Sales Tax going up 3/4c!

In reply to novaderrik:

I prefer business models that use success to prevent failure, not perceived societal need.

MrJoshua wrote: Deregulation being the boogeyman that always causes collapse amuses me. It's not like if you all the sudden took away government regulations every business would make bad investments and collapse. And if they did the problem would be self correcting.

[sarcasm]But what about all the little people that have their retirement tied up with those companies?!?!?![/sarcasm]

But sadly, now we are experiencing the opposite effect with "oppressive" govt regulations. What used to take not much more then a shingle and a dream, now requires 30 costly permits, lawyer fees, and years of waiting to open, unless you are or have been oppressed previously.

So, Mguar gets to keep posting, even though he's floundered away on two pages?

In reply to aircooled:

Not trying to be a wiseguy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the money went for: if a government spends more than it takes in it WILL eventually go bankrupt. Iceland's government did spend a wad of taxpayer money trying to fix the economy. Saying that it's for a differet reason is like saying, well, it's OK if I spent every dime I had and then some on food and clothing but not OK if I spent the same thing on beer. The end result is the same.

racerfink wrote: So, Mguar gets to keep posting, even though he's floundered away on two pages?

I'm pretty sure he flounders at least 95% of the topics he posts in, but still gets to hang around.

I suggest you do what i do, and just mark all of his posts as inflammatory. (Click the "!")

MrJoshua wrote: Deregulation being the boogeyman that always causes collapse amuses me. It's not like if you all the sudden took away government regulations every business would make bad investments and collapse. And if they did the problem would be self correcting.

History having proven otherwise... given free reign, with no oversight and no consequences to failure, people make terrible decisions over and over again but blame others for their failures.

Regulation is good, intrusive over-regulation is bad. Deregulation can be good or bad, but the libertarian "all regulation is bad" mantra is not true in the least - well, only with a very naive world view is it true.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

benzbaronDaryn wrote: I only posted this because I am wondering where the sales tax is going, we're talking almost 10% here.

You should have stopped right there............... before "there", actually. You're dealing with a local issue that we (collectively) won't have to deal with until your state's fanciful fiscal policies implode and we (collectively) have to bail your a$$es out. When that happens, Margie won't be able to afford the additional land and concrete needed to cover the bodies. Spend your time trying to educate your fellow Californians about their follies. Good luck with that.

Now, this may be a bad source, but there was a somewhat recent Jon Stewart show in which he pointed out that California is "in the black." I wonder what keeps people thinking that they're trillions in debt?

Oh, I don't know... http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2010/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_2010.aspx

"Our forecast of California’s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a budget problem of $25.4 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2011–12 state budget plan. The budget problem consists of a $6 billion projected deficit for 2010–11 and a $19 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2011–12."

How is this thread still going?

In reply to dculberson:

The consequence to failure is failure. Top to bottom, bottom to top. Govt requires banks to give risky loans, bank gives out risky loans and resells as non risky, people go broke paying loans they cant afford, banks go broke, shareholders go broke, govt safety nets kick in for everybody and the cycle repeats. Sadly the only way for things to quit cycling and for people/businesses to quit being dumbasses is to let money do what it is supposed to. Be a positive or negative motivator and let the idiots (all of them) go broke. Sadly we/Govt seems to be the biggest idiot in all of this and will eventually go broke with a bankrupt economy.

Something about this thread brings me comfort. All is right in the world.

I guess I'll skate out on the thin ice. As a fellow San Mateo county resident, I feel Benz Baron's pain. The biggest problem I see in California is the proposition system. This is where the voters can pass laws and allocate money, bypassing the state legislature. Prop 13 is one of many propositions that have berkleyed up the state, county and city revenue collection and spending. California may have enough money to solve the budget problems, but over half the state budget is allocated for specific programs that were voted in through the proposition system. Some programs have surpluses, but the money can't be spent elsewhere.

