Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15022)	11/3/2003 5:37:40 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) of 793597

Look at the chart. It's categorized. Loans are an extremely small percentage of it. Here are the categories: Alcoholic Beverages Taxes & Fees Corporation Tax Cigarette Tax Horse Racing (Pari-mutual License Fees) Estate, Inheritance & Gift Tax Insurance Gross Premium Tax Trailer Coach License (In-Lieu) Fees Motor Vehicle License (In-Lieu) Fees Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Gasoline) Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Diesel) Motor Vehicle Registration Personal Income Tax Retail Sales and Use Tax (Realignment) Retail Sales and Use Tax Telecommunications Tax Trial Court Revenues Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge California State University Fees Income from Pooled Money Investments Income from Surplus Money Investments State Lands Royalties Abandoned Property Settlements & Judgments All Other Minor Revenue Those aren't loans. The only loan categories come in at the bottom: Transfers & Loans (line 37) If you net out the transfers and loans and only focus on the taxes and fees, the revenues went up by nearly the same percentage. In fact, the effect of transfers and loans if netted out leaves current year revenues above 70 billion and 1993-95 revenues at 39-45 billion. The same order of magnitude as I was talking about. Read the chart. lao.ca.gov. You claim to be an executive. Read it. You're just making stuff up at this point. The link you provided is to one year (2001-02) and just shows a month by month cash flow. And even it shows $66 Billion in tax revenues which have nothing to do with borrowing at all for the year 2001-02. It makes no effort to compare to the time frame (1993-95) which was the basis for your original (and false) assertion. In fact, if you look at the revenues from those sources in 1993-95 they range from $39-45 billion. Your own source says they are now $66 billion. That's not taking in less revenue than 93-95. It's taking in a lot more. You said: "Our [California's] total receipts are not that high, in fact I discovered recently that we are at 93-95 levels in total tax receipts now." You're wrong. By a lot.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next