New flatter tax structure proposed for California: $30,000 and $3,000,000 taxed @ same rate!

[Nikki Stone1]

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/20/us-california-tax-overhaul-glance-092009/?california+&+the+west

Recommendations for reforming California's tax structure from the Commission on the 21st Century Economy:

– Personal Income Tax: Replace the state's existing progressive income tax structure (10.55 percent for millionaires) with a flatter structure. The two rates would be 2.75 percent for individuals earning up to $28,000 a year or $56,000 for joint filers, and 6.5 percent for incomes above that amount.

The standard deduction would be $22,500 for individuals and $45,000 for joint filers. Deductions would be limited to mortgage interest, property taxes and charitable contributions.

– Sales and Use Tax: The state's portion of the sales and use tax would be phased out over five years by reducing it 1 percentage point each year. Local sales taxes would remain in effect.

– Corporate Tax: This business levy would be eliminated.

– Business Net Receipts Tax: At the heart of the commission's proposal would be a plan to replace the sales and corporate taxes with a business net receipts tax, to be imposed on all companies doing business in the state.

The tax would be calculated by subtracting a firm's purchases from its gross receipts. The commission defines gross receipts as payments a business receives from all sources, such as the sale or exchange of property, the performance of its services or the use of its property or equipment. A yet-to-be-determined tax rate would be applied once the business's purchases are subtracted from that total.

Commissioners have said the tax rate could be around 4 percent.

They say switching to such a model would capture service sectors that are currently not taxed, such as legal, engineering or accounting services. Critics worry it could be challenged in court and drive up the cost of doing business in California, making the state less competitive.

A group of tax policy experts suggested the commission consider simply expanding the state sales tax to services while at the same time creating a tax exemption for certain business purchases, such as office furniture or factory equipment.

The exemption would be an incentive for the business community to support broadening the sales tax to auto repairs, haircuts and other services currently not taxed, their letter stated.

– Rainy Day Fund: The panel recommends increasing the target amount the state sets asides in reserve, from 5 percent to 12.5 percent of the state's general fund. The governor could tap the fund only when revenue is insufficient to provide spending at last year's level, adjusted for population and inflation changes.

[sakabatou]

1. That's BS!

[EVDebs]

2. CA's Bay Area, the Pinnacle of The Greed Heap, and a Failed State

"“It was a time of growth and abundance,” Starr writes in his preface, and provides the numbers to prove it. In 1950, California was home to 10.7 million, making it a large state to be sure, but hardly a dominant one. By the early 1960s, the population passed 16 million, slipping by New York state in population.

Yet it was not a mere matter of numbers that made California so appealing or important. It was the idea of California as not only a part of America, but also something more. To millions in America and around the world, California grew to mean opportunity, sunshine and innovation.

The state’s business elite, for example, did not identify with the button-down hierarchy that sat atop teeming New York, and its second-tier competitors like Chicago. The leaders of Los Angeles would never consider it a second city, but simply a different, and generally, better one. There was no need for the excessive Manhattan penis envy that led Chicago to keep trying to build higher buildings than Gotham."

from Book Review
Joel Kotkin on California’s Golden Age

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20090917_joel_kotkin_on_californias_golden_age/

But somewhere along the line, California's wealthy elite put off too much of the funding needed to maintain that 'Golden Age',

"The March 2008 issue of Forbes magazine listed 47 billionaires who call the Bay Area home. A Forbes article titled "America's Greediest Cities" places the real estate that would become New Bohemia at the very pinnacle of the country's greed heap. According to Forbes, the San Francisco Bay Area has the "highest concentration of the super-wealthy relative to other locations" in the entire nation.

This wouldn't be so bad were it not for an ever-growing disparity in wealth and incomes. A report published this past June by the California Budget Project details just how severe the inequities have become. The report recounts state figures placing California's personal income at close to $65 billion between the years 2006 and 2007. "A full 30 percent of AGI (adjusted gross income) gains went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers," according to the report. Crunching numbers even finer, it concludes, "This means that the top 1 percent of taxpayers received 25 times their proportionate share of AGI in 2007, while middle-income taxpayers received half of their proportionate share of income."

from Welcome to New Bohemia--Your home to wealth, prosperity and serfdom for the 21st century
http://www.metroactive.com/bohemian/09.09.09/feature-0936.html

failure to recognize this has resulted in California now labelled as a 'failed state', where the vast numbers of average consumers are being hammered from the middle class into a lower class,

Failed State
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.01.09/news-0926.html

that further enables what the above article called the pinnacle of the greed heap.

