What is a fair share

[SRW]

The rich are not paying their fair share.

I heard LT gov Bustamante say that he would raise the taxes on the top 4% of Californians. Now the tax is already progressive and the rich in California pay the higest state income taxes in the country. But apparently it is not enough.

Does it cost the state more to have rich people here? Are they a huge strain on our economy? What extra services do they need that makes it logical that they pay so much more money? Is that why two of my doctors have moved to Nevada in the past year?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by SRW
The rich are not paying their fair share.

I heard LT gov Bustamante say that he would raise the taxes on the top 4% of Californians. Now the tax is already progressive and the rich in California pay the higest state income taxes in the country. But apparently it is not enough.

Does it cost the state more to have rich people here? Are they a huge strain on our economy? What extra services do they need that makes it logical that they pay so much more money? Is that why two of my doctors have moved to Nevada in the past year?

Yeah, income tax is high in California. And property tax is very low compared to other states, which benefits the wealthy disproportionately. I have no idea why your doctors moved to Nevada, but unless you ask them you don't know either. Overall California is actually not a high tax state.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/082203.html

I'm not sure if Bustamante's suggestion is the best move. I personally think raising property taxes would probably be a better approach, though it might be hard to do politically. But be very warry when people claim that California is a high-tax state, because taxes take many more forms than just income tax. Just like Bush decieved people about how tilted his tax cuts were towards the extremely rich by only talking about income tax cuts, pretending his estate tax cut didn't exist.

[corplinx]

A fair share could only be devised by dividing the state budget between each Californian equally.

However, that would never fly.

The second fairest thing would be to tax income at the payroll level by a set amount. However, this would be declared unfair for some reason beyond me.

So you throw in a "progressive" to make things "fair". But even this isn't fair enough apparently.

I think the meaning of the word fair has been butchered to death in California. They really need to increase the sales tax since unlike the income tax, _Everyone_ pays a sales tax.

And no, I don't buy arguements about a sales tax being regressive.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yeah, income tax is high in California. And property tax is very low compared to other states, which benefits the wealthy disproportionately. I have no idea why your doctors moved to Nevada, but unless you ask them you don't know either. Overall California is actually not a high tax state.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/082203.html

I'm not sure if Bustamante's suggestion is the best move. I personally think raising property taxes would probably be a better approach, though it might be hard to do politically. But be very warry when people claim that California is a high-tax state, because taxes take many more forms than just income tax. Just like Bush decieved people about how tilted his tax cuts were towards the extremely rich by only talking about income tax cuts, pretending his estate tax cut didn't exist.


California ranks 8th over all in total tax.

Tax by state (http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxburdens.html)

It is also progressily high with the rich paying a higher percent. And the majority of people in California benifit from Prop 13 not just the rich. And it would be political suside to try to change it.

I cannot ask my doctors they have left alread. Along with a whole lot of others.

[Suddenly]

The primary duty of government is to protect persons and their property. The rich pretty much by definition have more property.

[EvilYeti]

I think a progressive property tax (hell, even one that started at a million dollars) would be huge boon for the California budget. Unless you live in CA I don't think you have any idea how many expensive homes are around here.

I have a wealthy friend that owns several million-dollar-plus properties and he pays less tax on all of them together then he did on his home in NJ. Its no wonder the state is broke.

As always, I don't understand the problem about soaking the rich, they can afford it. Its kind of hard for me to feel sorry for people with million dollar beach homes, 5 sports cars, etc. They aint gonna leave the state over property taxes, cause every place else already has high ones.

I'm hoping that high property taxes might drive down the price of starter homes somewhat, but I don't know if thats the case. I'm turning 30 next week and probably will never be a homeowner unless something drastic happens. :(

[corplinx]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
As always, I don't understand the problem about soaking the rich, they can afford it. Its kind of hard for me to feel sorry for people with million dollar beach homes, 5 sports cars, etc. They aint gonna leave the state over property taxes, cause every place else already has high ones.


Its not an issue of "they can afford it". Its an issue of justice, blind treatment, and other ideals this country is supposed to uphold.

Personally, I think property taxes are the worst sort of invasion of your privacy. Is it any business of the government how many rooms your house has, how many sq. ft, how big the lot is?

Property taxes create government jobs. These taxes put government in the business of estimating how much your property is worth.

