So Oregon has it in for private industry, and the public there is complicite in their destruction. That's alright, Oregon industry... If you want to move your business, I hear Texas is still pro-Capitalism!
I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
January 27, 2010
January 16, 2010
We Couldn't Afford it Before... How can we Now?
California's government has been generous to the poor. So generous, in fact, that being poor isn't stigmatized as much anymore unless one is also homeless, because being poor doesn't limit one's ability to still be able to live a full life. The enabling of the poor to continue to be so stifles their initiative because there is no need to be productive when the government will provide for you. That's another story, though.
California's government has also allowed for those who are poor to be able to be provided for as if they were not so. Providing preventative health care for those who can't otherwise afford it through their means alone is all well and good, if they are poor but working. Subsidizing health insurance for those who CHOOSE to obtain preventative medicine is noble, but mandating that every citizen obtain preventative medical insurance, fining those who CHOOSE not to, taxing federally those who CHOOSE to provide more for themselves and their families because they have the means to do so, and increasing the fiscal burden for the states that have chosen to do the "right thing" all along is not only wrong, it will have a very hard time standing up to Constitutional scrutiny.
This brings me to the core of this post. Today's SJ Mercury News contains an article detailing some very good points concerning the costs to the State should the rumored contents of the current bills in Congress pass. California can barely afford to maintain its current fiscal load for health care under Medi-Cal. If the State's projected budget deficit grows past the $20B the budget offices have published for 2011-2012 California won't be able to afford the increased burden the Federal government is looking to impose on ALL of the states. One thing that isn't being very well covered by the mass majority of the media outlets is that the Federal solution (read: swatting a fly with a shotgun) is to build up funding for the intended reform by taxing first, spending later. This translates into increased taxes for individuals, businesses who provided their employees' health insurance, and the states NOW, without benefits enacted by the reform coming into effect until 2013. If California is forced to pay now for services that aren't to be rendered until after California's coffers run out there won't be services to render!
Sounds like fun, huh?
California's government has also allowed for those who are poor to be able to be provided for as if they were not so. Providing preventative health care for those who can't otherwise afford it through their means alone is all well and good, if they are poor but working. Subsidizing health insurance for those who CHOOSE to obtain preventative medicine is noble, but mandating that every citizen obtain preventative medical insurance, fining those who CHOOSE not to, taxing federally those who CHOOSE to provide more for themselves and their families because they have the means to do so, and increasing the fiscal burden for the states that have chosen to do the "right thing" all along is not only wrong, it will have a very hard time standing up to Constitutional scrutiny.
This brings me to the core of this post. Today's SJ Mercury News contains an article detailing some very good points concerning the costs to the State should the rumored contents of the current bills in Congress pass. California can barely afford to maintain its current fiscal load for health care under Medi-Cal. If the State's projected budget deficit grows past the $20B the budget offices have published for 2011-2012 California won't be able to afford the increased burden the Federal government is looking to impose on ALL of the states. One thing that isn't being very well covered by the mass majority of the media outlets is that the Federal solution (read: swatting a fly with a shotgun) is to build up funding for the intended reform by taxing first, spending later. This translates into increased taxes for individuals, businesses who provided their employees' health insurance, and the states NOW, without benefits enacted by the reform coming into effect until 2013. If California is forced to pay now for services that aren't to be rendered until after California's coffers run out there won't be services to render!
Sounds like fun, huh?
January 11, 2010
Beer Me!
As seen in today's San Jose Mercury News, a California initiative having been attempted on several fronts, and supported by an overwhelming majority of the State's voters, would impose a tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages on a volume basis. Basically, the proponents of this tax are looking at a per "drink" tax of up to $0.10, so a 12oz beer, a 6oz glass of wine or a single shot of 40 proof liquor would cost $0.10 more after the imposition. That is, of course, if its allowed to pass.
So how could a tax increase that is supposedly supported by 85% of the voters in California and attempted by the Governator himself not be part of our beloved laws here? Well, the answer lies in the ability for the Liquor Lobby to buy off opposing votes to this sort of legislation. Basically, the initiatives akin to this that have been introduced in the past have fallen on their sword before they even made it to committee due to assembly members in Sacramento not being willing to vote for it because the business partners they have in the Liquor Lobby oppose it. Neat, huh?
Now, I don't know much more than what was in the article, but it would seem to me to be a beneficial tax increase. I'm conservative to the bone, but I also know the toll alcohol abuse takes on those who are directly and indirectly affected by it. If legislation was put in place that forced revenue generated by a tax of this sort to be spent ONLY on programs that directly benefit those affected by alcohol abuse then I would support it. I should also note that after a decade of being an avid beer and scotch connoisseur I have quit drinking. I guess my opinion on this subject should count, taking this into consideration, but having spent the majority of my adult life as a sailor, with the drunken stigma that is associated with that lifestyle, a tax of this sort has been felt by me as it exists in other states and in the other countries I've visited, and it wasn't a deterrent to my partaking of the drink. Take that as you will.
Unfortunately, with California's representatives being who they are morally, that won't happen. They'll dip into every dollar that hits the coffers because they don't see a reason to segregate pots of money based on the laws that created them. Its all the same money, right?
So how could a tax increase that is supposedly supported by 85% of the voters in California and attempted by the Governator himself not be part of our beloved laws here? Well, the answer lies in the ability for the Liquor Lobby to buy off opposing votes to this sort of legislation. Basically, the initiatives akin to this that have been introduced in the past have fallen on their sword before they even made it to committee due to assembly members in Sacramento not being willing to vote for it because the business partners they have in the Liquor Lobby oppose it. Neat, huh?
Now, I don't know much more than what was in the article, but it would seem to me to be a beneficial tax increase. I'm conservative to the bone, but I also know the toll alcohol abuse takes on those who are directly and indirectly affected by it. If legislation was put in place that forced revenue generated by a tax of this sort to be spent ONLY on programs that directly benefit those affected by alcohol abuse then I would support it. I should also note that after a decade of being an avid beer and scotch connoisseur I have quit drinking. I guess my opinion on this subject should count, taking this into consideration, but having spent the majority of my adult life as a sailor, with the drunken stigma that is associated with that lifestyle, a tax of this sort has been felt by me as it exists in other states and in the other countries I've visited, and it wasn't a deterrent to my partaking of the drink. Take that as you will.
Unfortunately, with California's representatives being who they are morally, that won't happen. They'll dip into every dollar that hits the coffers because they don't see a reason to segregate pots of money based on the laws that created them. Its all the same money, right?
January 7, 2010
An Education in Economics Seems to be Lacking
"State needs more tax revenue - Steve Poizner's plan (Page 1B, Jan. 6) sounds more like a 1990s AT&T commercial, which is old, useless and lousy. I guess it doesn't cost money to run the state of California, so we will just cut taxes and go further into debt. I never understood the reason why we cut taxes when everything is constantly going up. Ignorance is bliss.
Michael McWalters
Alviso"
The above, quoted text, was taken directly from the 07JAN10 edition of the San Jose Mercury News Reader's Opinion section. The major issue I have about this, other than the fact that this genius doesn't mention cost controls to mitigate the costs involved with running the State of California, is this reader's complete lack of knowledge where it pertains to economics.
As proven during the Presidency of Ronald Regan, a dramatic reduction of taxation has an inversely proportional increase in tax revenue. This is an economic function that has been proven time and again. Economics is the science of economy; basically the science of commerce, government or otherwise. This basic principal is the cornerstone of sound public governance where the governing body functions solely through the generation of tax revenue. A zero tax rate results in zero tax revenue. A moderate tax rate resulting in maximum benefit for the governing body would be somewhere around 8.5% of one's gross annual income (in an income taxed system, i.e.: ours). The point of diminishing returns as it pertains to the tax rate is directly proportional to the economy's ability to function in a market based environment (i.e.: ours).
Basically, if you tax the hell out of people they invariably spend less because after they receive their paychecks they HAVE less. Directly related to this is the effect of a public with less disposable income driving less commerce. If, alongside the public, you tax businesses heavily they have less capital after their revenue is calculated. For businesses like Apple, where profit is almost a foregone conclusion, the decreased revenue means lower stakeholder profit. Apple will mitigate this lower profit by trimming back their payroll, as payroll is typically the single highest expense any company has, and is typically the easiest to immediately reduce.
Lets carry these thoughts out to their final outcome. Taxing people decreases their purchasing power, removing them from the market. Taxing businesses decreases people's employment, removing them from the tax base, thus reducing the businesses' revenues, thus also reducing the tax base. The long and the short of it is that an increase in taxation is a deterrent to participation in the open market, resulting in reduced tax revenue. Unfortunately, Liberals have never learned this basic principal of economics. Unfortunately for California, they never will. The only way to get California back on track is the reduce spending and taxes in order to keep people from deciding places like Nevada, Arizona and Texas are more desirable places to make a living.
UPDATE - 1008100841 - The link to the news article by Mr. McWalters is broken due to either the SJ Mercury News removing the article, or putting up a PayWall to keep those who don't pay for their recycled news away from it. Also, Mr. McWalters managed to find himself online. Check out the comments to see what I mean!
January 2, 2009
Gavin Screws-em Again!
Don't drive in San Francisco's Downtown area if you value whatever you have in your wallet. It could cost you a total of $6 ($3 to get in, $3 to get out) for the privilege to drive your vehicle in the Downtown sector of SF if the Mayor and County Transportation Authority director Jose Luis Mosovich. SF has done quite a bit to kill industry in the city. New Orleans has had a horrible time coming back from the damage caused by hurricane Katrina (mostly because of lack of interest in the soup bowl by the bay), but if Director Mosovich is likening the driving problems in SF Downtown to the biggest natural and man-made disasters this country has seen I wonder what his reaction to SF's industry completely drying up because the people who work there can't afford to come to work anymore. As it is, if you work in SF you almost invariably can't afford to live there.
December 20, 2006
Bush says backs minimum wage raise with tax relief
Posted at Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Wednesday that he supports a Democratic proposal to increase the U.S. minimum wage but said it should be coupled with tax and regulatory relief for small businesses.
In a relatively short article, the President makes a reasonable suggestion concerning the new Congress' desire to push an increased minimum wage. As noted in the article, President Bush would like to see something a little more comprehensive than just increasing the minimum wage. When the cost of doing business increases for businesses with a very small profit margin that margin shrinks or disappears. This either forces the business to limit the hours a minimum wage earner works, lay off senior and junior wage earners in favor of the minimum wage earners in order to save labor costs, or both. These cost saving strategies are counter productive for the Democrats in their efforts to increase the income for minimum wage earners as it poses the risk of those workers losing income due to low hours, or losing their jobs outright due to the company they work for not being able to afford their employment.
In order to forestall these complications it would behoove Congress to work out a plan which would benefit both the wage earners AND the small businesses that employ them. Lowering the taxes the small business pays will allow the wage earners to keep their jobs, most likely with the hours they are used to working, with the possible benefit of allowing the small business to increase their workforce with the extra capital the lower tax base will allow for them. This way the government wins, mostly through the increase in tax revenue from the increased income-tax base of both the higher wage and the increased number of workers earning the wage.
Of course, my input is negligible. There's no way anyone who makes decisions will hear or even pay attention to what I have to say. We'll just have to see if the people we've elected to make our decisions for us have thought this through enough to allow for the possibility of a bipartisan approach instead of the typically divisive partisanship that has been attributed to this issue in the past by the Democrats. Everyone gear up for the next round in the "Income War"!
UPDATE!!! 20DEC06
I have sent an email to both Senators from the state of California. Lets see if that makes much of a difference.
UPDATE 2!!!! 21DEC06
I received the following email response from Senator Barbara Boxer concerning the comments I have made in this post. Notice how she blithely ignores the core of what I am trying to suggest. She even thanks me for my support of the proposed increase in the minimum wage! Amazing how one dimensional our elected officials can be sometimes. Her reply and my response to her reply are attached below. Unfortunately I was not able to save the email I sent to her the first time, but I'm sure you'll be able to get the idea from my response to her reply.
SENATOR BOXER'S REPLY
MY RESPONSE TO HER REPLY
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Wednesday that he supports a Democratic proposal to increase the U.S. minimum wage but said it should be coupled with tax and regulatory relief for small businesses.
In a relatively short article, the President makes a reasonable suggestion concerning the new Congress' desire to push an increased minimum wage. As noted in the article, President Bush would like to see something a little more comprehensive than just increasing the minimum wage. When the cost of doing business increases for businesses with a very small profit margin that margin shrinks or disappears. This either forces the business to limit the hours a minimum wage earner works, lay off senior and junior wage earners in favor of the minimum wage earners in order to save labor costs, or both. These cost saving strategies are counter productive for the Democrats in their efforts to increase the income for minimum wage earners as it poses the risk of those workers losing income due to low hours, or losing their jobs outright due to the company they work for not being able to afford their employment.
In order to forestall these complications it would behoove Congress to work out a plan which would benefit both the wage earners AND the small businesses that employ them. Lowering the taxes the small business pays will allow the wage earners to keep their jobs, most likely with the hours they are used to working, with the possible benefit of allowing the small business to increase their workforce with the extra capital the lower tax base will allow for them. This way the government wins, mostly through the increase in tax revenue from the increased income-tax base of both the higher wage and the increased number of workers earning the wage.
Of course, my input is negligible. There's no way anyone who makes decisions will hear or even pay attention to what I have to say. We'll just have to see if the people we've elected to make our decisions for us have thought this through enough to allow for the possibility of a bipartisan approach instead of the typically divisive partisanship that has been attributed to this issue in the past by the Democrats. Everyone gear up for the next round in the "Income War"!
UPDATE!!! 20DEC06
I have sent an email to both Senators from the state of California. Lets see if that makes much of a difference.
UPDATE 2!!!! 21DEC06
I received the following email response from Senator Barbara Boxer concerning the comments I have made in this post. Notice how she blithely ignores the core of what I am trying to suggest. She even thanks me for my support of the proposed increase in the minimum wage! Amazing how one dimensional our elected officials can be sometimes. Her reply and my response to her reply are attached below. Unfortunately I was not able to save the email I sent to her the first time, but I'm sure you'll be able to get the idea from my response to her reply.
Barbara BoxerDear Petty Officer First Class Pisano:
Thank you for writing to me in support of increasing the federal minimum wage. I appreciate hearing from you, and I completely agree that an increase of the minimum wage is needed to help lower-wage workers make ends meet.
In the 109 th Congress, most Senate Republicans supported a bill that would have raised the minimum wage. However, this bill would have also shortchanged hundreds of thousands of workers who rely on tips for a large portion of their income. I am pleased that this bill, which would have penalized countless lower-wage workers, died in the Senate.
Passing a real increase of the federal minimum wage is one of the top priorities for the Democrats in the next Congress.
The minimum wage is about fairness, a fair wage that rewards people for an honest day's work. In these difficult economic times, it is even more important that working families be able to support themselves with the wages they earn. I will join my colleagues in the fight to obtain an increase in the minimum wage , and I will remain committed to ensuring that all American workers receive the fair pay that they deserve.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about this important issue.
United States Senator
Please visit my website at http://boxer.senate.gov
MY RESPONSE TO HER REPLY
Senator Boxer,You have misunderstood my aim in emailing you. The purpose of my message wasn't to ask you to support a simple increase in the Federal minimum wage. This would ultimately hurt low income families because businesses will react to the increase in their cost of doing business by lowering their labor costs through lay-offs. My intent was to help you see the need for a comprehensive plan developed to help low income families AND small businesses achieve more by increasing the minimum wage while at the same time providing for tax relief for the small businesses who employ minimum wage earners. This way small businesses won't have to consider lay-offs as a solution to the shrinking bottom line issues which would be created by simply increasing the minimum wage alone. I do not support a simple increase in minimum wage.Please take my comments into consideration, and make sure you consider everything that's being said to you, even if the ideas presented are not popular to you or your colleagues. As a servant of the public, I know my job is to be a protector of the public trust, regardless of my personal or political aim. You, as a public servant, would do well to remember there is more to the picture you're painting than the low income families you're purporting to protect.ET1 James Pisano
February 16, 2005
California's Taxing for Taxing's Sake
Alright, get this. I just started this thing, and already I have something to rant about. Anyone who knows me (and all you who will continue reading this past the first few words (ah who am I kidding?)) will know I listen to talk radio a lot.
Well, Mark Williams (KFBK 1530kHz - Night Talk Live) has been talking about California's bright idea on how to recoup revenue lost to people driving smarter with more efficient vehicles.
Yup, that's right! The people of California are actually going along with what the EPA and all the environuts have been ramming down our throats for decades now about global warming and the evil four wheeled smoke beast we all use to get to work (so we can pay our taxes?).
California DMV directors are going to submit a proposal which would direct the legislature to impose a per mile driving tax on all automobile operators within the state. Thing is, we here in California already pay about $0.18 on the gallon to buy gas now. Do you think if they're trying to recoup revenue "lost" to smarter driving they'll remove that tax in lieu of the new one? HELL NO!!! I'm sure with the intellectual giants (read: pinheads) we have in Sacramento spending entirely too much time "thinking" about how to separate their constituents from their hard earned cash so they can pad their pet projects out to infinitum are wringing their hands right now on the prospect of a DOUBLE TAX for DRIVING YOUR DAMN CAR!!! ARGH!
Well, Mark Williams (KFBK 1530kHz - Night Talk Live) has been talking about California's bright idea on how to recoup revenue lost to people driving smarter with more efficient vehicles.
Yup, that's right! The people of California are actually going along with what the EPA and all the environuts have been ramming down our throats for decades now about global warming and the evil four wheeled smoke beast we all use to get to work (so we can pay our taxes?).
California DMV directors are going to submit a proposal which would direct the legislature to impose a per mile driving tax on all automobile operators within the state. Thing is, we here in California already pay about $0.18 on the gallon to buy gas now. Do you think if they're trying to recoup revenue "lost" to smarter driving they'll remove that tax in lieu of the new one? HELL NO!!! I'm sure with the intellectual giants (read: pinheads) we have in Sacramento spending entirely too much time "thinking" about how to separate their constituents from their hard earned cash so they can pad their pet projects out to infinitum are wringing their hands right now on the prospect of a DOUBLE TAX for DRIVING YOUR DAMN CAR!!! ARGH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