[rockymountaindem]

3. Did Ronald Reagan write that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Who wreote that the Libertarians?

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Check the SD Union Tribune. It seems to have been a committee appointed by the governor

Private, unelected, conservative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Ok correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that going around

the legislature? Kind of against the law?

Oh wait, republican... what am I saying?

[Nikki Stone1]

70. Yes, it's going around.

And interestingly enough, it's not being discussed much on radio. I've been reading the LA and SD papers on it. (I can't bear to look at the Orange Country Register on it, but if you know what they've been saying, it will be interesting to hear.)

[anigbrowl]

80. This is absolutely incorrect. Did you know that this is a Democratic initiative?

http://www.cotce.ca.gov/documents/reports/documents/Commission_on_the_21st_Century_Economy-Final_Report.pdf

1. The Commission on the 21st Century Economy (Commission) is hereby established. It
shall consist of fourteen members, seven of whom shall be appointed by the Governor,
three of whom shall be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, three of whom shall
be appointed by the Senate President pro Tem, and one of whom shall be appointed
jointly by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate President pro Tem. The Governor
shall designate one of the members as chairperson. The members of the Commission
shall serve without compensation and at the pleasure of the official who appointed them.
2. On or before September 20, 2009, the Commission shall deliver a report to the
Governor and to the Legislature with recommendations to change laws to achieve the
following goals:
a. Establish 21st century tax structure that fits with state’s 21st century economy;
b. Stabilize state revenues and reduce volatility;
c. Promote the long-term economic prosperity of the state and its citizens;
d. Improve California’s ability to successfully compete with other states and
nations for jobs and investments;
e. Reflect principles of sound tax policy including simplicity, competitiveness,
efficiency, predictability, stability and ease of compliance and administration;
f. Ensure that tax structure is fair and equitable.
3. The Commission shall be disbanded 30 days after delivery of their report unless the
Commission’s service is extended by further Executive Order.
4. The Commission shall comply with applicable open meeting laws.

It's just a report on what the panel thinks the best tax policy for CA would be. In no way does it constitute an end-run around the legislature. Not one word of it becomes law without the approval of the CA legislature.

SACRAMENTO – Today Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) issued the following statement regarding the Commission on the 21st Century Economy:
“As the person who first called for the creation of a commission to look at bringing California’s economy into the 21st Century, I would like to thank the members of this commission for their hard work and dedication in addressing such a complicated, multilayered problem. They have all made many personal and professional sacrifices in taking on this challenge, and the State of California owes them our gratitude. For the next step in the process I have asked the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee to schedule a series of hearings to ensure that the commissioners’ recommendations receive a thorough and objective public review. I know there have been concerns raised by the business community and concerns raised by advocates for middle class families and low income workers. Those concerns will be reviewed in the committee process. Californians deserve a fair and full assessment of the ways these recommendations would affect them-- whether positive, negative or neutral.”

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/speaker/News_Room/Press/press_releases/20090929AD47PR01.aspx

The idea for this commission was proposed by the Democratic speaker of the CA Assembly. It is a Democratic idea from within the legislature.

Good grief. We would have a lot fewer problems in the state and in the country if people would make just a basic effort to check the facts before drawing a conclusion.

[Nikki Stone1]

83. The people on the commission were not the people who called for it.

Quit blaming Karen Bass for the crappy results.

[anigbrowl]

89. I'm starting to question your honesty here

I did not blame Karen Bass for anything. I just noted that she was the person who originally called for a commission to study the whole CA tax system. It doesn't do an end-run around the legislature in any way whatsoever, nor does the governor have any power to just implement the recommendations in the report - by CA law any changes to the tax system must be passed by the legislature with a 2/3 majority.


The commission had 14 members - half appointed by the Governor and half appointed by the Speaker (Karen Bass) and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Sternberg - both Democrats. And as the Speaker's statement indicates, the report will now be debated in the CA legislature. So it is absolutely not correct to say it's an end-run around the legislature, and you're misleading people by claiming it is.

somehow, I'm guessing you haven't even tried reading the report yet :-/

[Nikki Stone1]

91. Let me ask you something: why would Democrats agree to a flat tax and no corporate tax?

As I said before, we have a corrupt governor and an equally corrupt or weakened legislature. That is how Enron was able to rob us blind.

