. Sweetness!
by impaulv on Nov 20, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeez, don’t get your knickers in a bunch. All we mean is that you don’t have experience running a business, creating jobs or making a payroll, one day you will and your opinion will veer sharply right.
And while we’re at it, everyone here (especially here) appreciates your Service.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 20, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn, I just deleted a longer response. I’m not going to claim that the numbers are precise here, but compare someone making minimum wage at 2000 work hours per year in MD versus someone making $500k per year.
base pay $14,500
tier 2 federal $1,810.00
FICA $1,087.50
MD $1,240.00
Total tax $4,138
remaining $10,363
base pay $500,000.00
tier 6 federal $152,684
FICA (capped) $6,621.60
MD Tax $25,072.50
Total tax $184,378
remaining $315,622.40
I suppose you could claim that it’s unfair that the person working for minimum wage only coughs up 27% of his income and in return qualifies for Section 8 housing vouchers for HUD, whereas the guy paying 38% of his income in taxes doesn’t get that sweet public housing equivalent… but the relative buying power of their remaining salaries, as well as the tax subsidies that the $500k guy can take advantage of which the minimum wage guy can’t even sniff, don’t make me cry for $500k guy.
Plainly this is an oversimplification, and it gets trickier from a social benefit standpoint when you start to factor in women and children. Mind you, if we really wanted to lower our spending burden and get rid of taxes, then getting rid of the military (no offense impaulv) and the old would be the way to go.
I just don’t get the argument that a graduated income tax makes me want work less. At the risk of being crass here: when I was a graduate student, I netted a whopping $900 a month or so but I got almost everything back in the form of a refund except for the FICA contributions. Now that I’m in the upper reaches of the 28% bracket, I don’t have an incentive to work less – I have an incentive to keep working harder because I want more money with which to do more stuff.
It sucks to be on the low end of the income strata anywhere, but the idea that anyone in the US is getting a cushy deal of lower taxes and “disproportionate” use of social services (unless they’re fraudulently claiming extra benefits), and they are working less hard, doesn’t ring true to me.
Going back to my earlier comment, to my mind there’s an enormous gap in civic engagement. People shouldn’t excuse the poor from shouldering some sort of burden if they take state benefits. Everyone should chip in. That’s why something like the WPA was a good model. And the wealthy, if they can’t get to grips with the idea of taxation as a form of civic duty, should take a second look at everything that they get from the government indirectly, not least of which is the legal framework and protections that allow them to accumulate wealth and mitigate risks accordingly.
That’s not socialism. That’s a mature polity.
by DC Trojan on Nov 20, 2009 9:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
sweet post. I’d totally be in favor of getting rid of the military (don’t much like being away from home all the time). Getting rid of the old might be a bit touchier :-)
by impaulv on Nov 20, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the old may be slow, but they are wiley and many of them are heavily armed.
by DC Trojan on Nov 20, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While I agree that there is bloat
in the UC system, our educational system cannot continue to afford 15%+ annual increases in student tuition. At some point, students are going to be priced out of an education, and the post-secondary public education system – regardless of your feelings towards the UC system – is what built the middle-class in the country. The GI Bill paved the way for millions of people to better themselves for the first time following the war, and move up the social ladder.
If tuition continues to rise like this, you’re going to see a lot more stratification between the monied class and working class in the country, as if it hasn’t occured enough already over the past 20-30 years.
In addition, nearly every major corporation and money-making machine for this state (speaking specifically of Silicon Valley in the 90s and the Military Industrial Complex from the 50s – early 90s) was a direct result of the investment the state made in its public education system and a strady pool of educated workers.
If this state can’t figure out a way to effectively – and cheaply – train its residents, we are screwed.
by CAJason80 on Nov 18, 2009 7:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Actually I agree with you completely
The State Government is bloated with regulatory agencies, boards and commissions that hemorrhage billions of dollars and create a miserable climate for business. The UC System was California’s Crown Jewel and the politicians are ready to take it to the pawn shop.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 18, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
I’m a product of the UC system and it has treated me well. It’s sad and pathetic what the CA government is doing to one of the best educational systems in the world. Worst, and obviously, this is not just a problem the UC system has to deal with.
It’s almost enough to make me want to leave….almost.
by BruinFan1 on Nov 18, 2009 7:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wow they had one heck of a protest at ucla today about tuition hikes
Really what i don’t understand how a university can not support themselves, there to many sports and associations not making it.
LAVIN IS THE GREATEST AND TROY WILL RISE ON NOV 28
by so.cal.native1952 on Nov 19, 2009 1:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
this isn’t just about UCLA. It’s about a huge educational system – 10 campuses; almost a quarter of a million students, blah blah blah. And that’s just the UC system. The CSU system is hurting too. No university can support itself without either 1) sky high tuition 2) huge endowments 3) public support. Lets face it though, even $12k in “fees” is still a bargin for the quality of education at the UC system, especially at the “flagship” campuses.
by impaulv on Nov 19, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The flagship campuses should be fully funded, but they should cut some of the crap majors and close down all those vanity “institutes” for disassociated professors, all they do is suck up resources that should be going to students.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 19, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why? to push it back under 10k? my previous posts aside, I don’t see any problem with 12K for tuition/fees. If someone really wants to get a college education, that money is just an investment,
A lot of those "vanity ‘institutes’ " are funded by endowments and tend to serve some sort of a purpose. We can’t just limit academia to what we think it should be or what is most useful now …. else the very essence of academic endeavor is undermined.
by impaulv on Nov 20, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK fine, 12K is still a bargain so there. The problem with the Institutes is that while many are worth having, there’s a whole bunch that donors set up as pet projects and for vanity, and they suck up resources that would be better used for teaching.
¡Fusílenlo, después veriguamos! - Pancho Villa
by Locoweed 1.1 on Nov 20, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of tax reform
I’ll throw out this link to the New Yorker, about the negative effects of using the tax code to subsidize debt, without endorsement or condemnation. (Still need to think about it, but it’s an interesting proposition.)
by DC Trojan on Nov 20, 2009 10:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
