LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 01-20-2009, 03:46 AM   #21
Qnnoshxj

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
384
Senior Member
Default
Increase taxes to the top 5% then. Ike was rocking a 90% Income tax to the top bracket.
That's a bad analogy, given that pretty much no one paid that rate. In addition, I'd be willing to bet that's well on the other side of the Laffer curve.
Qnnoshxj is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 06:03 AM   #22
Yarikoff

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
415
Senior Member
Default
Why should they be getting tax refunds if their government is bankrupt?

JM
This all goes back to the "reform" right wingers pushed with prop 13. Not only did it slash taxes but at the same time they changed the rules requiring a 2/3rds majority to cut any spending and/or to raise taxes. You can always get 1/3rd to oppose anything so the result is complete dysfunction and gridlock on every issue. Of course that was the stated goal of the Howard Jarvis Center (a right wing group big here in California) to make government dysfunctional.
Yarikoff is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 03:48 PM   #23
foodselfdourileka

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
515
Senior Member
Default
Not only did it slash taxes but at the same time they changed the rules requiring a 2/3rds majority to cut any spending and/or to raise taxes. You can always get 1/3rd to oppose anything so the result is complete dysfunction and gridlock on every issue. Of course that was the stated goal of the Howard Jarvis Center (a right wing group big here in California) to make government dysfunctional.
And then there is Texas, with a constitution originating just after civil war reconstrution, designed to severely limit state governement and spending (such as flatly prohibiting an income tax), with multiple checks and balances, and extra legislative procedures to stop legislation, especially appropriations and tax legislation, and it gets along immensely better in bugeting than Caifornia does.
foodselfdourileka is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 08:34 PM   #24
everlastinge

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
406
Senior Member
Default
And then there is Texas, with a constitution originating just after civil war reconstrution, designed to severely limit state governement and spending (such as flatly prohibiting an income tax), with multiple checks and balances, and extra legislative procedures to stop legislation, especially appropriations and tax legislation, and it gets along immensely better in bugeting than Caifornia does.
Give us your Constitution.
everlastinge is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 08:47 PM   #25
trettegeani

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
Every State bond issuance in Texas requires a constituional amendment (and every amendment requires a state ballot issue, in addition to supermajorities in the legislature). Every subordinate juridiction bond inssuance require either a constituional amendment or a local ballot issue, depending on the type of jurisdiction. The politicians cannot borrow a dime without the consent of the governed.
trettegeani is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 09:56 PM   #26
vicgirl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
363
Senior Member
Default
I see 23 billion dollars in state debt for a population about 2/3rds of Canada.

California has 130 billion in debt.

Still they are models of fiscal restraint compared to Canada. We have 600 billion dollars in debt for 30 milllion people.

I don't see why CA is having budget troubles. If we can bring in balanced budgets up here on 600 billion of debt (about 5x CA debt levels), then CA should be able to do the same.
vicgirl is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 10:28 PM   #27
FoetAgerhot46

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
417
Senior Member
Default
One might point the finger at your stupid prop sytem itself where people vote on things without any real care on how to pay for the projects they vote for.
This nails it. Lots of $$$ voted in without the Constitutional 2/3 vote restraints.
And some of the propositions are constitutional amendments.
FoetAgerhot46 is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 11:25 PM   #28
Lipitorseffec

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
407
Senior Member
Default
I see 23 billion dollars in state debt for a population about 2/3rds of Canada.

California has 130 billion in debt.

Still they are models of fiscal restraint compared to Canada. We have 600 billion dollars in debt for 30 milllion people.

I don't see why CA is having budget troubles. If we can bring in balanced budgets up here on 600 billion of debt (about 5x CA debt levels), then CA should be able to do the same.
It's like Cruelty and I said, the 2/3rds rule makes everything dysfunctional. You can always get 1/3 to oppose any spending cut just like you can always get 1/3 to oppose and tax increase. The net result is crisis after crisis while the state hasn't completed a budget on time in 28 years which is exactly when the 2/3rds rule was adopted.
Lipitorseffec is offline


Old 01-21-2009, 11:53 PM   #29
Khurlxgq

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
578
Senior Member
Default
I don't think underspending is CAs problem. It seems to me more one of management.
Khurlxgq is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity