I balanced CA's budget...and you can too!
With a tip of the hat to Mark Kleiman, the Sacramento Bee offers you an opportunity to balance CA's budget.
I balanced CA's budget without cutting any social spending for poor and moderate income people, without hurting mentally ill people, and with no cuts in education, etc. I cut through prison reforms mentioned. I raised revenues without increasing the sales tax on anything, not even alcohol or cigarettes. I did agree with Brown's plan with regard to redevelopment agencies, whose time has passed. They are too often fonts of business leader corruption which require a different procedure to improve the infrastructure for communities.
The one thing the Sacramento Bee should have included, but didn't is to restore the top income tax rates from the Wilson administration (1990-1998) on the wealthiest 10%. Had this been included, I could have been more precise in cuts to redevelopment agencies, too.
The exercise proves again that CA's problems are structural and further prove one does not have to act punitively against the poor or further harm libraries or schools. One other thing people will notice is how little is saved by eliminating support for libraries, eliminating poor people's programs, and even juvenile justice programs. None of that surprised me, nor should it surprise those who have studied the costs of welfare programs. One thing that did surprise me: CalWORKS cost more than I thought, but I think that has been a function of high number undercounted unemployed in the State.
posted by Mitchell J. Freedman @ 6:44 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Mitch,
You solution to everything is raising taxes on whom you call "the rich" - who you claim are those making over $250,000. You live in San Diego, and should realize that does not get you very far in that part of the country.
In any event, revenue under your proposed plan will dry up as many Californians will just continue to flock to low tax states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. Many high tech Silicon Valley companies are already in the process of building new factories and shipping jobs out-of-state.
See here:http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html
We'll see. I've had the opportunity of getting to know corporate board members and working with CEOs in CA. What I learned is that it would take much, much more in taxes to make most of these mostly men move away, particularly as their wives and children strongly object to moving away, too.
People tend to leave CA in recessions in recent decades, but the story that is not often told is how some businesses that move come back. This is particularly true if they go to places such as the American Southeast or lower mid-west including Kentucky.
Does Arizona or Nevada gain from CA? Yes, the same way New Hampshire feeds off Massachusetts. I have never been impressed with New Hampshire the way the Cato Institute folks are because from what I see, NH has a parasitic economy that feeds off Massachusetts. This is definitely true with Nevada, which needs CA dollars to survive and thrive.
CA is also not a high tax state compared to its income or costs. And please know my family and I would be doing extremely well to make $250,000 a year, which is essentially double my gross income. When we were making $180K, we were saving $20-25K a year. People making over $250K who think as you are writing should try to make ends meet on a salary of $50K before they started the whine about taxes....Somehow I think they know the practical answer here...
So, tell me, though, what did you do to balance the budget, and what impact do you think your likely cuts will have on the lives of people who have less economic means than you or me?
"CA is also not a high tax state compared to its income or costs."
I do not even know what you mean by that. California has one of the highest marginal tax rates on personal income in the country. Because of the ridiculously high housing costs, it is difficult for people to own a nice home there, even making $250,000. It is virtually impossible for a middle class couple earning a combined income of $75,000 to $150,000 to own a single family detached home in a decent area, and still have enough left over to save and invest.
And Mitch wants to jack up the tax rates even further to pay off all the abusive public employee unions who are causing the fiscal crisis to begin with.
"So, tell me, though, what did you do to balance the budget, and what impact do you think your likely cuts will have on the lives of people who have less economic means than you or me?"
First, you tell me what impact you think your tax hikes and further deficit spending will have on the lives of people who are paying the taxes, and just getting by. And then let me know how many people you are willing to chase out of the state with all your taxes and regulations.
California is a dysfunctional State, a Poster Child for what happens when tax-and-spend Liberalism is allowed to run amok.
Hip,
I am "Shayna". Somehow my daughter's Google account was hit by mistake before I was able to change "identities." Sorry about that, my daughter, who doesn't know about this stuff...yet.
As for Hip, here is an article in the OC Register found with just a couple of clicks on the Internet:
"California's tax burden: Somewhat above average":
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/01/06/californias-tax-burden-somewhat-above-average/71814/
I will also tell set forth the impact of the balanced budget I propose will have on those who pay taxes: With respect to poor and middle class people (poor people pay at least sales taxes), there is no tax increase. They will pay the same taxes they paid in 2010. For businesses, property taxes would go up. For those making more than $250K, their taxes on the margin would go up, but they can easily afford it. Yet, there are no more cuts in things people use from government, i.e. education for their children, parks, libraries, mental health services, and other similar things.
And maintaining our education and other social services do well for the people of this State, and will be a net positive for CA's economy. This parade of horribles about chasing people out of the state is far more myth than fact. If the work goes anywhere, it goes off shore or is lost in automation, not as much for going to Texas, which if you haven't checked lately, has even worse budget problems without the social spending and regulations CA is always ripped for having.
Now, it's your turn, Hip. Act like an adult. Tell me what you'd cut and how you balance a budget. Enough of the rhetoric. Enough of theories.
"Act like an adult."
I sure the heck pay taxes like an adult.
I get there by firing one half of state workers, and for those remaining, having them pay for one half of their pension costs. Some other big ticket items:
*Eliminate all General Fund support for UC and CSU
*Reduce state aid to community colleges by $1 billion
*eliminate CalWORKS
*adopt Brown's plan on Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, and SSI-SSP
*Eliminate all subsidized child care except for pre-school
A couple of other points.
*Being a Libertarian, the Drug War must be ended. That will save billions in police, court, and prison costs. We could legalize marijuana and tax it. Force a showdown with the Feds.
*We also must reduce takeout across-the-board at all racetracks. The single biggest reason horse racing is not as popular as it was is because of the high takeout rate. Gamblers take their dollars elsewhere. Cut it in half (both for win place show betting, and exotics) and you will increase revenues to unheard of levels, as you will attract more simulcast wagering at California tracks from across the country.
See? Now we're talking policy. I am with you on the Drug War. Its effects have been nearly as pernicious, and sometimes worse than alcohol prohibition. Certainly, the criminalization of poor minority men is what is worse, and the building of more and more prisons.
I am also willing to lower barriers for people to gamble at horse tracks, though I wonder what that does to balance our state government budget.
I'll take a pass on decimating higher public education, completely gutting CalWORKS and child care after age 5.
I must ask, did you make the cuts in parks and libraries? Were you not struck by the small savings on a per capita basis for taxpayers for these vital, yet noneconomic functions of government?
I think parks and libraries should be funded at the local level. You do not need an income tax to pay for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home