California Wealth Tax Proposal

[melanko]

Interesting read that my boss sent me. If you live in the United States and reside in California, you should read this:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23538.html

[Stuie]

Haven't we learned that taxing the rich isn't the answer to the problem...it's firing all the people spending it.

[melanko]

I am no where near the income bracket specified in this proposal, but the people that make this amount of money yearly, well, spend it... which is good for the economy. Less spending by the wealthy impedes commerce and would lead to a mass exodus to neighboring states before they get taxed out their asses, which would be great for other states.

Like I said, I don't make nearly enough money to qualify for any of this, and I think to myself, "They're all frikken filthy rich, let them pay off the state deficit." But in the end I only see more bad things happening than good.

If this proposal became real though, how do you think you would vote? Edited August 27, 2008 by melanko

[Codename067]

Good, nothing I should worry about

[flick92]

Income tax for the wealthy is a joke. Most wealthy households usually get there from successful business and with this knowledge they know to do as much charitable spending and find every way possible to write something off come tax season. Thus paying less income tax. Instead we should put a higher tax on the higher dollar amount purchases such as $100,000 cars, the mansions they reside in, and anything else they throw there money at.

[MechAnt]

Here's the deal:

The top 5% of earners in the US pay over 80% of all tax revenue. Keep in mind, this is classifies everyone that makes over $100,000 a year. Take a high school teacher with a masters degree and a firefighter that are married. Their combined salary is already nearly $120,000 a year. Two modest livings already push them into the highest tax bracket in the United States. By increasing the "tax on the rich" we are putting more stress on the middle class who could very well happen to be a teacher and a firefighter. Raising taxes hurts the majority of people.

Putting in a "Luxury Tax" as flick suggested would drastically hurt those it is trying to help. Those that can afford things such as cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or yachts will see that tax on items they want and hell, they'd go elsewhere to get them. By doing that, they cut the income that the companies and retailers that make and sell these expensive items. To cut costs, they will cut wages and even layoff workers. It WILL hurt anyone involved. This is proven by the Luxury Tax of the early nineties that the first George Bush put into place. Talk about an epic fail.

There are more efficient and effective ways of dealing with this and taxing only the rich IS NOT the solution. This is, if anything, a Socialist or Communist mentality to take from hard earners and "even out the playing field". There are better ways. The ways, I have not educated myself in what they are yet but people know. This will not fly.

[TheScotsman]

How about we toss out the politicians that stump on a "spending plan" and get some in office that know how to not piss money away on every stupid program and entitlement that blows by? How about a balanced budget amendment on both national and state levels, line item vetos, one topic bills and voter approval of any state program spending more than .5% of their budget?

In cali's case, just getting all the illegals off the dole, and out of public funded programs would put more money in the coffers than both a lux tax, and a "tax surcharge". (Jesus-Christ-on-a-bicycle.... adding a surcharge to a tax????? that's taxing a tax, and giving it a new name.

Besides it will do little more than send a few of the biggest earners to another state, and create a whole new industry of creating tax shelters. I don't think people making a 7 figure GYI are not smart enough to find ways to protect their money from theft-by-gov't-redistribution.

It's time for gov't to quit spending.

[gaia.plateau]

Improve. Public. Education.

Recession solved.

[melanko]

Improve. Public. Education.

Recession solved.

I'd have to agree with that. I cannot understand how something so fundamental can be so ignored.

[Bulldog_916]

I dont agree with taxing the rich so much that they dont spend, but I do agree they have to pay an amount higher than we, on the lower level, do. There are things that government should rightly spend on, such as education, health care, defense, infrastructure, vets' programs and energy. There are things that government should stop spending on as well, such as pet projects that dont benefit the community they are intended to be in, spending on foreign bribery, and spending on some "drug war" programs.

[TheScotsman]

I dont agree with taxing the rich so much that they dont spend, but I do agree they have to pay an amount higher than we, on the lower level, do. There are things that government should rightly spend on, such as education, health care, defense, infrastructure, vets' programs and energy. There are things that government should stop spending on as well, such as pet projects that dont benefit the community they are intended to be in, spending on foreign bribery, and spending on some "drug war" programs.

Show me, where in the constitution these duties are stated.
Without some silly reading between lines, I mean actual statements these are federal duties.

