tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563950890480925834.post6872937224255423308..comments2023-11-11T21:49:27.597-08:00Comments on Woodland Shoppers Paradise: California Stressin'highway163http://www.blogger.com/profile/09874578884935438341noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563950890480925834.post-29633612553505791652009-05-23T21:37:22.048-07:002009-05-23T21:37:22.048-07:00Once more, I appreciate your time in posting this ...Once more, I appreciate your time in posting this reply. I only wish you had replied to what I <I>said</I>. <br /><br />I don't recall citing or implying a Marxian ideology in my last comment on this topic. Rather, I am fairly sure that I cited a specific and verifiable claim by an undisputed icon of the investor class that you appear to revere. And I see no evidence to contradict the basic claim: when one adds <I>all</I> taxes and fees - federal, state, sales, and otherwise - the working and middle class "invest" a higher percentage of their incomes in the running of our states and nation than do wealthy and leisure class folks. Dismissing the insights of Warren Buffett because he does not adhere to some bumper sticker quotation from Margaret Thatcher does no service to your argument, Jon. <br /><br />You may wish to lump opposing arguments into the all-purpose trash bin of socialism - the GOP hasn't produced much more than similar name calling silliness lately, by the way - and you may wish to demean working class folks for some propensity to spend their money on "packs of smokes" (not, you don't seem to imagine, on food, clothing, gasoline, health care, or rent). I simply do not share your caricatured view of the economy. <br /><br />I teach at a working class university. Many of my students hold down two or sometimes three jobs. A large number of them care for children or older dependents. And they do not benefit from the tax breaks and loopholes that Sacramento and Washington have assured the wealthy and leisure class. This is not theory to me; these are people and circumstances that I know. <br /><br />That's perhaps where we must depart on this topic, particularly if you limit the poles of this discussion to Stalin and Reagan. Otherwise, I hope you'll try again.<br /><br />I'm heading to LA for a couple days, so - at least for now - any reply you care to share will be the last word.highway163https://www.blogger.com/profile/09874578884935438341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563950890480925834.post-58243431120768770002009-05-23T17:38:47.500-07:002009-05-23T17:38:47.500-07:00Actually, Warren Buffet is a bleeding heart libera...Actually, Warren Buffet <I>is</I> a bleeding heart liberal. He can <I>afford</I> to be. As is my old boss Bill Gates. (and if you want to talk federal income taxes, the stats are definitely not on your side.)<br />The creation of wealth (versus the redistribution of it) is, in point of fact, the only engine that can drive an economy. <br />It is not strength, or even a function, of government to create wealth. As Lady Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."<br />Access to wealth only comes through "trickle down", but you can get poverty by "trickle up" if that is what you want.<br />If you cut the taxes on 10,000 poor guys by $100, they'll buy a few more six packs and a couple packs of smokes. If you cut the taxes on one small business by $1m, they'll be able to grow their business and hire more people.<br />And, to give those poor guys the $100 cut, you have to take the money from other people who worked to get it. <br /><br />For a variety of reasons, California has just lost the edge as being a place in which it is so attractive to do business that it is worth the regulatory and legislative burdens.<br /><br />This is the classic mistake in static analysis of an economy. <br />The plans just don't take into account that people will always respond in their best interest and that may not include just standing there and being bled white by taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. etc. <br /><br />BTW, I know quite a few people that would be considered "wealthy". I don't know any of them that are "non-working". In fact, I long ago abandon wealth as a goal simply because I'm not willing to work that hard. I choose a different balance. For those who choose differently, it is all still there to be had.<br /><br />Come on now. The young minds you mold deserve a better line of reasoning than "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs". <br /><br />;-) Love always, JonJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11638247256991934630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563950890480925834.post-13403085615372146772009-05-23T09:06:48.638-07:002009-05-23T09:06:48.638-07:00As ever, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. An...As ever, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. And you are correct in the majority of your thesis that much fraud, waste, and abuse remains to be wrung from the California budget. <br /><br />That said, I disagree with your notion that the poor "aren't paying the taxes." It's simply incorrect to assert that only the wealthy shoulder that burden. Every day, all Californians - unemployed, working class, middle class, and wealthy - pay sales tax and user fees (and believe me, the state government charges for pretty much everything). <br /><br />So if a member of "the poor" wants to purchase a Coke, he's gonna pay a tax. And if a member of "the poor" wants a driver's license, she's bound to pay. So everybody pays <I>something</I>. The issue then turns to percentages of income. Who pays more?<br /><br />I believe that working and middle class folks actually <I>pay</I> a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy in absolute dollars. And I'm not alone in that assertion. Not long ago, Warren Buffett, no bleeding-heart liberal, stated that he pays a lower rate of taxes in real dollars than his secretary. And he's right. California's sales and income-tax-based economy disproportionately sticks the bill to the working and middle class. So let's place that canard about the wealthy being the only engines that move the world back on the shelf with Ayn Rand's other oddities.<br /><br />Thereafter we can return to our point of agreement. Hard decisions about statewide priorities must be made. Personally, I think that we need to revisit Prop 13 and its shift from relatively stable (and local) property tax to relatively unstable (and Sacramento-based) income tax as a foundation of our revenue. We need to rethink that balance in a manner that doesn't return to the bad old days when little old ladies were being evicted from their bungalows because they couldn't pay their property taxes. Imagining a post-Prop 13 economy demands a much more broad-based and thoughtful process of deliberation than we've thus far seen in California.<br /><br />In that sense, we agree.highway163https://www.blogger.com/profile/09874578884935438341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563950890480925834.post-51567313344423413472009-05-23T00:27:32.686-07:002009-05-23T00:27:32.686-07:00First of all, it's hard to have a tax cut that ben...First of all, it's hard to have a tax cut that benefits the poor - because they aren't paying the taxes anyway. <br /><br />Through a combination of neglect, economic ignorance, and sometimes malfeasance, California has indeed managed to kill the goose that laid the golden state eggs. <br /><br />As California should have realized a decade ago when the flight from there began, and as New York state is just beginning to see, there is a limit to how much you can wring out of the productive sectors of society before they decide to go be productive somewhere else. There are precious few businesses in this day and age that are tied to specific geographies. <br /><br />I think voters are wise to think about the fact that even with "diminished" revenues of nearly $90b this fiscal year, the state has managed to spend all that and more. When voters say "stop, there is no more" the response is "OK, I guess we'll fire all the cops and let a bunch of felons out of prison". Of course. They couldn't possibly cut the $1.5m in waste from the California Avacodo Commission (that's just the waste mind you), or $1b in fraud in MediCal. <br /><br />The California state budget has increased 40% in about 4.5 years. <br />Has anyone's income gone up 40% in that time? No? Then just how is that supposed to work in a sustainable way? These are simple economic realities that cannot be papered over - even by a governor who is a cyborg.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11638247256991934630noreply@blogger.com