<p>Slithey: SF property owners must maintain their own sidewalk…or be FINED! They have been responsible for their own trees for more years than I can remember. </p>
<p>D attended a Social Issues program through CTY several years ago, it was housed at SFSU. One of the presenters basically stated…we already tax the S**t out of the rich and we should just tax them until we have enough…another stated that 40%( I think that was the number) pay basically nothing to the State and if every man/woman and child - without exception - contributed $1000.00 each year our financial issues would be solved. I did not check out these numbers for myself…but if it’s true that a large percentage pay nothing for the State supported services, then maybe part of the solution is to have a residency fee - without exception - for everyone here.</p>
<p>Dietz…you are a part of something bigger than yourself.</p>
<p>I guess the question was what would you cut that would affect you…and you said “nothing”. Right?</p>
<p>Well…</p>
<p>I don’t use medicaid…but I see people who do…so if medicaid is cut…it would affect me.
And cutting education affects me…Even tough my kids are close to finished.
And fewer paved streets affects me.
And closing San Quentin and other prisons affects me.
And closing DMV affects me.
And cutting funding for mental health affects me…even though nobody in my famly has ever had the need.
And closing state parks affects me…</p>
<p>dstark: yes, yes, yes,…you are a much greater soul than I. The ‘fiscal conservatives are mean, heartless and unfair’ is a well know rallying cry. </p>
<p>I already pay for all of the above…and have been paying for all of the above since I started working at 16. It’s just never enough …is it…</p>
<p>pug: Laws which will financially punish one for moving a business out of state will have the predictable side effect of not having a business move or start here to begin with. </p>
<p>And, who is ‘rich’ in CA. ? The 250K people? It doesn’t quite have the same bang for the buck as it does in say Kansas.</p>
<p>This has my vote for Zen wisdom of the day. My folks ((yeah, the penniless (legal) immigrants)) always said, and still do…it is not about what you make, it is about what you keep. And I think you’ve hit the nail on the head… a big part of this is a ‘sock it to that rich bugger’ mentality. Could it be the millionaire next door bypassed the earn and consume mentality…nah…it’s because they ‘rich’ made it in immoral and abusive ways and the OWE it to the others.</p>
<p>And so, buy voting in yet more $$ to our state coffers, we enable and encourage our states’ earn and consume (often before earning) mentality…and wonder why the checkbook doesn’t balance.</p>
<p>Bay, it’s not just the state of California that’s facing these question. It’s all levels of government. So unless your city is very wealthy, at some point it’s going to have to choose between cutting someone’s services and increasing someone’s taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe you, although everyone benefits from a community which has adequate police and fire, courts, and education. But that gets to the core question: </p>
<p>We all agree this is a big mess, and everyone needs to do their part in cleaning it up. Lower-income people are expected to do their part by taking big cuts in basic services like housing and medical care. Middle-income people are expected to do their part by paying near-private school prices for state universities, and if they happen to work for the state, by taking cuts in their pay and benefits. It’s true that the wealthy don’t use much in the way of direct services. So how are they going to do their part?</p>
<p>LasMa. In my particular case, my city - a community of about 12K - seems to do a very good job of managing it’s finances. And I think it is a direct result of this fiscal responsibility that those with resources to spare gladly contribute time, dollars and expertise as needed. Our city council doesn’t jet off to meet their ‘sister city’ counter parts, theirs is a part time job. </p>
<p>For contrast…take the building of a local HS. Construction was sub par, buildings were growing mold within 2 years and after the first really raining winter…the gym floor warped into what was an enviable skateboarding layout. So, in the last 10 years, not one single school bond measure has passed. How government entities use the resources entrusted to them is a very big deal. Sacramento is like a CEO with an unlimited Amex card at their disposal. Some of us are tired of paying the bill.</p>
<p>The reason the State is hurting is because the rich took a hit in income, don’t you know? That is why income tax revenues are down. Everyone did and should feel the pain. We can do it, we will survive and thrive. Jerry Brown is marketing for a tax increase so he doesn’t have to look like the bad guy and cut services. It is as simple as that.</p>
<p>Bay, the problem is that the prisoners aren’t going to be prisoners, because the state isn’t going to house them and the cities and counties don’t have enough room or adequate facilities to do so. So the labor can’t be free, as the ex-prisoners would be normal working people who need to pay for their own room and board.</p>
<p>Bay, IIRC the state is going to save money by having prisoners finish out their terms in city or county jails. Cheaper, unless you’re the city or county which doesn’t have enough space to accomodate all those prisoners. So many of those prisoners will be put out on probation or released early from their terms. The idea was that the state would only be releasing non (or less?) violent prisoners. Dunno how that’s going to play out in reality. </p>
<p>So you have a contingent of ready labor, but it’s not a free labor source. Either cities and counties will be paying more to imprison them locally, or they’ll release them, in which case they can’t work for free.</p>
<p>The Dems in DC keep advocating for Clinton era tax levels…</p>
<p>i’m sure they will get around to advocating Clinton era spending levels any day now, just wait… any day now…</p>
<p>just for the record, in constant dollars, the 2000 federal budget was approximately $2 trillion, and the latest budgets are roughly $3.6 trillion. There is no way you can spin this as a revenue problem.</p>
<p>I’m a bit late to this thread. A few pages back the question was raised: What services would you be willing to have cut to save money? Here’s one:</p>
<p>Street sweepers in February in a midAtlantic state.</p>
<p>In the middle of a rare, completely snow and ice free winter, I was astonished to see a street sweeper chugging down my street. Not an ounce of salt or other ice melt chemical had been spread all winter, but plenty of rain, thus I can’t for the life of me figure out what needed to be swept. Since then, I’ve seen a sweeper on my tiny cul de sac two more times. Again, not a single snow or ice event all winter. </p>
<p>Did our streets really need to be dusted? I could live without it.</p>
<p>Our county and state saved millions on snow and ice removal this year. Street dusting was not a necessary way to keep those employees working. We also had a lot of tree damage from an autumn hurricane. I’d have been fine if the snow plow operators had been put to work cleaning up some of the downed limbs and widow makers hanging over trails and sidewalks.</p>