• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Do we pay enough taxes?

jpccusa

Happy with this new hobby
Interesting article about the Californian budget crisis and how it would affect the entire nation. The article mentions how Americans complain about paying too much taxes "when in reality we don't pay enough."

California on 'verge of system failure

Golden State, like many others, is nearly bankrupt and desperately needs a bailout

Arnella Sims has seen a lot in her 34 years as a Los Angeles County court reporter, but nothing like this.

Case files piling up by the thousands, phones ringing off the hook, forced midweek courthouse closings and occasional brawls as frustrated citizens queue for hours to pay parking fines.

“People think we’re becoming a Third World country,” said Ms. Sims, 55. “They don’t understand.”

It’s a story that’s being repeated all across California – and throughout the United States – as cash-strapped state and local governments grapple with collapsed tax revenues and swelling budget gaps. Mass layoffs, slashed health and welfare services, closed parks, crumbling superhighways and ever-larger public school class sizes are all part of the new normal.

California’s fiscal hole is now so large that the state would have to liberate 168,000 prison inmates and permanently shutter 240 university and community college campuses to balance its budget in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Think of California as Greece on the Pacific: bankrupt and desperately needing a bailout.

“We are on the verge of system failure,” warned Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, an independent think tank based in Sacramento.

None of this would matter much to anyone outside the not-so-Golden State except that California’s budget crisis is a harbinger of a grim dilemma that all Americans will soon confront. The country has built an elaborate and costly government machine, tied to a regressive tax system that can’t generate enough revenue to pay for it all.

Canadians too have a stake in all this. Dramatic cuts by state governments are threatening to derail the U.S. recovery, dampening expectations for global growth.

“This is a classic American dilemma,” explained Peter Dreier, a professor of politics and director of urban and environmental policy at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “Americans expect a lot of their government. But politicians have convinced them they’re not getting what they want.”

Americans have been “brainwashed” into believing they pay a lot of taxes, Prof. Dreier added. In fact, they are among the least-taxed people in the Western World, particularly if they’re wealthy, he said.

After unveiling a grim budget last month that scraps a popular welfare program for a million children and slashes countless other programs for the poor and elderly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger complained that the state’s broken budget process has left him facing a “Sophie’s Choice.” That’s a reference to the story of the Polish Jew forced by the Nazis to choose between saving her son or her daughter from the Auschwitz gas chambers.

Experts say the U.S. government will inevitably have to come to the rescue, using its borrowing clout to save the state from near-bankruptcy or devastating service cuts. Do nothing, and the entire U.S. economy could be put at risk. California, like the country’s banks, may be too big to fail.

California is looking at a gap of $19-billion (U.S.) this year and $37-billion next year on a roughly $125-billion-a-year budget. Local governments, including the City of Los Angeles, are in similarly dire financial straits and are now scrambling to shed workers and services.

map_712442artw.jpg


“We have to get some federal money,” argued Ms. Ross of the California Budget Project. “The impact [of the Schwarzenegger budget] would be enough to slow down the U.S. economy. It would be bad for the U.S. and, arguably, bad for the world to do the shock therapy approach.”

And California isn’t alone in angling for a bailout. U.S. states are facing shortfalls totalling nearly $300-billion in 2010 and 2011; they also must wrestle with hundreds of billions more in unfunded pension obligations to their workers. “There are a few Greek crises brewing among the United States of America,” said economist Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research Inc.

The task is made all the more difficult because California and virtually all other states are barred by legislation from running operating deficits, forcing them to balance their budgets annually by slashing spending, raising taxes or both. Typically, states can only borrow short-term funds, or for capital projects.

Billionaire Warren Buffett, who advised U.S. President Barack Obama during his White House run, suggested recently that a Washington bailout of California and other troubled states is inevitable. How, he wondered, can Washington deny California after saying yes to General Motors, AIG and dozens of banks.

“I don’t know how you would tell a state you’re going to stiff-arm them with all the bailouts of corporations,” Mr. Buffett said.

The alternative for many state and local governments may be default. Mr. Buffett said many state and municipal bonds are only triple-A rated because investors assume there’s a federal backstop. “If the federal government won’t step in to help them, who knows what [the bonds] are,” he said.

California’s credit rating is already the lowest of all 50 states.

How California, the largest and once most-prosperous state, got in this mess is a story decades in the making. It began with middle-class angst and a property tax revolt in the sprawling suburbs of Los Angeles. The movement would eventually sweep the country in the inflation-ravaged economy of the late 1970s, leaving government unable to pay for many of the services and entitlements people now take for granted.

