<p>As I stated earlier, polarscribe, I was specifically referring to the underfunded retirement system. You can look it up and see what trouble it is for the state of California.</p>
<p>
Total nonsense. Everyone who purchases anything in California is paying a higher rate of sales tax now.</p>
<p>Sales taxes are regressive taxes - that is, they tax the poor proportionately more than the rich. So in partial compensation, the income tax was made more progressive to balance the burden. This is basic taxation theory.</p>
<p>That’s not a lie. Wow. I gotta go.</p>
<p>
I have no problem with gratitude–as long as the rich understand that they should show gratitude for not being dragged to the guillotine.</p>
<p>Great post #18 Polarscribe. </p>
<p>And today’s headlines are that the Prius is now the #1 car in California, while Ford F series trucks rule the roads in the rest of the country. As California goes, so goes the nation.</p>
<p>M. Hollande attempted to impose a 75% tax on French citizens earnings over 1 million euros (but which has temporarily stalled while they try to work a few bugs out of it). In the meantime, it has been interesting to observe which citizens have been hoofing it out of la France as a result. Rabble rousers among the non-over-1 million a year euro crowd think Hollande’s proposal is a great idea (“mangez les riches!”). </p>
<p>I just hope California figures out a better way to have both their cake and eat it (and not lose their tax base in the process) or at least settle for a little less cake and more economizing before they start to look like the state equivalent of Detroit.</p>
<p>It’s a standard rhetorical trope for those who want lower taxes and smaller government to tell proponents of more taxation and government to “go live in North Korea;” similarly, proponents of more taxation/government tell Tea Party types to “go live in Somalia.” As if there is no middle ground.</p>
<p>I think most people would agree that taxation for the funding of government tasks and services is a legitimate thing. The reasonable extent of such taxes and services can be debated without reductio ad absurdum. </p>
<p>California is always on the cutting edge, it seems. Now we look to it to see whether there will be middle-class flight from the Golden State. Will it become like a larger version of NYC, where only the rich and those on subsidy can afford to live there? Will the great-grandchildren of the Okies have a reverse migration and go back to Tulsa (or Texas)?</p>
<p>Seems we found our sweet spot - or Achilles Heel. Money. Again. How much we get to keep. What we expect in return. Look at how angry some are. We want our entitlements and we want them to come from, I sometimes think, some guy who just comes down the chimney and leaves just what we want.</p>
<p>Get involved in local politics.</p>
<p>ps. in southern Cal, it’s not freezing today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s also hard to deal with bullies who are the very first to demonize and then call foul.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question–how much can a state raise its taxes before a signficant number of people move elsewhere? Maybe we’ll find out.</p>
<p>“Don’t tax me. Don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree”. Can’t remember who came up with that ditty but that says it all. Yes, CA has voted to increase taxes on those who make over a certain threshhold of money. Same as the US government. And we’ll see in a few years, how this pans out. I don’t believe there will be a mass exodus out of the US, but California…? Um. That may be a problem. And though more tax money will hit the coffers when tax rates are raised, as I stated before it does not mean that the economy is going to get better.</p>
<p>My son got a great bonus last year, because in the last quarter, the head of his small company got a deal that brought in a lot of money, and the guy felt generous and spike up the bonuses in his elation. When life is not so good at that company, and the money is not rolling in, no one gets bonuses or raises. That’s the way it goes. And when my SIL change jobs and her net pay went down, she and my brother, cut, cut , cut spending. Hurts the economy as they do try to support local businesses, but this past year, my brother said that they spent virtually notihing other than food, and necessities and cut back on those as well. Zero spending on clothes, toys, decor, furniture, household items was their goal and they came danged close to that. We have been doing the same in the last few years though not as effective as my brother. </p>
<p>Most of us did get a dip in the paycheck this month. THat means something had to get cut. And that something could be someone else’s paycheck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should have been more precise: I was referring to income tax. </p>
<p>As far as sales tax is concerned. Several years ago, Joe Bidden said that paying tax is patriotic. I guess sales tax is an opportunity for everyone to participate in a patriotic act. We would not want to leave some people out, would we?</p>
<p>Not to pick on you, Hunt, but move where? Get a job where? What’s the real cost in dollars to the Californians? Versus some of the advantages there? It’s too easy to call their schools crappy (which not all are) or their people blighted. </p>
<p>Is there a well run state that satisfies everyone on all counts?</p>
<p>Moderator’s note: Please refrain from discussing political parties. It would not hurt to be a little more civil in making your points either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It probably is, in the sense of not having a large enough tax base to pay down its outstanding debt and the retirement benefits it has promised state workers. California general obligation municipal bond yields are substantially above those of other states, meaning the market has priced in a substantial probability of default.</p>
<p>I apologize for being so touchy. I shouldn’t have been and I am sorry.</p>
<p>I wish for once a Governor would come out and say, “Hey people of California, we’re taking $5 million more of Phil Mikelson’s earned income to make our state a better place. And in exchange, I want you all to do your part too, by staying in school, not doing drugs, not having children before you can support them, not committing crimes, getting some exercise and eating less,…all of which costs you NOTHING!” And then everyone would respond in unison with, “Sure, by golly, we’d be happy to! Thanks, Phil!”</p>
<p>? I tht the increase is roughly 1%- which would mean Phil is out an addl $500k, except for his accountant’s machinations and manipulations-? I’ve gotta go, but as poetgrl says, carry on.</p>
<p>"It’s an interesting question–how much can a state raise its taxes before a signficant number of people move elsewhere? Maybe we’ll find out. "</p>
<p>When I started the thread this was my intent to see if anyone knows the answers. </p>
<p>The higher tax rate was intended for those considered to be in the top 1%. A lot of them are probably locked in due to their jobs although I don’t see any reason some top guys can’t simply change their home address. I work for a fortune 500 company where some top honchos live in Texas, some live in California and some live on east coast and some live in other countries to run the business there. Some of these folks travel so much that it is truly irrelevant where they declare their home to be.</p>
<p>So my question goes back to whether enough people change their location in the top 1% by some point that the expected revenues are no where close to the expectation.</p>
<p>Vanity Fair published an outstanding interview of Arnold Schwartzenegger which also was the chapter of a book by Michael Lewis. California appeared on the brink of bankruptcy then. Don’t know what the future is going to hold for the state or for any of us. But I can tell you that it’s not on my short list of where I will be spending my retirement dollars.</p>