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: TimF who wrote (484332)	5/29/2009 8:06:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574028

Several times in the past 15 years, the state gov't has had to borrow money from the cities to fund state operations. In other words, Prop 13 has forced the state to raid local coffers. Your premise doesn't logically lead to your conclusion. This is esp. true since Prop 13 limits property tax, a local tax, so its not just that your premise doesn't lead to your conclusion, it pretty much has no connection to your conclusion. Actually it does.......in addition to putting a cap on the tax rate, Prop 13 requires that any tax increase be approved by a 2/3 vote. In practice, that has meant the state can't raise taxes. So when it runs short, it raids the municipalities who are already short tax revenue because of Prop 13. It doesn't happen frequently but it does happen. California is strangling to death because of some asshole wingers from the 1970s.........may they not rest in peace. Reducing increases in taxes, isn't "strangled to death". High taxes are closer to that idea than low taxes, but even if low taxes where "strangling" the simple fact is that even with Prop 13 CA doesn't have low taxes. Let me change the wording........Prop 13 has put CA on a starvation diet. Okay? As the largest state in the union "On a per capita basis" takes care of that objection. In absolute terms CA isn't in the middle of the pack in property tax collections, its near, perhaps at the top. Do you have a link? Looking at the tax rates shown on the page at the linke below, CA's taxes look to be pretty much in line with other states with the exceptions of the high end on personal income taxes and with corporate taxes: taxadmin.org HOWEVER, what growth in revenue that has occurred has not been able to keep up with the needs of the population. The growth of revenue and the growth of spending equaled or exceeded the growth of the state. That means nothing. The quality of the growth is the key. If you're losing your middle class, and getting mostly the poor as replacement, then you are falling further and further behind fiscally. California's government does much more than it did in the past, and spends a lot more doing it. If the money doesn't actually meet the needs of the residents it must be because it is spent inefficiently or spent on things other than important needs of the people in the state, See......that's the only conclusion someone with your book makes. In fact, its the too obvious conclusion. Are there inefficiencies within the state gov't? Of course. There are inefficiencies in every bureaucracy, public or private. Are the inefficiencies the key to CA's problem? That's not my belief.....I think the problem is much more complicated. And my position has been backed up by several detailed analyses of the problem.