John Serrano Jr., a social worker, was frustrated that he had to move his family out of East L.A. to find decent public schools for his children. He would eventually lend his name to a class-action lawsuit that would go all the way to the California Supreme Court. In a series of decisions, the court found the state’s school finance system to be unconstitutional for relying too heavily on local property taxes, which vary widely in poor and wealthy neighbourhoods. For example, a school in tony Beverly Hills would often get more than twice the funds per student than one in poor East L.A.

The landmark case would forever change the fiscal landscape of California, and many other states, shifting the financial burden of kindergarten to Grade 12 education from local to state governments, but not the tax base. K-12 education is now the State of California’s single largest expense, soaking up roughly a third of its budget.

A tax revolt would further tilt the tax burden to the state and deprive local governments of their most stable funding source – property taxes.

In the mid-1970s, California property taxes were soaring, along with real estate values, and incomes couldn’t keep pace. The result was a campaign, financed by L.A.-area apartment landlords, that culminated in the now-infamous Proposition 13 ballot initiative in 1978.

Prop. 13 rolled back and capped both residential and commercial property tax rates at 1975 levels. And it virtually guaranteed that only a revolution would reverse the measure. Proposition 13 imposed a two-thirds majority requirement for all tax bills and required local voters to approve all municipal tax increases.

“California put itself in a straitjacket that it hasn’t been able to get out of,” Occidental College’s Prof. Dreier explained.

In the years since Prop. 13, California has come to the rescue of local governments, taking on ever-greater responsibility for schools, low-income health care and welfare. And it has paid for all that with volatile sales and income tax revenue, making it tough to balance its budget when the economy stalls.

“A lot of people predicted doom and gloom in 1978. It just took a long time,” said John Tanner, executive director of Local 721 of the Service Employees International Union, which represents 85,000 government workers in Los Angeles and throughout Southern California.

Prop. 13, according to Mr. Tanner, has put schools, courts, parks and a raft of other government services in a downward spiral. “We are at an unacceptable place right now,” he said.

Perhaps no group of workers feels more targeted in the crisis than teachers. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that without money from Congress as many as 300,000 teachers nationwide could lose their jobs to state budget cuts, including several thousand in California.

“It’s not easy being me these days,” said A.J. Duffy, president of the United Teachers of Los Angeles. “I have 45,000 members looking to me to save their jobs.”

His union represents teachers and other employees at 700-plus L.A. schools, where as many as 1,200 jobs are threatened.

“We’re destroying education as we know it,” Mr. Duffy lamented. “My teachers will do a great job no matter what. But it’s harder and harder to deliver the quality of education we’ve had.”

California public schools were once a beacon for the country. Now, the state ranks dead-last in student-teacher ratios, 45th in per-student spending and 36th in high school graduation.

The tax structure may be badly flawed. But even union activists acknowledge that repealing Prop. 13 outright is probably a non-starter. Recent polls show support for keeping a lid on property taxes remains strong, in spite of the budget crisis.

Experts say tax reform is the only option for California, short of a massive and unprecedented shrinking of government. And that requires an “open conversation” between voters and their elected leaders, and almost certainly higher taxes, according to Ms. Ross, the economist.

If you want good schools, you have to pay for them,” she said. “Cutting taxes doesn’t raise revenue.”

That kind of talk angers Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, named after the L.A. homeowner who led the Prop. 13 campaign and dedicated to ensuring it’s never overturned. He said California is a high-tax state with generously paid government workers, and recession-weary taxpayers have no money to pay more.

“The bank is empty,” Mr. Vosburgh complained.

“We have tried to be all things to all people and we can’t afford to do that any more.”

But in California, and elsewhere, the price will be steep – in lost jobs and vanishing services.

Carliose Lane, 37, an animal licensing official for the City of Los Angeles, knows the city, and the state, are in a budget bind. But he can’t understand why he and the city’s entire team of animal fee collectors must pay the price with their jobs. Who, he wondered, will collect the money that pays for the city’s shelters and pet control operations after he’s laid off on July 1.

“Laying me off isn’t going to solve the city’s budget problems,” said Mr. Lane, whose $32,300-a-year salary helps support a wife and three children. “It will make them worse.”
 
How California, the largest and once most-prosperous state, got in this mess is a story decades in the making. It began with middle-class angst and a property tax revolt in the sprawling suburbs of Los Angeles. The movement would eventually sweep the country in the inflation-ravaged economy of the late 1970s, leaving government unable to pay for many of the services and entitlements people now take for granted.

It depends on whether we are actually GETTING the services we are paying for. I would be willing to pay more taxes if they weren't frittered away not providing servides & benefits.

