<p>spending is out of control and no one really cares…No one will stand up and do the right thing on fear of not being re-elected. What a great system. 16 trillion in debt…disgusting.</p>
<p>LasMa,
Jerry Brown promised the CA voters he would be the guy to solve the budget deficit. It does not look like that is going to happen. He knew the state of affairs long before he took office - it is not like the issues he faces came as a surprise. He has proposed tax hikes that will raise CA sales tax, already the highest in the nation, and raise tax rates on the rich to the highest in the nation. Will these tax policies and our current social services attract and retain the people most likely to contribute to the health of our state? It doesn’t sound like it, to me. I’d rather see our prisoners housed in tents with leg chains, our government employees take pay and pension cuts, our court system streamlined and our teacher unions outlawed. There is always a better way than maintaining the status quo.</p>
<p>Bay for Governor!</p>
<p>LasMa…I’m curious…at what point would you consider the ‘rich’ (still need a definitive definition of this category - is it the small business owner who may make $250 K after working 100 hour weeks with no vacations, or is the George Clooney…40K a plate fundraisers) to have contributed ‘enough’?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I won’t speak for Bay, but as for myself, the point is the repayment of the mess needs to be made by ALL. As long as you have a substantial portion of the CA. population paying NOTHING to the state (yes, we all pay gas tax, sales tax, healthy SF eat at a restaurant tax, parking permit tax, oh…the list is endless). I’m talking about actually paying a per person fee each year for the privilege of living in the Golden State. I say charge every man/woman and child 1K each and every year…no exceptions! Then at least everyone would would have skin in the game and it would raise about 35 B, problem solved (heck you could charge just $500 and solve the current problem). Why not, CA. is on the forefront of most social experiments…let’s try this one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sadly, not much help in CA. ;)</p>
<p>Not that we seem to have street sweepers (of the non-human variety) much. I can’t remember the last time I saw one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with tax revenues dropping because of drops in income for the wealthy is that CA’s tax structure is heavily weighted towards income tax. Revenue takes a disproportionate hit when income plummets. I’m a big fan of progressive taxation, but this is the downside. If tax burden gets spread more evenly by bumping up other types of taxes, then the overall tax structure is more regressive but protects revenue stream better in economic downturns.</p>
<p>“Then at least everyone would would have skin in the game and it would raise about 35 B, problem solved (heck you could charge just $500 and solve the current problem). Why not, CA. is on the forefront of most social experiments…let’s try this one.”</p>
<p>What are the problems of doing this?</p>
<p>There must be some problems…hmmmmm</p>
<p>I like the “everyone pays a fee” proposal. </p>
<p>Why not try it???</p>
<p>Why do you think there might be problems?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because of societal conditioning that has produced a mentality that ‘some’ are unable to participate financially in a society from which they derived many many benefits. Not only conditioned to not feel a responsibility to contribute but actually conditioned to think someone else ‘owes’ them.</p>
<p>And, the above is the problem with today’s system.</p>
<p>:)…</p>
<p>^:) :)…</p>
<p>I have wonder for sometime why 40% of the population pays nothing in Federal or States taxes. Why? They are more than likely consuming more of the redistribution of wealth anyway.</p>
<p>I just want to make sure I have this straight: Most of us believe that people who are poor have chosen poverty. And therefore, they can just do without food/housing/medical care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve got a relative who fits in this category. He’s in his mid-fifties, pays no federal or state taxes, and receives services from the state that run from five to six figures a year. Now, why is this?</p>
<p>He’s mentally handicapped, lives in a group home that provides 24/7 staffing, and is in a part-time make-work “job”/training program. He generally has one hospital stay per year. Last month, it was pneumonia. Last year, it was hernia surgery. </p>
<p>His caseworker is currently handling 110 clients. That means she can spend an average of 30 minutes a week per client. The reality is far less, because there are other aspects to her job than direct client work. </p>
<p>Perhaps I’m the only person posting on this thread who actually knows someone who is on the receiving end of societal redistribution of wealth? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>No, we know a lot of people on government support…some of them are the wealthiest people in the country.</p>
<p>I know people like your relative too. Some people think your relative should chip in $500 or or more a year. </p>
