[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 9:36*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 29, 7:26*pm, ScottW2 wrote:





On Jun 29, 3:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 6:09*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:20*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:07*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:09*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 28, 6:35*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 28, 3:05*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

What has brought California to such a perilous state? How did its
government become so wildly dysfunctional? One obvious cause is the
deep recession that has caused tax revenues to plunge for all
states.
But California's woes have a set of deeper reasons: direct
democracy
run amok, timid governors, partisan gridlock and a flawed
constitution
all contribute to budget chaos and people in pain. And at the root
of
California's misery lies Proposition 13, the antitax measure that
ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era. In
Washington,
the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative
legacy lives on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009062...08599190493800

"Direct democracy run amok".

2pid, is too much direct democracy a bad thing in a representative
republic?

And how does it feel to know your movement is "over"?

LoL.

Yes indeed, California is the last bastion of Conservatism!!!!

LoL. *If only it were true. *Meanwhile here's a few facts for the tax
and spend lunatics.

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/web...es/034048.html

Under Prop 13 property tax revenues have not only far outpaced
inflation and population growth combined but also grew faster than
other sources of revenue.

One would hope you could find a valid cite for your positions but
apparently not. LoL.

Didn't he trot this one out a while back? Maybe he should explain why
the comparison to inflation, population growth and "other sources of
revenue" is valid to the discussion. The Jarvis website says taxpayers
have saved "over $528 billion."

Maybe most of that savings is for corporations who have shell
companies set up. Did you know that you could buy a shopping center in
California and not have the taxes increase?

If the mall is deeded to a corporation like "Mega Mall Assets LLC" all
you do is buy the corporation. Since it's not a real estate
transaction the property tax is not recalculated.

snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_13_(1978)

I'll bet 2pid loves scenarios like that. Otherwise it's possible that
the mall might move to Ireland.

And he's happy with his local government services!

Wiki has a pretty good overview of the results of prop 13. It seems a
little more balanced and intelligent that 2pid's cite.

The 2/3rds requirement for tax increases is pernicious. At some point,
even an economy as huge as California's can't afford to not tax.

*LoL. "Can't afford to not tax."

Ca. ranked 6th in the nation in tax burden per capita in 2008.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html

That was before passing these tax increases.

- Sales taxes raised by one percentage point

- Additional 5% surcharge on state income taxes.

- Increase in the vehicle-license fee from 0.65% to 1.15%.

*But hey, don't let a few facts ruin your delusion.

ScottW-

there are lots of ways to measure that overall burden.
waht taxes are included, and what wer not included
in that calculation?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22320.html

"For each state, we calculate the total amount paid by the residents
in taxes, and we divide those taxes by the total income in each state
to compute a "tax burden" measure."

Is that too complicated for you?

ScottW-

No, the opposite, it is too simple for me.
What taxes???
to know if the survey makes a valid point,'
we need to know wbhat taxes are included or not included.

It looks like what they do is take all taxes and divide by all income
to come up with a percent.

It is like 2pid's "spending divided by number of taxpayers" formula
for federal taxes. Remember when he advocated that one? LOL!

But you're exactly correct: the formula is too simple to be of any
real use.