These are states obligations, not the feds. Much of the mess we find ourselves in is a result of the feds sticking their noses into exactly these problems. If these entitlements were all handled at a state, or local level the needs could be better tailored to the people, in the end operating at a much higher efficiency than the federal mandates we find ourselves dealing with now.

[Bulldog_916]

I dare you to find a single private company that would repair our roads at their expense. I dare you to find a corporation that will pay for education at no cost to us. I dare you to find a company that will pay for veterans' care without substantial cost to the veteran. You wont find any. Good luck though.

We need the taxation in order to have these services available to us. It isnt in the constitution. But at the same time, we wouldnt be one of the best nations in the world if we didnt count on government to help us in these critical ways.

Where in that whole statement did you find me saying that the feds should be the only ones paying for all of this?

[NickReppinThe909]

yet another reason for me and my family to fucking hate california. but luckily there isnt a chance in hell this will ever pass. there already is luxury taxes on cars when my dad bought his 430 there was a $2800 luxury tax and some bullshit $8600 "gas guzzler" tax (i dont give a flying fuck about the enviroment to be honest. i think "global warming" is just another bullshit story the govt. has made)

[gaia.plateau]

Show me, where in the constitution these duties are stated.
Without some silly reading between lines, I mean actual statements these are federal duties.

You're anti-gun control, right? Show us, where in the constitution it's stated that citizens have the right to privately possess guns for personal reasons. (Without some silly reading between the lines, such as interpreting the right to bear arms in organized militia groups, in the context of necessity against a tyrannical government).

Nowhere in your constitution or ours does it state the necessity for equality, or the taking care of our poor, or the necessary public education of the young, or healing the sick and injured. That's because they were written over 300 and 200 years ago, and based off of documents written over 500 years ago. They didn't have plumbing, or electricity, or the philosophical understanding of what freedom really means, such as that given to us by Russo and his contemporaries.

As we've developed as free nations, we've learned that social equality is just as important as political equality; it's not enough to be free from political oppression, we need to be free from socioeconomic oppression as well. So it is the duty of a liberal democratic government to ensure that its citizens are just as safe from disease and injury as they are from violent crime, that they are just as free from social bigotry, intolerance and oppression as they are from political tyranny, and to ensure that through education all citizens have equal opportunity for socioeconomic and political success. Without these protections, any liberal democratic state is doomed to fail (see United States economic recession, 2008).

[NickReppinThe909]

Show me, where in the constitution these duties are stated.
Without some silly reading between lines, I mean actual statements these are federal duties.

You're anti-gun control, right? Show us, where in the constitution it's stated that citizens have the right to privately possess guns for personal reasons. (Without some silly reading between the lines, such as interpreting the right to bear arms in organized militia groups, in the context of necessity against a tyrannical government).

Nowhere in your constitution or ours does it state the necessity for equality, or the taking care of our poor, or the necessary public education of the young, or healing the sick and injured. That's because they were written over 300 and 200 years ago, and based off of documents written over 500 years ago. They didn't have plumbing, or electricity, or the philosophical understanding of what freedom really means, such as that given to us by Russo and his contemporaries.

As we've developed as free nations, we've learned that social equality is just as important as political equality; it's not enough to be free from political oppression, we need to be free from socioeconomic oppression as well. So it is the duty of a liberal democratic government to ensure that its citizens are just as safe from disease and injury as they are from violent crime, that they are just as free from social bigotry, intolerance and oppression as they are from political tyranny, and to ensure that through education all citizens have equal opportunity for socioeconomic and political success. Without these protections, any liberal democratic state is doomed to fail (see United States economic recession, 2008).

isn't every govt. tyrannical to some extent ? some more than others but anybody running anything and essentially "controlling" people is in one form or another a tyrant whether it be bush or the owner of a mom and pop shop with multiple employees

[gaia.plateau]

In a democracy, which in the words of Winston Churchill is "the worst form of government possible... except for all the others", the citizenry holds all the power, or at least should. When that stops happening, you're no longer living in a democracy.

[TheScotsman]

Show me, where in the constitution these duties are stated.
Without some silly reading between lines, I mean actual statements these are federal duties.

You're anti-gun control, right? Show us, where in the constitution it's stated that citizens have the right to privately possess guns for personal reasons. (Without some silly reading between the lines, such as interpreting the right to bear arms in organized militia groups, in the context of necessity against a tyrannical government).