Edit: I think the reason for the tax revolt was the perception that the money was going into a black hole. Here is a local example. The Boston Globe today had something on how much it was going to cost to repair one bridge. It was going to cost MORE than it cost a couple years ago to build the biggest suspension bridge on the East Coast here in Massachusetts. That's insane! I don't mind paying taxes to rebuild bridges, or paying taxes to pay for unemployment checks, but there has to be some accountability on buying $1000 toilet seats and 1/4 BILLION dollar bridge repair projects.
 
Last edited:
Don't come to Minnesota, you want ND and Montana. Minnesota isn't in quite as bad of shape as CA, but we're swimming upstream in deep water too.
 
Stop paying for illegals! Problem solved!

LOL! An extremely oversimplification and narrow minded view on the situation.

Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, we pay not that much in taxes. However, we also don't have nearly as much services. I would have no problem paying more in taxes if I got a good return in my investment in the government. However, right now, there is way too much waste.

I personally would like to see the military budget cut in half and that money spent towards balancing the budget or on better things such as infrastructure (our roads and bridges are in major decline) or healthcare. We spend too much money on the military; that is one area that I feel my tax $$$ is wasted.
 
LOL! An extremely oversimplification and narrow minded view on the situation.

Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, we pay not that much in taxes. However, we also don't have nearly as much services. I would have no problem paying more in taxes if I got a good return in my investment in the government. However, right now, there is way too much waste.

I personally would like to see the military budget cut in half and that money spent towards balancing the budget or on better things such as infrastructure (our roads and bridges are in major decline) or healthcare. We spend too much money on the military; that is one area that I feel my tax $$$ is wasted.

Iran is close to having or has a nuke, and terrorists are still gunning for us, and you want to halve the military budget? :eek:
 
cutting the military budget does not bring about peace... it is very necessary and cutting it would put our men and women in serious jeopardy. My friends served before and after Clinton and said that when the budgets were cut it really cut down on their effective readiness. having to buy parts at radio shack with their own money so the ships radar could be fixed!

I do think that the government has too much pork... way too many earmarks and entitlement programs.

I want low taxes, low services, and more freedoms. I do not care what other nations think of our taxes, I think they are too high!

Let me keep my money and make my own choices, you keep your change!
 
Stop paying for illegals! Problem solved!

Are you kidding me?
You are not only ignoring HISTORY, you are also scapegoating the problem of more than half of the US states to illegal immigration.
That was "Glen Beck style" of you! :flames:
 
LOL! An extremely oversimplification .....
As intended.
I personally would like to see the military budget cut in half and that money spent towards balancing the budget or on better things such as infrastructure (our roads and bridges are in major decline) or healthcare. We spend too much money on the military; that is one area that I feel my tax $$$ is wasted.
Maybe we can count on Canada or Switzerland or France to defend us when we have 50% of present capability, which incidentally still wasn't enough to stop 911. I cringe to think what the radicals would be trying if we actually had half our capability. Do you not believe the middle east or North Korea or the like would be slightly more emboldened?

Are you kidding me?
You are not only ignoring HISTORY, you are also scapegoating the problem of more than half of the US states to illegal immigration.
That was "Glen Beck style" of you! :flames:
Maybe this would be a better way to say it. The USA needs to stop paying for the world on my tax dime. Whether it be huge cash gifts, forgiven debt, huge assumed trade deficits, etc etc etc etc. Middle class America cannot continue to give away jobs, while buying massive amounts of foreign consumer goods, while borrowing money from China to give to the middle east, while providing free social services to 15 million illegals, while bailing out every country that has a need, while surviving our own lame excuse of a government trying their damnedest to kill the American way of life.

Actually I thought my scapegoating was rather Olbermannesk! Or maybe slightly Maddowish! :grin01:
 
Actually I thought my scapegoating was rather Olbermannesk! Or maybe slightly Maddowish! :grin01:

Because you targeted the illegals in your scapegoating, instead of the Bush administration, you became Beckish.... :crazy02:
 
Because you targeted the illegals in your scapegoating, instead of the Bush administration, you became Beckish.... :crazy02:
Well I don't think Bush did enough to stop the illegals either! So now I am Maddowbeckish! :grin01::roflmao:
 
Well I don't think Bush did enough to stop the illegals either! So now I am Maddowbeckish! :grin01::roflmao:

LOL, no I don't think he did either... He let someone stand in the way of finishing the fence....

I also think that we should have been out of both Iraq and Afghanistan before he got out of office, but there's nothing I can do about it...
 
LOL. Funny how the article compares us to the rest of the "Western World". We try to emulate the "Western World (aka European countries) and we WILL go the way of Greece. Greece needs to be a wake up call for all of us. Government subsidized LIVING is not something ANY government can continue to do for very long. I'm with EMANON...

cutting the military budget does not bring about peace... it is very necessary and cutting it would put our men and women in serious jeopardy. My friends served before and after Clinton and said that when the budgets were cut it really cut down on their effective readiness. having to buy parts at radio shack with their own money so the ships radar could be fixed!

