Comments on: Poll: Support slipping for Brown’s tax measure

By: JohnW

JohnW — Thu, 31 May 2012 04:21:44 +0000

Re: #8

Completely agree with the need to torpedo HSR. However, to date, none of the state’s current or structural deficit is accounted for by HSR. Pensions aren’t the only problem, but they are already crowding out the services that our taxes are supposed to pay for. Moreover, pensions that pay out three times the lifetime benefits that a high quality 401k plan or traditional private sector defined benefit pension would pay undermines the legitimacy of government. And that doesn’t even include lifetime heath care benefits.

By: Greg Andrews

Greg Andrews — Wed, 30 May 2012 17:01:36 +0000

Rick K: ” . . . Brown’s tax measure deserves to lose unless Sacramento enacts serious pension reform first . . . ” Pension reform first? Dude – kill high speed rail first, THEN deal with pension reform. CA occasionally admits that HSR has a $100 billion and rising price tag, so double that to cover the interest on the borrowed money. Add an extra $50 billion for anticipated, undisclosed fraud, embezzlement, and skim, and high speed rail totals out at a quarter trillion dollars – a low-ball estimate – for which Crusty will use his permanent, “temporary” tax increases.

By: dc1

dc1 — Wed, 30 May 2012 13:25:50 +0000

this measure is probably the worst policy measure that could have been proposed. this state already imposes one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and look at the fiscal mess we are in. adding yet another massive tax increase on top of already too high taxes will only accelerate the decline in california’s economy. the tax revenues will not be there as they never have been before, and in the process we will be encouraging our businesses and successful individuals to leave the state. if you look at the actual numbers, california has done nothing to cut overall spending. funding for schools and the parks is down, but state employment levels have not come down at all, nor have bloated and inefficient wages, benefits, work rules and of course pensions. i for one will vote against any tax increase until the state shows it respects the taxpayers of this state. there are tons of cuts that can be made but they take real leadership, and we seem to have none of that in sacramento these days.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Wed, 30 May 2012 08:40:42 +0000

In complete contrast to my position on federal taxes, I wouldn’t support the income tax proposals even if the governor and legislature suddenly eliminated defined benefit pensions for current and future state and local employees and did everything to make this the most business-friendly state in the country. First, if we did those things, we wouldn’t need the increases. Second, and more importantly, we don’t have any room left at the top for tax increases without shooting ourselves in the foot even more than we already have. It may be politically unrealistic, but we need to hit the reset button on all major taxes, especially income, property and business taxes.

By: Rick K.

Rick K. — Wed, 30 May 2012 05:23:17 +0000

Brown’s tax measure deserves to lose unless Sacramento enacts serious pension reform first. Californians don’t want to pour more money into a leaky bucket, full of holes created and guarded by special interests. S.B. 400, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 1999, needs to be repealed to the greatest extent possible. We cannot afford to give retired government employees $100,000 a year for life. Brown and his public union allies (who helped get him into office) are using elementary school children as hostages to try to get us to increase our taxes. Their real agenda is to protect the over-generous pensions for CHP officers, firefighters and prison guards. Note that these “public safety” special interests so dominate Sacramento that not even Meg Whitman had the courage to take them on during the last election. We should not have to pay higher taxes so that government workers can retire at age 50 to their beach house and buy expensive toys with sky-high pensions that the discredited Gray Davis gave away to them. No public pension reform, no new taxes. Period.

By: Truthclubber

Truthclubber — Wed, 30 May 2012 04:16:26 +0000

@1 –

As much as it pains me to be on the same side as @2, I agree with his wish — since I have seen reports that California spending has increased by ~ 15% since 2008 — and I know of NO household whose spending (or income) has increased by that amount.

No new taxes — until the leadership in Sacramento shows us what the actual spending curve has been over the past 10 years, and how that compares to how the growth of the economy of the state (for which all of the revenues depends) has been trending.

If they can’t, or won’t, or it shows that spending has been exceeding California’s “GDP” for quite some time, then:

NO. NEW. TAXES.

Cut back programs or staffing levels back to whatever year we need to go back to, in order to get back to a real balanced budget, period.

Then and only then can we begin the discussion of whether we need more revenues, and if so, WHY (and the WHY better not be “because our pension spending is out of control”…)

By: Elwood

Elwood — Wed, 30 May 2012 03:46:32 +0000

Bye-bye Brownie’s tax measure!

Brownie couldn’t put together a budget for a meat market.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Wed, 30 May 2012 03:22:18 +0000

This is a very equitable tax proposal. It boosts the income tax on upper income by 20-29% and the sales tax on everybody else by 3%. Good to see everybody chipping in to help.

If this tax proposal passes, it will be an unmitigated disaster for the state. As some letters to the editor have pointed out, the income tax part probably won’t yield even half of what it is supposed to. If you’re making multiple millions and your effective tax rate goes up 25% or so in one step, your financial planners are guilty of malpractice if they can’t find lawful ways of mitigating that. So, we’ll end up with the worst of two worlds: Even higher taxes and little additional revenue to show for it.

6% flat tax, with the first $25,000 exempt. No itemized deductions.

By: bob

bob — Wed, 30 May 2012 02:47:32 +0000

The State Legislature and Governor have failed the people. This was their job to take care of decades ago, and rather than performing their job they decided
to do nothing and hope that someone else in the future would bail them out. Well, that did not happen and here we are, up s— creek!