Here in TN, we have no state income tax or property tax. We have a sales tax. Everybody in the state including illegals (yes, very many of these, they keep housing cheap and are good for the economy) and drug dealers pay the sales tax. Its a very low overhead tax and doesnt create a quagmire of government branches for oversight and prosecution.

Even my brother who is a flooring subcontractor and hasn't paid income or property taxes in 12 years pays the sales tax.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

Its not an issue of "they can afford it". Its an issue of justice, blind treatment, and other ideals this country is supposed to uphold.


Oh yes, those poor opressed millionaires. They only have the two beach houses and the conda in Aspen, however shall they make their ends meet? As it is they can barely afford the gas for their Humvee. If you are interested in justice and blind treatment, I can think of a couple million things that should be a higher priority for you then protecting billionaires from property assessment.


Personally, I think property taxes are the worst sort of invasion of your privacy. Is it any business of the government how many rooms your house has, how many sq. ft, how big the lot is?


1. You don't have any privacy anyway. Get over it.

2. I can think of many worse invasions of privacy, some of which involve rubber gloves and lots of lubricant.


Property taxes create government jobs. These taxes put government in the business of estimating how much your property is worth.


Hey, guess what dood, you have to get your propery assessed if you have mortgage here anyway. So its the Gummint instead of bank, whats the big deal? Why arent you complaining about the banks assessing property?


Here in TN, we have no state income tax or property tax. We have a sales tax. Everybody in the state including illegals (yes, very many of these, they keep housing cheap and are good for the economy) and drug dealers pay the sales tax. Its a very low overhead tax and doesnt create a quagmire of government branches for oversight and prosecution.


You also have alot of trailer parks. Califorina has a budget crisis and piles of million dollar homes. Don't even bring illegals into the mix because YOU HAVE NO IDEA. Most of the So. Cal. economy revolves around them.

I agree about the sales tax, but we have one too. Most states do, whats your point? We also have income tax and we are still bankrupt.


Even my brother who is a flooring subcontractor and hasn't paid income or property taxes in 12 years pays the sales tax.

Again I don't know what your point is, we have a sales tax.

[Underemployed]

Evil Yeti, I hear ya. In most places in the UK (places where people actually want to live at any rate) young people , even those earning above median income, cannot afford a house. Or a flat.

Instead of property taxes we have a pernicious hangover from the past which is now called Council tax. Under this ultra-fair system, you pay purely the pre-determined rate (based on the value of yor property). The most you can possibly pay on a property in my area is £2326.12.

Yes it is 'fair' in the sense that everyone with a house worth over a certain amount pays the same.

Corplinx said:

Personally, I think property taxes are the worst sort of invasion of your privacy. Is it any business of the government how many rooms your house has, how many sq. ft, how big the lot is?

Land being what makes up the country, it is exactly the business of government to know the size and use of your property. Do you think it is nobodies business if you buy a house and turn it into a commercial incinerator? Besides, do you think you could hide the amount of square feet your property has from somebody?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Here in TN, we have no state income tax or property tax.

This is only partially true. I own a home in TN. I DO pay a state property tax. It is included in my mortgage.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Instead of property taxes we have a pernicious hangover from the past which is now called Council tax. Under this ultra-fair system, you pay purely the pre-determined rate (based on the value of yor property). The most you can possibly pay on a property in my area is £2326.12.

Yes it is 'fair' in the sense that everyone with a house worth over a certain amount pays the same. Any comments on this? (http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/servicetax/servicetax.html) (though if you live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, it's even less likely to happen there than it is here)

P.S. Yes, Scotland does have a socialist party; no, it's not socialist only in name llike the Labour party; and yes, they are something approaching a credible political force up here. We're just a bunch of pinkoes deep down.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mendor
Any comments on this? (http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/servicetax/servicetax.html) (though if you live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, it's even less likely to happen there than it is here)

P.S. Yes, Scotland does have a socialist party; no, it's not socialist only in name llike the Labour party; and yes, they are something approaching a credible political force up here. We're just a bunch of pinkoes deep down.

You'd be amazed how many trade union leaders have Scottish accents in Australia.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You'd be amazed how many trade union leaders have Scottish accents in Australia.

Of course, the fear of a Flying Kilted Headbutt can go a long way towards a favorable outcome.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


This is only partially true. I own a home in TN. I DO pay a state property tax. It is included in my mortgage.