I will take a wager with you: I bet you that within the year, both the two-tiered flat tax (maybe three if they compromise) and the abolishment of corporate tax will have been made law. I'll be happy to lose the bet to you, but, sadly, I don't think I will.

[anigbrowl]

97. Don't know, I am not done reading it. However...

my guess is that they feel reducing the sales tax (which is regressive) will make up for the flattening of income tax, and that replacing the ineffective corporate tax with a business receipts tax will be revenue neutral, not to mention putting a long-held republican argument to bed.

[anigbrowl]

79. You are wrong. It's only a report, not about to become law in any way

If you actually read it, then you'll see that it has absolutely zero effect until the legislature decides to take up consideration of its recommendations. It is absolutely not an end-run around the legislative process.

[Nikki Stone1]

82. You are wrong. It's only a report now. It can easily become law in our current climate.

It happened in Maine.

Wake up and get your head out of your ass.

[anigbrowl]

84. How is that doing an end-run around the legislature, pray tell?

[Nikki Stone1]

87. It won't. It will be approved by the legislature.

Are you a Californian? Have you been keeping track? We have a complicit and spineless legislature and a corrupt governor.

I'll actually make you a wager if you like.

[anigbrowl]

90. Just upthread you're agreeing that it's an illegal end-run around the legislature. But it isn't.

And yes I am a Californian, and apparently a somewhat ebetter-informed one that you because I knew it was a bipartisan commission from the outset and that our Democratic speaker was the person who called for it be created in the first place, to avoid the annual circus that our state budget has become.

[Nikki Stone1]

92. Now I am doubting your honesty.

Seriously. It will pass, or something close to it.

[anigbrowl]

94. Anyone else can read the thread and see for themselves who's being honest

Maybe it will pass, I don't know whether it will or not yet and I am not even close to finishing reading it - that will take me a couple of days. What I have been referring to here is not the quality of the report or whether it is likely to pass, but the factual matter of whether it's an end-run around the legislature or not. And the facts are that it's not.

[Nikki Stone1]

98. Look at the OP and the title. I did not lie and for you to say that IS a lie.

When you do crap like that, I tend to ignore what you have to say.

[anigbrowl]

99. This whole sub-thread is about message #53, not your OP .nt

[anigbrowl]

95. double post - deleted

[EVDebs]

5. It all seems to stem from Ayn Randism

See Matthew Grimm & The Red Smear's song 'Ayn Rand Sucks'

http://music.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=music.singleplaylist&friendid=34876085

then read Gore Vidal's piece on her at Esquire (scroll about halfway down) to find out why Ayn Rand sucks,

"This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vidal-archive/comment-0761#ixzz0SAPe1CSX


http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vidal-archive/comment-0761

[Nikki Stone1]

15. That, and the fact that people aren't paying attention

The big news in CA is this Polanski crap. Who cares about one asshole? I wonder if they arrested Polanski to hide this.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. From the LA Times: A flat-wrong flatter-tax plan

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-schrag21-2009sep21,0,6267313.story

The most obvious thing about the big, complicated tax reform scheme that will go to the Legislature this week is that millionaires would save an average of $109,000 a year. Taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 would save $4. This is not a typo.

The plan, still awaiting a final draft, is the work of the grandly named California Commission on the 21st Century Economy, which held its final official meeting last Monday. But it's been clear from the beginning that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in setting it up last fall, was aiming to do precisely that: enact big cuts for upper-income taxpayers and create what's become a pea-under-the-shelltax system to make up the lost revenue.

The system the commission proposes includes the elimination of both the state sales tax and the corporate income tax, a flattening of the personal income tax by eliminating the top brackets, and replacement of the lost revenue with a novel, untested business net receipts tax, or BNRT.

The official rationale for the creation of the 14-member commission, half appointed by the governor, half by leaders of the Legislature, was to reduce the volatility in state revenues resulting from excessive reliance on the state income tax, and especially on those upper-bracket taxpayers. That volatility, in the view of the governor's office, drives Sacramento to wild spending in good times, when fat stock dividends, capital gains and other boom-era windfalls push up tax receipts, and leaves the state broke, as now, when the economy tanks.

