That’s the theory that your side pushes with cigarettes, no? With driving cars? With eating fast foods or soda? With using plastic bags?

Now you claim that it doesn’t apply to businesses or the rich. You can’t have it both ways.

Check out the U-Haul site. It costs $1495 to rent a truck one-way from the bay area to major cities in Texas. It only costs $685 to rent it in the other direction. The demand to move out of this area is strong.

The thing that contributed to the “hole we’re in now” is increased spending, not a decrease in revenue. The state in 2004 received in taxes and fees $98.9 BILLION dollars. This year it will receive $134 BILLION dollars. Revenue (read “taxes”) increased by 35% the past 5 years, but spending increased 50%.
Characterizing this situation as one of “little choice” is not accurate.

There is a problem with taking a focus only on ever increasing ways to raise revenue. You don’t get your money’s worth. Instead, you get lower standards of living for all, larger and more intrusive government, and less freedom.

There are problems with your “tax the rich and they’ll flee” theory.

There were lots of reasons why Gray Davis was recalled, but there’s no question that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s rollback of the VLF blew a multibillion-dollar-per-year hole in the state budget that has contributed significantly to the hole we’re in now; Schwarzenegger and GOP Legislative leaders had little choice but to agree to re-raise it this year.

As for income taxes, you didn’t mention that for income of $1,000,001 and over, the rate is 10.3 percent; under Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson, the top rate was at 11 percent. Some believe it’s not fair that someone making $47,056 a year is taxed at the same rate as someone making $1 million a year; Legislative Democrats last year proposed setting income taxes at 10 percent for taxpayers filing joint returns with taxable income above $321,000 and 11 percent for those with incomes above $642,000, but Republicans shot it down. I’d love to see some poll numbers specifically on a plan like that, rather than the more vague “tax increases vs. spending cuts” data we’ve got.

The Field Poll you mention shows a 63% support for spending cuts over 26% support for tax hikes. Among Democrats, that 49% support spending cuts to 26% support for tax hikes. It’s those pesky Democrats that stand in the way of discussing viable options?
But instead of those facts, you frame this as “blame the Republicans”.

Only a few years ago, the polls also showed support for more taxes and spending. Yet Gov. Davis was quickly recalled when the actual tax hikes arrived, in the form of higher car registration fees. It’s easy to tell a pollster that you support higher taxes for the rich. Yet when the rich no longer earn money under anti-business taxes, and when the rich move away to lower tax states as they have done in droves, then the state comes to you for your money.

Just for the record, California has the second highest income tax in the country and it starts at 47k.

– 6% on taxable income between $26,822 and $37,233
– 8% on taxable income between $37,234 and $47,055
– 9.3% on taxable income of $47,056 and above.

The 2 states that raised income taxes most over the past 5 years (New Jersey and Connecticut) had the greatest decrease in wealthy citizens, and the highest state government deficits. The 4 states with the lowest income and business taxes created the most jobs, and had the highest increase in personal income.

Facts rarely reported by this paper or the media. Perhaps something is wrong with the system.

The Public Policy Institute of California in January reported 72 percent of Californians favor raising the state income tax rate paid by the wealthiest residents and 60 percent favor raising the state taxes paid by corporations.

More recently, PPIC found Californians are slightly more likely to prefer paying higher taxes and getting more services (48 percent) over lower taxes and fewer services (43 percent).

And the Field Poll recently found that while most Californians favor more spending cuts over tax increases, there isn’t majority support for cutting in any areas other than prisons and parks.

So I’m merely suggesting that if a Legislative minority is preventing discussion of what most Californians believe could be viable options, there’s something wrong with the system.

“And instead of having a serious debate about whether California needs more tax revenue to” … “it needs and deserves”.

My law school professors would have laughed aloud at the slant in your writing.

The state spends about the same money on welfare ($37.98 BILLION) as on K-12 education ($40.74 BILLION).
The state spends over half the $9.6 BILLION in law enforcement on COUNSELING programs. The state increased the number of employees by 60,000 employees over the past 4 years to 360,000. The state increased spending on all education (K-12/Higher Ed) from $40B to $53.8 BILLION.

There is a serious debate going on. It’s whether or not this state continues to drive away business and workers through excessive taxation and control.