Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (135194)	3/30/2001 1:45:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1584741

What I said was that CA was "one of the most aggressive places to reduce taxation in this country". It was...whether it was successful is open to question by you. If some place did not reduce taxes then it was not "one of the most aggressive places to reduce taxation". It might however be "one of the most agressive places to attempt to reduce taxation" but that isn't the same thing. What is at issue is not whether taxes have gone up a lot or a little but whether there were enough taxes collected to adequately maintain CA's infrastructure and state programs. My contention was that there were not enough tax dollars raised. Nothing you have posted has changed that opinion. Originally the claim was made that this apparently inadequate funding was do to tax cuts. That makes whether taxes have gone up or down at least part of the issue. If there was not enough tax dollars raised what level would be enough? If CA taxes doubled next year and then staid the same as a percentage of personal income after that. (which would allow them to grow faster then the combination of population growth and inflation) would that be enough for you? If $100bil in spending isn't enough is $200bil or will it take $300bil? Tim