But in the process of trying to plan a system that will even out those cycles, the commission -- chaired by Gerald Parsky, head of a Southern California investment firm and a heavyweight in Republican politics -- has created an economic Frankenstein's monster whose behavior even the commissioners are unable to predict. Last week, underlining the doubt, nine leading tax economists and lawyers sent the panel a detailed letter citing "the numerous uncertainties relating to the administration, compliance, legal challenges and economic distortions of such a tax." With one possible exception, no state has a tax system remotely like the BNRT, and that exception, Michigan, imposed its new business tax so recently that it can't possibly be a model.
...

Read more at the link.

[EVDebs]

8. What's sadder still is Jerry Brown used to promote 'flat tax' stuff

Corporatists and their GOP enablers seem to have talked a lot of so-called progressives into carrying their water.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Really? Why would he back this?

It guarantees the end of California as we know it. EVERYTHING will be privatized?

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Maine, a state with a Democratic..

..governor and with both Houses in Augusta controlled by Democrats, changed its tax system this year to make the income tax almost flat -- two brackets, 6.5% and 6.85%, splitting at $250,000 p/a -- and made up the revenue difference by increasing the applicability of the (regressive) sales tax.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. Is this where the US is headed now?

..

[Nikki Stone1]

9. It looks like corporate taxes are abolished: "Corporate Tax: This business levy would be eliminated"

Am I reading this wrong?

[EVDebs]

10. No, you got it right.

Thanks for your posting this article Nikki.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. Good Lord! "The super-wealthy will be off the hook from paying their fair share" (SDUTrib)

"The super-wealthy will be off the hook from paying their fair share, and more middle-class Californians could fall into poverty with a heavier tax burden," said Sen. Dean Florez, who is running for state Lieutenant Governor."

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/29/us-california-tax-overhaul-092909/?california&zIndex=173969

If this is where our nation is headed ultimately, there will be NO middle class at all.

[laughingliberal]

58. That no middle class thing is pretty much a done deal

We're essentially toast and it's all over but the crying. I see the corporate friendly health care reform bill with it's mandate to purchase expensive insurance from the private insurance industry as the last nail in the coffin. I have begun thinking the powers that be no the middle class here is finished and they are just making sure the last few crumbs we have left don't escape their grubby, little, wealthy fingers.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. I agree that the mandate to purchase is the nail in the coffin.

They built us up in the 40s and 50s just to destroy us now. What the hell???

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Let me guess. Arnold appointed his GOP buddies to the Commission on the 21st.

Century Economy. Here I thought California had severe revenue shortages, so the solution is to reduce it even more?

[unpossibles]

21. right? In Bizarro Republican World, the sky is green

and somehow the way out of crushing debt is to reduce income and screw over the majority.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. This is the IMF strategy

We are being IMF'd: Many poor, wealth concentrated in a few hands.

[Nikki Stone1]

13. No corporate taxes.

Good Lord.

[KansDem]

18. So these "persons" get off paying taxes?

I'd like to know their rationale for why some persons pay taxes while others don't?

[Nikki Stone1]

19. The whole plan looks like this

I am reading as much as I can on it right now.

[madamesilverspurs]

16. Flatter tax. . .

Hmmmm, this calls for perspective from either Pat Paulsen or Emily Litella.

If you're going to have a 'flatter' tax, it's only fair that you have an 'insult' tax. Given the present tenor of political discourse, the latter would have a much better chance of refilling some depleted coffers.

Nevermind. Or not.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. LOL!! :)

Ok, that was cute. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

22. The rich save over 100K on their taxes; corps pay 0; VAT-like taxes and sales taxes

make up revenue.

The poor and middle class will get screwed.

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Who the fuck would unrec this ?

It had 3 recs a bit ago.

FREEPERS.

[jgraz]

26. Someone with bad aim?

I've done it once or twice. Which is why we need to be able to undo it.

(And I gave you your rec back)

[Nikki Stone1]

27. Thank you,

I appreciate that. This is a really important issue. These sound like IMF "reforms" that are imposed on the 3rd world. I imagine they are third-worlding the US, with the help of our wealthy and corporations.

[jgraz]

29. This needs to go viral. I just sent it to my non-political GF and she's pissed as hell

She's looking up her state reps to give them a call.

[Nikki Stone1]

32. Excellent idea!

I'm trying to get through to mine. :(

[Nikki Stone1]

43. Is there some way for someone to make a video about this?

I can't do that myself, but if you know someone who can put up a youtube video, that would really help.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. And someone took the rec away.

LOL!!!