I own two houses in TN and they pay property taxes for the county they reside in. I do not pay a state property tax though.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Oh yes, those poor opressed millionaires. They only have the two beach houses and the conda in Aspen, however shall they make their ends meet? As it is they can barely afford the gas for their Humvee. If you are interested in justice and blind treatment, I can think of a couple million things that should be a higher priority for you then protecting billionaires from property assessment.

You have fallen into the trap. Its none of your business how much they make or what impact the tax has on them. Its none of you or my business if an increased property tax means they have to switch from 20's to 10 dollar bills for lighting their cigars with.

You really should try some critical thinking sometime.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

You have fallen into the trap. Its none of your business how much they make or what impact the tax has on them. Its none of you or my business if an increased property tax means they have to switch from 20's to 10 dollar bills for lighting their cigars with.


Then its none of the governments business to know how much money I make. They should take my word that I only make eleven dollars a week.

I don't know what you are complaining about, whether its property tax, progressive tax, invasion of privacy or what.

Raising property taxes in CA would affect all home owners, rich and less rich alike. The point is we are in a budget crisis and something needs to be done, and soon. Otherwise all those illegal immigrants are going to lose their free benefits! :)


You really should try some critical thinking sometime.

Whatever. Say hi to Elvis for me.

[Jessica Blue]

Its not an issue of "they can afford it". Its an issue of justice, blind treatment, and other ideals this country is supposed to uphold.

What ideals are those? Protecting the interests of the rich so they get even fatter and richer? The poor have interests too...and society should consider those as well. Why should only the needs and wants of the wealthy count?

I don't see any shocking unfairness with scaled taxation. Rich people can well afford to pay more tax and still be fatter and richer than most other people.

"Justice"? Don't make me laugh.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


What ideals are those? Protecting the interests of the rich so they get even fatter and richer? The poor have interests too...and society should consider those as well. Why should only the needs and wants of the wealthy count?

I don't see any shocking unfairness with scaled taxation. Rich people can well afford to pay more tax and still be fatter and richer than most other people.

"Justice"? Don't make me laugh.

At what point does it become unfair? Sure a progressive tax is logical and rich people should pay more. Everyone pays taxes to help pay for government, which is for the common good. But rich people do not take up more space than the rest of us. They do not cost the government more to maintain.

Also a majority of people that we call rich (the top 4%) are small business owners.

Raise their taxes too much and they will respond by raising the price of the goods and services they provide, laying off workers or as has been happening here in CA, leaving for other states. All of which reduces the money coming into the state, which responds by raising the taxes of the rich.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by SRW

At what point does it become unfair? Sure a progressive tax is logical and rich people should pay more. Everyone pays taxes to help pay for government, which is for the common good. But rich people do not take up more space than the rest of us. They do not cost the government more to maintain.


This statement is self-contradictory. You are saying its fair for the rich to pay more income tax but not pay more property tax.

I think its unfair that rich and poor alike pay the same amount of property tax. I don't even care if the property tax is progressive, but it should take into consideration the value of the home.

[SRW]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


This statement is self-contradictory. You are saying its fair for the rich to pay more income tax but not pay more property tax.

I think its unfair that rich and poor alike pay the same amount of property tax. I don't even care if the property tax is progressive, but it should take into consideration the value of the home.

I never said that it was unfair for anybody to pay property tax, I said that it would be political suicide for for anyone to try to repeal prop 13. The only person that is currently advocating changing it is the GOV Light. Who said we should change it for businesses. A great Idea right now in light of the current economy, yes lets drive more business out of CA.

Prop 13 is unfair, in that I purchased my house in 86 and pay significantly less property tax then my next door neighbor who moved in last year. We are both what you would call middle class but I will pay $1,700 on my house and he will pay $4,500 for his.

When Prop 13 came into being the big argument was that many elderly people on fixed incomes were loosing their houses, because they could not pay the taxes. If anyone tries to change it well they will trot out those same people to justify keeping it.

[peptoabysmal]

In California, the government steals a lot of private land from lower income individuals under imminent domain laws using entities called "redevelopment agencies", then turn around and sell the land to developers for huge profits. It has happened not too far down the road from me, to an old family friend of ours. The land is now being developed into a real upscale golf course with a housing development sporting houses in the 1/2 to 1 million dollar range. They'd be cutting their own throats to raise property taxes.

