Fergasun Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 The heck if I'm paying for this out of my taxes. How does that restrain our government from spending? I don't know; but was repeal of Prop 13 one of the issues? I think I might've got into an argument about Prop 13 with someone else on this board awhile ago; but I've since convinced myself that some modification may be necessary. Of course repealing Prop 13 would drop house prices more I imagine... By law doesn't CA have a "balanced budget" every year too... how does that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 This is pretty tough. But even if you tax everything, you still can't make up the difference. However, I have a shrewd and genius plan! Cut EVERYTHING and tax EVERYTHING for one year and end up with a $33 billion surplus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Would Americans even notice or care? yeah, they would. and if you think they wouldnt you are fooling yourself. California is the 5th biggest economy in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Legalize marajuana, tax the **** out of it. Cut services to illegal immigrants. Budget would be balanced in under a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Tax the **** out of the top 5%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Shame Tobacco just doesn't pull their product out of the people's Republic for 3 months or so and let Calif see if they can survive without the tax revenue. Drill Here, Drill Now: 1 million per bid, minimum 100 bids per company etc. etc. Cut, Cut, Cut... Every film pays 1 million tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Legalize marajuana, tax the **** out of it. Cut services to illegal immigrants. Budget would be balanced in under a year. CHURCH...... Then legalize weed across the entire country. Mannn, we ****** suck....That would be HUGE for our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Holy ****, I messed with that thing for 15 minutes and didn't make a dent. California is ****ed, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I pretty much raised all the taxes, save for corporate (which seemed crushing to me) and the contractor income tax withholdingIf Republicans in the state legislature realized that they should come up with a super rich 15 percent bracket, the only people that would pay are hollywood liberals and thusly cut off a source of fundraising for Dems in CA . Personally, that is what I would propose, a super wealthy tax of 15 percent on those making 5 million and up. That tax raise option (the 10 and 11 percent option) seemed to raise the most revenue I had to cut TONS of stuff, a lot of which sucks but clearly will have to be done. Hell, I'd call the Hollywood bluff (on my 15 percent tax) and jack it up to 20 percent. I don't think you are suddenly going to have Hollywood actors flee the state Many of the Hollywood elite dodge taxes like a mofo via offshore LLCs or by having a "residence" in another less expensive jurisdiction. Of course then they push for political candidates that want to tax the hell out of a guy making a fraction of what they make but who they label as "rich." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Tax the **** out of the top 5%! Brad and Angie moved to New Orleans. I'm telling you, very few of these guys "live" in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Ironic that the "raise taxes on the rich" is being promoted by both sides here...wish that happened in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honejc Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 to fix cali's budget problem.. EASY! ask arnold to use his savings account as a bailout. and the state of CA will have a surplus!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Many of the Hollywood elite dodge taxes like a mofo via offshore LLCs or by having a "residence" in another less expensive jurisdiction. Of course then they push for political candidates that want to tax the hell out of a guy making a fraction of what they make but who they label as "rich." I am sure there is someway to close this loophole If they maintain a residence in CA? If they "work" an X amount of days in CA? There is a **** ton of cash that those big actors have, which I have no doubt they'd have no trouble paying in taxes (considering their political leanings) Someone making 300k in CA is not "rich" IMO. Comfortable lifestyle? Yea. But not rich But a 20 million dollar pay day for Brad Pitt or George Clooney in a movie produced by Paramount? Boom, CA should take 5-7 million of that I am sure that Sean Penn will have no issues with paying higher taxes to "save California" You think CA can't find 33 billion from hollywood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I was able to get them to a surplus in minutes without raising a tax. However, I don't think they provided an all inclusive lit of options on the table, only the somewhat vague, semi-attractive ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 You think CA can't find 33 billion from hollywood? Except more and more Hollywood magic isn't made in Hollywood (or even California). I remember reading that the state loses more each year than it would gain by eliminating the Hollywood tax breaks because movie/tv companies are increasingly going to places like Vancouver to produce movies. That said - imo, anyone making over $250,000 a year can afford to pay another 1% in income tax (or 2% if its over a million a year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Can I suggest that the bottom line is everyone wants as much as possible from their government but wants to pay no taxes. Hence, the problem we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I was able to get them to a surplus in minutes without raising a tax.However, I don't think they provided an all inclusive lit of options on the table, only the somewhat vague, semi-attractive ones. I would be interested to see what you cut. A lot of the cuts were/are subject to lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 California gov't could start by eliminating or consolidating Depts that (even they) have admitted are redundant or overlapping. We also spend almost 20K MORE than any other state to incarcerate a prisoner on an annual basis. Why is this exactly? I could go on all day about the inefficiencies of California gov't but the reality of making positive change (i.e., spending cuts) is proving to be quite hard (many of the budgets issues are "baked into the cake" already through bonds issues that the people voted into law. The Unions also reek to the heavens in this state (just my opinion) due to their intractable nature. Yup, it's a cluster **** for a # of reasons. Let's see how Governor Weathevane handles this latest crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I would be interested to see what you cut. A lot of the cuts were/are subject to lawsuits. I cut almost everything, even the lawsuit potential items. Those are why I felt that they left other, more viable options off the table. there are definitely thousands more programs that they could consider cutting that dont have lawsuit potential. I suspect they were political hot taters though and left off for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Ironic that the "raise taxes on the rich" is being promoted by both sides here...wish that happened in the real world. I don't believe I ever said anything like that, and I'm against the idea. California gov't could start by eliminating or consolidating Depts that (even they) have admitted are redundant or overlapping. We also spend almost 20K MORE than any other state to incarcerate a prisoner on an annual basis. Why is this exactly? Who knows. What I don't understand is why more states don't follow the lead of that guy in Arizona, the one who makes all his inmates wear pink, sleep outside in tents, and get nothing but bologna sandwiches while they're forced to work all day. If more states/jurisdictions followed his lead, prisons wouldn't be as overcrowded (they're all in tents) not nearly as much would be spend on feeding prisoners, and more **** would get done. Hell, why allow prisoners to lounge around for 23 hours a day with an hour of exercise? Follow the lead of the Warden in Shawshank, (minus the corruption) and put them to work. More chain gangs cleaning up highways, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Any meaningful change starts with repealing Prop 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Hmm... California has 106 state employees per 10,000 citizens - the third lowest ratio among the 50 states.Wait a sec - I thought our budget problems were due to the fact that Sacramento was obscenely bloated with bureaucrats!!! I've actually NEVER heard that before, not about our state government, anyway lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I've actually NEVER heard that before, not about our state government, anyway lol... http://www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-mar07-govt-employees.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 http://www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-mar07-govt-employees.pdf No, I meant that our state government being "bloated" with bureaucrats was the reason behind our fiscal mess lol...THAT, I never heard before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 No, I meant that our state government being "bloated" with bureaucrats was the reason behind our fiscal mess lol...THAT, I never heard before. Fingers pointing at state workers is the first action of the general public here in California when there is a budget problem. Odd that the stats don't back up the finger pointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.