[Romulox]

30. k/r

[Nikki Stone1]

42. Thank you.

:hi:

[eleny]

31. K&R

[Nikki Stone1]

33. Thanks. It was unrec'd

Why a major tax story cannot get on greatest page is beyond me.

[omega minimo]

34. +5

Thanks for linking. I didn't see it.

[Nikki Stone1]

35. Thanks. This is probably the most important California story in 30 years.

This could completely change our state---into Argentina.

[omega minimo]

38. Argentina with a Nazi governor. Great.

[Nikki Stone1]

41. We're screwn.

:bitter laugh smilie:

[omega minimo]

45. Maybe Spiderman can save us from the Gubernator. At least Wolverine can save us from cell phones in

theaters. :spray:

[Nikki Stone1]

46. I heard about that.

Jackman's got guts. :)

[omega minimo]

52. Jackman's got it all.

I'd vote for him :loveya:

[Nikki Stone1]

66. He is a cutie.

I'll bet he's got more choices than almost anyone in Hollywood right now. :)

[sabrina 1]

51. No, you're wrong. Polanski is the most important story

in 30 years :sarcasm:

Thanks for posting this ~ I don't live there, although I'll be staying there for a few months before the end of the year, but is it my imagination that since Arnold became Governor the state has gone to hell? I admit, I haven't followed every issue relating to Cal. so it cold just be my perception.

[Nikki Stone1]

88. It's been hellish here. A lot of folks are leaving.

Of course that happened all through the late 90s too. We'll have the very rich and the poor and no one else when it's all over. Whose great idea was this?

[Xithras]

36. The reasoning here is simple.

Income from top earners is erratic and is dependent on the performance of investment markets. California's current tax structure pulls roughly half of our income taxes from those top earners. Even if the state economy is doing well, a down year on Wall Street can cause the California budget to take a major hit. A down year in real estate can also cause a major hit. Investment markets like those we've seen for the past few years, where multiple markets are tanking at once, can be devastating, causing budget losses that exceed actual economic contraction in the state, percentage wise. Our Democratic state leaders have been saying the same thing for several years now...we have created a situation where the health of the state budget is highly dependent on the incomes of a tiny percentage of our population. It's not a healthy way to fund a government.

This proposal is only unique in that it wants to flatten taxes to fix the problem. The alternative solution, the one supported by most Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento, is to simply raise taxes on the low and middle class to narrow the gap a bit, and increase the percentage of the government funded by traditional wage earners.

[Nikki Stone1]

40. So how does abolishing all corporate taxes help "even out" the problem?

I think it's crap.

I think a rainy day fund is a much better solution to this.

[anigbrowl]

47. It replaces them with a net receipts tax

And it does include a rainy day fund component as well. The plan is quite a bit more complex than the summary in the OP; full details here:

http://www.cotce.ca.gov/documents/reports/documents/Commission_on_the_21st_Century_Economy-Final_Report.pdf

I might note it was a bipartisan commission, and this is only a set of proposals for legislators to consider. Nothing is changing any time soon.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. A net receipts tax is not fixed, it's volatile (unknown) and, quite frankly, will be passed on

to consumers directly, preventing the corporations from paying any direct tax.

[anigbrowl]

56. And corporate taxes aren't passed onto consumers?

I doubt you have read the whole report in the time since I posted it. I don't endorse it or disapprove of it, I'm just taking the time consider it. I am struck by the fact that means some businesses will pay tax who pay none at all now, even though they are very profitable.

Right now many corporations get away without paying any state tax by headquartering in CA but minimizing the amount of business they do in the state - for example http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/opinion/oe-goldberg30 There's a lot of reason to set up in California like access to venture capital, highly educated workforce and so on. The new proposal is designed at least partly to close off a bunch o loopholes in the existing corporate tax law, which isn't working that well.

I can see possible long-term economic benefits, but I'm still thinking about it. I'm just pointing out that the news article which summarizes the proposals is very far from the whole story.

[Xithras]

67. Corporations don't pay taxes...ever. Net receipts taxing actually pulls more money in though.

Taxing corporations has always been a murky undertaking simply because corporations don't actually pay any tax. Profits from the corporation are passed onto shareholders. Expenses from the corporation are passed on to consumers. Taxes are simply considered an expense, and are passed along to you and I to pay. I have NEVER heard of an instance where a corporation has lowered its shareholder dividend so it could pay its taxes.

So, you see, corporations already pay no direct taxes.

A net receipts tax essentially operates the same way current corporate taxes do, only they cover a wider range of businesses and have far fewer loopholes to exploit. If passes, California businesses that currently pay taxes would continue to do so, only using the new accounting method. The difference is that a lot of companies that pay no taxes now, or which see most of them reduced through loopholes, would have to start paying them. This is essentially a VAT, which is the way most European nations fund themselves. I doubt there are many Libertarians who sing the praises of the French taxation system.

As an added bonus, I like the fact that they're proposing that the tax not be applied to companies with under $500k in sales at all. That would be a big boon to small businesses in the state (our traditional job creators), and progressively shifts the burden to larger companies that can afford it.

[bullwinkle428]

37. Just added a rec. I would LOVE to speculate on who's doing the un-reccing,

but that would be wrong! :evilgrin:

[Nikki Stone1]

39. LOL!! :)

:evilgrin:

[Stinky The Clown]

44. How progressive

[and-justice-for-all]

49. A flat tax is just fine....I say 20% right off the top...

not matter if you make 200 dollars or 2 million; 20%, thanks.

We all live here together and we all need to contribute EQUALLY.

[jgraz]

57. So people can benefit unequally but contribute equally? That's the heart of a flat tax.

Someone making $200 million dollars uses a higher percentage of the state's limited resources. They also make the vast majority of their money off of the work of others, who are also paying taxes on earned income.

The only way to make the tax system fair is to make it progressive. People who disproportionally benefit from our system need to pay a higher percentage of their income to support it.

[Deja Q]

61. *ding* *ding* *ding* we have a winner!

Again, the real question is: How can we get all Americans to make a million dollars per year? :D

[Nikki Stone1]

71. + 100000

+

[Lone_Star_Dem]

50. They say you can never go home again.

If this passes I won't want to. California as I know it will no longer exist under this plan.

[dajoki]

54. K&R!!

[redqueen]

55. Rec'd

It's hard to understand how a state that's known as being so progressive ends up with crap like this.

Texas, sure... but Cali? WTF?

[laughingliberal]

59. k & r n/t

[Deja Q]

60. The real issue is far more simple:

How can every American make a million dollars as an annual salary?

There. I just solved the problem just like how Rush Limbaugh solves America's problems too.

[ovidsen]

62. I gave it my best shot.

I recommended it, and the number recs went from +12.... to +15! Heaven only knows what it is now.

I can't see why anyone would unrecommend this. Personally, that's a dubious honor I reserve only for posts that I strongly disagree with. It has to be a real stinker. If I'm ambivalent or unmoved by a post, I let it be. Just because I didn't "get" it doesn't mean that other DUers shouldn't have a better opportunity to check it out.

But that's just me.

[Nikki Stone1]

64. Thanks.

I think there was an ambush of this thread early on.

[Overseas]

63. K&R. Really disgusting. We need to raise the millionaires' tax rates

not lower them.

We've had to slash all kinds of social programs to pay for past Republican tax-cutting. It has been especially cruel in these times of economic upheaval. Enough is enough with Republican cruelty.

Tax the Super Rich-- over $5 million at 50%. Over $3 million at 40%.

When the rich paid more taxes, our economies did better. That's just historical fact.

When will we overturn the Republican "Tax Cut, Borrow & Slash Safety Nets" policies in favor of more Democratic policies-- to increase taxes on those most able to pay and sufficiently finance education, infrastructure, health care, environmental improvements, and social safety nets for our poorest people?

[Overseas]

65. This is the opposite of what we need to do. Remember Warren Buffet's statement?

When will our people be fed up with the dumb propaganda that taxing the rich will hurt anyone other than the rich? We're propagandized against it so much because the media companies are owned by the super rich and many of our legislators are multimillionaires. But 90% of us are getting poorer. And our tax system is grossly unfair.

Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

[Nikki Stone1]

68. Wow, Buffet really said that??

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”


I want that on a T-shirt.

The guy really cares about the country, doesn't he.

[jgraz]

69. One quibble: taxing the rich *will not even* hurt the rich

I don't know if you've ever hung around with any truly rich people, but they literally have money to burn.

[BlooInBloo]

72. $5 says Californians go for this, too.

[Nikki Stone1]

73. I hope you are really, really, wrong.

I bet you do too.

[Luminous Animal]

74. It won't be up to the citizens but rather the legislature.

Our Dems in our state legislature are as spineless as the ones in the U.S. Congress.

[Nikki Stone1]

86. Exactly. A spineless and complicit legislature with a really bad commission report=we're screwn

Some people can't see that unfortunately.

[anigbrowl]

101. Tell us more about our spineless and complicit legislature

this would be the one that constitutionally requires a 2/3 majority to change or raise taxes, and where the GOP has more than 1/3 of the seats, yes? In other words, even when the Democrats all vote to raise taxes for the good of the state, if they can't chisel off some GOP assembly members then it doesn't pass. And it has been that way ever since Prop 13, which can only be repealed by referendum.

So tell me again about how spineless CA Assembly Democrats are, when the constitution requires more votes than there are Democratic Assembly members.

[Luminous Animal]

105. The Dems comprise to the point of passing Repbulican legislation.

That is, they surrender rather than fight and, in the end, the citizens lose and Republicans rule.

[anigbrowl]

106. Can I get a few examples of that?

Just wondering. I'd like to know which GOP bills you feel CA Dems have caved on or supported recently.

[ddeclue]

75. That's NOT fair.. we should tax poor people at higher rates than rich ones...

:sarcasm:

Oh wait..we already do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. In my state, a flat tax would be a huge improvement.

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/wa%20pr.pdf

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Most informative

Thanks for posting that.

[Auggie]

77. This is a bill, right?

[anigbrowl]

78. No, it's a proposal by a state commission

It's up to the legislature to move forward with it, or not.

[Nikki Stone1]

which in our current climate will be very influential. And could shortly become law, as in Maine

Don't minimize this.

[anigbrowl]

93. Nobody is 'minimizing' it. Being accurate is not a form of dismissal.

Tell me, how much of the report have you read so far?

[Nikki Stone1]

85. which in our current climate will be very influential. And could shortly become law, as in Maine

Don't minimize this.

[Odin2005]

96. And California's collapse into a failed state continues.

:banghead:

[Nikki Stone1]

107. We've been destroyed. Enron was the push.

They took our money and then we couldn't balance a budget.

[boppers]

100. What. The. F*ck.

Are they trying to depopulate the state or something, by turning it into a central american shithole?

[anigbrowl]

103. Some extra facts about this proposal

The proposal was made by a Commission, called the 'Commission on the 21st century economy'. This was set up to review California tax law with a view to providing more stable future tax revenue for CA, because our state's tax revenue tends to jump around wildly in line with profits and losses in the economy, house prices, and a number of other factors.

The Commission was proposed by Democratic Speaker of the CA Assembly Karen Bass.

It has 14 members. 7 were appointed by the Governor, and might be presumed to lean Republican; thee each are appointed by the Assembly Speaker and the President of the state senate, Darrell Steinberg, also a Democrat; one more member was appointed by mutual agreement. So, seven nominees by the Republican governor, seven nominees by the majority (Democratic) leaders in the CA legislature.

http://www.cotce.ca.gov/documents/reports/documents/Commission_on_the_21st_Century_Economy-Final_Report.pdf

This is the actual report. It's long, and complex. It proposes flattening income tax, but also reducing sales tax; eliminating corporation tax (which very few corporations pay, and which has enormous loopholes) and replacing with a net revenue tax. Many businesses that are currently exempt from paying taxes (eg pretty much any service business) would be liable to pay this new tax, while large corporations would no longer have the option o declaring how much of their profit was made in CA vs in other states as they do now.

It is not law, or even a bill. It's just a report on CA's tax system with proposals for change. Nothing actually changes until the legislature debates and votes on it, which might take a year or more.

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/speaker/News_Room/Press/press_releases/20090929AD47PR01.aspx < Democratic speaker Karen Bass' statement about it
http://dist06.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={F6FF3E1C-F0CF-4B93-91F3-DA32A1D3E8F8}&DE={583AF3E8-E4D9-4472-A4D0-65EA11F3E54E} < Democratic State Senate President Darrell Steinberg's statement about it

[Dawson Leery]

104. Arnie's doing I'm sure.

The thug is going to be out next year and he has to give a final kick in the a** to the state.

[Trillo]

108. The whole idea of "progressive taxation" is kind of screwy anyway.

If you have progressive income taxation at federal and state levels, but then have regressive sales taxes at state and local levels, and even more regressive "user fees" at all levels, then in aggregate, taxes are more likely regressive overall.

In theory, progressive taxation is a great idea. It seems to fail in practice; perhaps it's a political panacea without substance. See prior paragraph.