Please vote these Democrat thugs out of office, my fellow Californians :mad:

[Tormac]

Forgive a bit of topic drift, but I have a related question.

Mostly for Yeti, but open to all.

Is ther a place where progressive tax is "unfair", where the tax rate is just plain too high, even for Bill Gates?

Is an 80% tax rate ok? 90%, 99%, 100%?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by SRW


But rich people do not take up more space than the rest of us. They do not cost the government more to maintain.



Says who? I think your limiting the view of what makes up public services. Its not just fire and police. Think of what rich guy is accessing. Security and Exchange Commission for his stocks and bonds? Or the FAA and govt airports for all his business, the courts for all his probate and civil litigation needs, the banking system, the infrastructer that moves his companies goods, and so on and so on.

Is rich guy not getting his monies worth?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy


Says who? I think your limiting the view of what makes up public services. Its not just fire and police. Think of what rich guy is accessing. Security and Exchange Commission for his stocks and bonds? Or the FAA and govt airports for all his business, the courts for all his probate and civil litigation needs, the banking system, the infrastructer that moves his companies goods, and so on and so on.

Is rich guy not getting his monies worth?


What do you consiter rich? The top 4% starts at $160,000 per year. You are thinking of the top 10% of that 4%.

[Tmy]

Rich?? It depends. I normally wouldnt consider 160 a year to be poor, then again the guy may live on Nantucket and have 3 special needs kids at home.

Im not saying tax the rich 100% but I do think its OK for people who make more to pay more.

Theres a point were you hit that level of your neccescities are taken care of and the rest is gravy. Not that all the money should go to the govt, but does it really "hurt" to tax some of that.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tormac
Forgive a bit of topic drift, but I have a related question.

Mostly for Yeti, but open to all.

Is ther a place where progressive tax is "unfair", where the tax rate is just plain too high, even for Bill Gates?

Is an 80% tax rate ok? 90%, 99%, 100%?

Well, a 100% tax is pretty steep. But considering how much damage Bill's crappy software has done to the economy, I would consider that a fair.

Actually, if you are asking me, I have a radically different tax plan. Tax unhealthy lifestyles extra. Tax fast food. Tax soda pop. Legalize drugs and tax the hell out of them. Tax beer... tax bullets.. tax porno movies... tax purple running lights!

The worse something is for society, the more it gets taxed. Tax telephone psychic hotlines.. tax fruit stripe gum... tax eminem albums...

[Tmy]

The PATENT office!! THeres another govt service used by the rich. How many patents does Bill Gates have. Damn billionaires eating up all th govt services!

[SRW]

Originally posted by EvilYeti



Actually, if you are asking me, I have a radically different tax plan. Tax unhealthy lifestyles extra. Tax fast food. Tax soda pop. Legalize drugs and tax the hell out of them. Tax beer... tax bullets.. tax porno movies... tax purple running lights!

The worse something is for society, the more it gets taxed. Tax telephone psychic hotlines.. tax fruit stripe gum... tax eminem albums...

I like this Idea, which is why they should legelize pot, so it and the wealthy pot growers can be taxed.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by SRW


I like this Idea, which is why they should legelize pot, so it and the wealthy pot growers can be taxed.

I wish a still had the calculations, I once figured out that if pot was legalized, regulated and stiffly taxed in CA is would cover about 40% of the budget deficiet. This is assuming the money currently spent on interdiction and incarceration would instead be spent on regulating the industry.

It would also be a big boon for tourism and the cheesy poof industry.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Actually, if you are asking me, I have a radically different tax plan. Tax unhealthy lifestyles extra. Tax fast food. Tax soda pop. Legalize drugs and tax the hell out of them. Tax beer... tax bullets.. tax porno movies... tax purple running lights!

The worse something is for society, the more it gets taxed. Tax telephone psychic hotlines.. tax fruit stripe gum... tax eminem albums...

Ok, I'll ask it... Who decides what is worse for the economy? What puts purple running lights on par with drugs? What is so unhealthy about pop? Etc...

[DaChew]

Tax beer

I thought it already is taxed and didn't I read somewhere recently that beer and wine can be good for you?

tax bullets

My use of bullets has been quite healthy.

tax porno movies

Porno movies are unhealthy?
:eek:

tax purple running lights

Isn't that what a ticket is?