I do think that the government has too much pork... way too many earmarks and entitlement programs.

I want low taxes, low services, and more freedoms. I do not care what other nations think of our taxes, I think they are too high!

Let me keep my money and make my own choices, you keep your change!

As for California... it USED to be prosperous... then they started over-taxing/over-regulating the profit making businesses which then LEFT the state... Businesses that create jobs and pour money into their employees. If a state isn't business friendly, then businesses will go elsewhere...
 
Iran is close to having or has a nuke, and terrorists are still gunning for us, and you want to halve the military budget? :eek:

Our military is set up for conventional warfare. Not for the threats we face today. We spend more on our military than every other nation on the planet combined. In other words, too much!

Iran is a non-issue IMO. I don't blame them for wanting to get nukes, nukes are good insurance to have. Do I think they should get them, absolutely not. But I can understand their desire. Regardless, Iran isn't stupid enough to use them; they know full well that if they do then their country would turn into a glass parking lot overnight. All talk, no walk.

As for the terrorist threat, all the more reason to cut our military budget, and shift it towards countering terrorism. Tanks, aircraft carriers, F-22s etc won't do a darned thing to stop them.

Maybe we can count on Canada or Switzerland or France to defend us when we have 50% of present capability, which incidentally still wasn't enough to stop 911. I cringe to think what the radicals would be trying if we actually had half our capability. Do you not believe the middle east or North Korea or the like would be slightly more emboldened?

See my above response. Our military isn't capable of fighting the war on terror. We're not fighting a conventional war. We could have double the military capacity we do now, and that still won't eradicate terrorism or would not have stopped 9/11.

And even with 50% capacity, we could still wipe out the middle east and N. Korea in a heartbeat; so no, I don't think it would embolden them.

*sigh* I just don't understand the over simplistic cowboy view some people have. Guns-ablazin' and a oversized military isn't the answer.
 
Our military is set up for conventional warfare. Not for the threats we face today. We spend more on our military than every other nation on the planet combined. In other words, too much!

Iran is a non-issue IMO. I don't blame them for wanting to get nukes, nukes are good insurance to have. Do I think they should get them, absolutely not. But I can understand their desire. Regardless, Iran isn't stupid enough to use them; they know full well that if they do then their country would turn into a glass parking lot overnight. All talk, no walk.

As for the terrorist threat, all the more reason to cut our military budget, and shift it towards countering terrorism. Tanks, aircraft carriers, F-22s etc won't do a darned thing to stop them.



See my above response. Our military isn't capable of fighting the war on terror. We're not fighting a conventional war. We could have double the military capacity we do now, and that still won't eradicate terrorism or would not have stopped 9/11.

And even with 50% capacity, we could still wipe out the middle east and N. Korea in a heartbeat; so no, I don't think it would embolden them.

*sigh* I just don't understand the over simplistic cowboy view some people have. Guns-ablazin' and a oversized military isn't the answer.
??? Should we use an F22 to kill a lone suicide bomber obviously not. Our military is used as much for deterrence as action. If you think our military doesn't evolve with the threat you are being naive. Does it change in the 30 seconds after an incident no but it has changed immensely over time evolving according to threats.

At half capacity we would struggle to keep up the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq let alone deal with a half dozen more rouge nations in the middle east and North Korea. The budget just doesn't go to airplanes and boats it also goes to training for our heroes and support for their families and protective gear for their person and food and water and boots and coats etc. Politicians love to through up the video of big boats and bombs as a diversionary illusion to bolster defense cuts to joe public.

Why would Iran having nukes be insurance?

*sigh* I guess we are in the same boat because I just don't understand the over simplistic pacifist view some people have. Halving our national defense to spend it on more social services and waving a white flag isn't the answer.
 
We spend more on our military than every other nation on the planet combined. In other words, too much!

Do you know why every other nation spends less? Because we are carrying the defense spending and defense fighting burden for most of the world! Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel, to name a few places, all expect us to bail their chestnuts out of the fire if they are attacked. NATO has become a money sucking black hole where only the Brits actually spend any money or risk any soldiers. So yeah, our defense budget is huge, because those countries are spending so much less than is needed to defend them.

Now, does that mean there is no room to cut the military budget? I'm not saying that. Airplane projects that the Marine air people, the Navy air people and the Air Force DON'T WANT need to go away. That's pork, pure and simple, and could and should be found and cut. The infamous thousand dollar military procurement toilet seats from the 1970s & 1980s need to be found and EXTERMINATED, with prosecution of perpetrators if possible.

But people who want to cut "guns" to increase "butter" need to look at the worldwide spending picture.
 
Back
Top