Nowhere in your constitution or ours does it state the necessity for equality, or the taking care of our poor, or the necessary public education of the young, or healing the sick and injured. That's because they were written over 300 and 200 years ago, and based off of documents written over 500 years ago. They didn't have plumbing, or electricity, or the philosophical understanding of what freedom really means, such as that given to us by Russo and his contemporaries.

As we've developed as free nations, we've learned that social equality is just as important as political equality; it's not enough to be free from political oppression, we need to be free from socioeconomic oppression as well. So it is the duty of a liberal democratic government to ensure that its citizens are just as safe from disease and injury as they are from violent crime, that they are just as free from social bigotry, intolerance and oppression as they are from political tyranny, and to ensure that through education all citizens have equal opportunity for socioeconomic and political success. Without these protections, any liberal democratic state is doomed to fail (see United States economic recession, 2008).

Damn, Gaia, where have you been, hiding under some lumberjack?
Rather than me type for some long post no one would read, just go look up the decision in {Dist of Columbia et al. Vs. Heller} But just to save you some googling, here is the basic tenant of the court....
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

...3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights...



I Don't have to read between the lines, it seems the one constitutionally recognized authority on the subject did that for me, and well, seems to disagree with the premises that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with a militia. Or are you telling me that the Supreme court has no power to decide matters of constitutionality? If that is your premises, then you are wrong. It would further seem that with this same decision, the court has placed a major limit as to the scope of the anti-2nd people's ability to "read between the lines" as you seem to be doing. The court gave us the following guideline for any further interpretation of any part of the constitution in stating:

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used intheir normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

(underline is mine)



You said what about reading between what lines? I read it for what it said... it would appear anyone calling it a "collective" right was the one reading between the lines.

As to your second point about equality, Lets look at the 18th amdmt. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" Sounds like equality to me.

Healthcare is not the duty of the gov't, well, unless you want a going-broke screwed up system like Canada, UK, and France. Public education is a joke, just look at the scores from US students vs. well, about anyone... that aside, papers left by the original writers of the constitution (Jefferson to me more precise) outlined a system of public education. While not a delineated national power, it was assumed the individual states would operate their own education systems. Then, as today, what works in one place may not work in another. (and why we need school of choice, with a voucher system)

If you want a gov't that keeps you safe from injury, go have some bureaucrat buy you a helmet, and a dust mask... hell, get them to hire you a driver, and sharpen your pencils, after all, you may hurt yourself! Good gawd, liberals need to take some responsibility for their own actions, and well-being before their euphorianistic world collapses under it's own financial weight, and leaves them living in a bubble. Life is a chain of many risks, learn to enjoy them, because they are not going away... no matter what the gov't says. And if the USA continues on it's liberal track, it will deservingly fail.
[size="3"][/size]

[gaia.plateau]

Damn, Gaia, where have you been, hiding under some lumberjack?
Rather than me type for some long post no one would read, just go look up the decision in {Dist of Columbia et al. Vs. Heller} But just to save you some googling, here is the basic tenant of the court....

So you copy+pasted some long post no one would read? And I was hiding under some moose, lumberjacks just don't provide adequate shade.

But thank you for simultaneously missing, and making my point for me

You posted an interpretation of the constitution as a justification for your position, directly after demanding an explicit citation of the constitution itself from someone else, to justify theirs.

Ba-Dum-Tish.

[Brownman18]

well the problem lies in the fact that the government was kinda put in place to make sure the corporations wouldn't bend everyone over too much and screw them just to get a tad richer.


I think the inherent problem is that when the corporations and the government often have the same financial interests, well that just seems pretty fucked up.


It's all in loyalties, and people are only loyal in todays world to money and they will do almost anything for it, even write off all those humans working down the street because an automated system is cheaper. (My buddy's dad is in the oil business, automated gas stations are not too far away )


and were does that leave every other human......... who isn't so blessed to be on the top of the financial pyramid, i guess its not all bad afterall alot of free time on their hands would be wonderful.............. but in the financial world that usually means your ass goes broke which isn't much fun at all.


Better education would probably be a good start but the whole problem defined above makes it very hard to fix, since if i was a business mogul i wouldn't want everybody to be as smart as i was cuz then it sure would be alot harder to in rich myself. Even playing fields are often bad, everybody wants an absolute advantage and education is that asset.