[SRW]

The real problem with the "Sin Tax" is that it drives the economy underground. If you start taxing cigarettes too much then people will quit or start purchasing them on the black market.

I have heard advertisement on the radio for Tax free Indian cigarettes.

A few year ago there was a luxury tax on cars over $30,000, boats ETC. This caused a rash of cars to come out at 29,999, and a boom in the Mexican boat business.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by SRW
The real problem with the "Sin Tax" is that it drives the economy underground. If you start taxing cigarettes too much then people will quit or start purchasing them on the black market.


If most people bought black market cigarrretes, brewed their own beer and made bathtub gin I would agree with you.

We do tax these items, fairly stiffly in some cases and people will still pay.

I see no reason marijuanna would be any different.

[SRW]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If most people bought black market cigarrretes, brewed their own beer and made bathtub gin I would agree with you.

We do tax these items, fairly stiffly in some cases and people will still pay.

I see no reason marijuanna would be any different.

I agree, but there is already a large black market on Cigarretes, and as the price goes closer to $5.00 a pack that will only go up. Pot is already underground, and people will not pay for legal pot if it is taxed too much. (If it is cheeper to purchase underground).

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by SRW


I agree, but there is already a large black market on Cigarretes, and as the price goes closer to $5.00 a pack that will only go up. Pot is already underground, and people will not pay for legal pot if it is taxed too much. (If it is cheeper to purchase underground).

Yes people will always purchase stuff on the black market. I've seen more than one person smuggle cigs across the border from Tijuanna, so I'm aware it happens. I've also seen 1000X more just buy them at the 7-11 and pay more, as its more convienient. People are lazy.

Currently NO marijuanna is taxed, at all, so its totally black market. Move it above board and you are looking at literally billions of dollars in revenue for the state, even if some the business stays underground. Most people are just not going to go to the extra trouble and risk.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


What ideals are those? Protecting the interests of the rich so they get even fatter and richer? The poor have interests too...and society should consider those as well. Why should only the needs and wants of the wealthy count?

I don't see any shocking unfairness with scaled taxation. Rich people can well afford to pay more tax and still be fatter and richer than most other people.

"Justice"? Don't make me laugh.

I don't think the state should be in the business of deciding how much of your own money you should be allowed to keep. The more out of our lives and the more out of our pockets the state is, the better it would be for all of us. The government should not be in the business of the redistribution of income or instituting economic "justice". It should not even be in a position to know how much money you make or have. Government involvment has been the greatest contributor to the fundamental inequities in our society. Government takes care of itself and of its friends and has forever leaving the little guy out of the equation. You are delusional if you think big government is a friend in any way shape or form to the little guy.

[Jessica Blue]

Well I guess I don't have your deeply rooted fear and cynicism of all government billydkid. It's up to us to keep governments accountable, through transparency, open discussion, an independent media and ultimately the ballot box. Yes, there is much amiss about this modern democracy but shrinking government wont solve corruption...we should demand more of our governments, not less.

For me, it all depends on what sort of society you want to live in. Whether you want to live in a place where there are decent services for all citizens, a welfare safety net and access to basics like good education and healthcare...and only government can achieve this for us. Or...

If you want to live in a highly competative, small government world where the poor must rely on selective charity to survive, where there are great divisions based on wealth, a tiered health and education system which provides great services for the rich and leftovers for the poor.


Government involvment has been the greatest contributor to the fundamental inequities in our society.

Just turn back the clock to the small government of the 19th century and see how "equal" we were. Left to its own rules, a capitalist society will be anything but fair. That's already been proven.

Who is a friend of the little guy billydkid? Laissez faire capitalism? Business? Benelovent rich people? No regulations...?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by SRW
The real problem with the "Sin Tax" is that it drives the economy underground. If you start taxing cigarettes too much then people will quit or start purchasing them on the black market.

I have heard advertisement on the radio for Tax free Indian cigarettes.

A few year ago there was a luxury tax on cars over $30,000, boats ETC. This caused a rash of cars to come out at 29,999, and a boom in the Mexican boat business.

Every chance I get, I run over to Nevada to get a couple of cartons of cigs.

[Agammamon]

A fair share is:

If I've got a lot, what the guy below is paying.
If I've got a little, its only fair the above guy pay my way.