<p>I am not really sure how that is supposed to happen. Maybe your relative can sell body parts, SlitheyTove?</p>
<p>Well, maybe instead of snarking at a new idea we could all practice a bit of out of the box thinking…since the box we’ve put ourselves in is falling apart rapidly.</p>
<p>A $500.00 contribution…</p>
<p>For one thing, it can be modeled after the college FA called self help or work/study. Can the person contribute in any manner. Public parks could use some cleaning, animal shelters need volunteers, does a local school need a bit of lawn mowing or grounds keeping? To what amount can the mentally handicapped contribute?</p>
<p>Currently there is a check box on the IRS 1040 form…‘would you like to contribute $$ to the presidential election fund’ or some such wording. Why not have the CA form have a similar option…‘would you like to contribute to the residency fund’. This can then be distributed via voucher for those completely unable to contribute either by action or $$.</p>
<p>Since the Feds have crossed the bridge and declared that a governmental agency may force a private citizen into a contract with a private entity and have enforcement through the IRS… why not do so in CA. Our tax board can establish a contract with Western Union for example, so that the first $500.00 one tries to transfer out of the country is collected into the ‘residency fund’ if the sender has an outstanding balance. This would capture at least a portion of our underground economy.</p>
<p>Churches, Schools, Shelters…any place that currently takes charitable contributions can add this option to their list and then distribute to it’s members as needed. And, we have the added bonus that most of these organizations do not have the overhead and admin costs of our current state gov., so that most if not all of a $ contributed would actually go for the purpose intended…instead of say a trip to visit a sister city to evaluate their process.</p>
<p>See…not one single body part sold.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly: neighbors with kids who are in school (~50% of the Calif budget goes to education).</p>
<p>Or, our parents receiving Medicare…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…does Warren Buffett really need taxpayers to pay for his health insurance? :D</p>
<p>I don’t know about you bluebayou…but I contributed to medicare for many years…and have paid…just for myself what? 300,000 into SS?</p>
<p>So…I don’t view SS as some kind of entitlement program or some government support program.</p>
<p>The defense dept…that is a different story.</p>
<p>As far as what Dietz wrote…I would prefer that there is no mandatory program for the mentally handicapped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>dietz, this is well intentioned. Problem is, I see what this relative, at least, can contribute, and it is sorely limited. He can indeed do groundskeeping, but he requires constant oversight. That’s what his work/training program is like. The work is simple and highly repetitive, and highly supervised because otherwise he loses focus. He’d probably love the idea, but it would end up costing the state more to have this relative contribute labor than would be gained by having him provide “free” labor. </p>
<p>I agree with you that it’s a good idea to ask each individual to contribute more to the state’s finances to help with the budget shortfall. I agree that we can piggyback the collection mechanism on tax returns, because creating new bureaucracies is going to cost more than you’re going to harvest. We disagree on if it should be a flat fee, same for everyone regardless of income or circumstances. And we disagree on if it should be voluntary (optional donation) or mandatory (state increasing taxes).</p>
<p>So are some of you actually saying that there are no freeloaders on California’s struggling gravy train? Really? </p>
<p>How about at the federal level, illegal immigrants who are getting back thousands of dollars in entitlements at tax filing time. (I’ve posted countless times that I work with illegal immigrants, so I know with absolute certainty that this is true and it is legal.)</p>
<p>What about the billions in remittances that leave our economy every year? </p>
<p>Can none of you snarks consider the possibility that not everyone is paying their share, some of whom may not be “rich?” Or does that possibility make your brains explode?</p>
<p>How about an even scarier possibility: that everyone could pay a percentage of income/assets that everyone deems “fair” but it’s still not enough because spending never slows? Possible?</p>
<p>If all it took to unlock access to 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars of gov’t benefits was paying the $500 head tax, I would gladly pony that up for a relative or friend who had no way of coming up with the money on their own.</p>
<p>We see many people on CC who insist their kids take out Staffords so they will have some “skin” in the game. Why shouldn’t this concept extend to society at large? Everyone should have some skin in the game, and feel some sort of ownership about how gov’t programs are paid for.</p>