The proposition system was originally conceived as way to keep special interests from dominating the state gov't. It has now become a favorite tool special interests. If you can't get a majority of legislators on board with your crap, it can cheaper and faster to put a bunch emotional appeals out and get what you want that way. It also gives legislators a to get off the hook from making difficult decisions. In the most recent election I had 10 different ballot measures to decide on. Most of them were some narrow issue the legislature was elected to decide on. I vote no all state ballot measures even where I agree with them. I know I am not alone. I get frustrated with politicians and the governing process too. What I don't do is completely tie the hands of my legislators and then complain about how they don't do anything.

In reply to Type Q:

As I said, it all goes back to the populace voting themselves 'free' goodies with the complicity of the legislative bodies. In California's case when the chickens come home to roost the legislature can just say 'see, we didn't have a thing to do with it. Reelect us!'

MrJoshua wrote: The consequence to failure is failure. Top to bottom, bottom to top. Govt requires banks to give risky loans, bank gives out risky loans and resells as non risky, people go broke paying loans they cant afford, banks go broke, shareholders go broke, govt safety nets kick in for everybody and the cycle repeats. Sadly the only way for things to quit cycling and for people/businesses to quit being dumbasses is to let money do what it is supposed to. Be a positive or negative motivator and let the idiots (all of them) go broke. Sadly we/Govt seems to be the biggest idiot in all of this and will eventually go broke with a bankrupt economy.

Except in a complex economy like we have, "failure" doesn't mean that the person that made the bad decisions and poor investments loses money, it means that we the people and myriad others lose money while the person making the bad decisions walks away with a 10 million dollar bonus and a gold watch. That's what I mean that there are no consequences for failure. The actual cause of the failure does not suffer, we suffer. Thus, my position that some regulation is very good.

I agree it's dumb to bail out failed business when looking at it from a simplistic point of view. But if allowing the business to fail results in even worse outcomes, what's the answer? A simple "let it fail" isn't an answer, it's far more complex than that.

OK thanks for all the replies, I feel I'm not alone anymore.

I really enjoy some of the insights you folks offer, apparently I am a bit short sighted, never thought about higher incomes and deduction etc. I didn't realize california isn't that far out of line, except we have basically every tax imaginable so this extra sales tax got me a bit pissed off!

Now the big question is where this money is going to actually go, I know the bond measure will mostly be spent of schools, but I wonder how the legislature is going to divert funds out of proposition 30. I'd bet most of the money will go into bailing out PERS but I don't really know.

I think the real issue with proposition 13 is there are apartments/commercial building being taxed at 1970s prices, not so much single family dwellings. I hear rumors that the democratic supermajority in the state legislator is eyeing prop 13. We'll see what happen in the next 6 months.

Thanks for not letting this turn into a food fight, I know there might have been a few testy words but this topic seems to have been treated with respect and restraint.

There is far more danger in public than in private monopoly, for when Government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayers. Government never makes ends meetand that is the first requisite of business. (Thomas Alva Edison)

dculberson wrote: But if allowing the business to fail results in even worse outcomes, what's the answer? A simple "let it fail" isn't an answer, it's far more complex than that.

Complex problem has complex solution? Screw that, I'm going to listen to the guy who has a solution to everything and can fit it all in one Twitter post. That's as much mental effort as I want to expend on it.

racerfink wrote: So, Mguar gets to keep posting, even though he's floundered away on two pages?

I've been busy doing my real job, not babysitting.

He's gone now.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

racerfink wrote: So, Mguar gets to keep posting, even though he's floundered away on two pages?

I've been busy doing my real job, not babysitting. He's gone now. Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

racerfink wrote: So, Mguar gets to keep posting, even though he's floundered away on two pages?

I've been busy doing my real job, not babysitting. He's gone now. Margie

Sheesh. I drop one little comment about a mythical man in tights and everybody jumps on my E36 M3, yet here we are on page 3 of a discussion which, dare I say, borders on the (gasp!) political. I'm not complaining, mind you, but I do feel the sharp sting of discrimination.

You're still posting. That's more than all the players on this thread can say (after a little adjusting of the ban hammer, that is).

Margie