Gawain 0 #51 September 19, 2003 Quote>Third, the sales tax should be the only "measurement" for a >purchase of an item. Why? When you buy a watermelon you don't incur DMV, highway patrol, road construction or road repair costs. Why should the overall cost of buying and eating a watermelon go to support the overall cost of buying and operating a car? Yes I do. That watermelon was delivered to the store via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. When I buy a new car, that car was delivered to the dealer via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. When I buy gas, that gas was delivered to the station via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. When I order new phone service, the technician may need to tag or wire the MPOE or demarc, and get to service location via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. When (or if) I order a new rig, the initial shipment of that rig, and the final delivery of that rig is done via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. When I bought my new suits, they were delivered to the clothiers via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. When I buy a book on Amazon.com, it's delivered via truck, driving on a road, burning fuel. If a $0.01 sales tax was applied to every single sales transaction, road maintenance would never be a problem again. If I don't buy, I reduce my burden on the infrastructure. A variable factor fee, which I pay regardless of how much I drive is wrong and is just one of many factors that are pushing businesses out of the state.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #52 September 19, 2003 QuoteFor the highway system, a combination of gas tax and registration tax (or a fee) works. Bill, you are not listening. Vehicle registration fees are not ear marked for highways or any other transportation purposed. And there is a big difference between tax and fees. I quit, your mind is made up and the reality of the situation is not going to get in your way.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rmsmith 1 #53 September 19, 2003 QuotePeople who use services should pay for them. Correct, Bill. The state of California simply has too many parasites for Joe Six Pack to support! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #54 September 19, 2003 >Bill, you are not listening. Vehcle registration fees are not ear > marked for highways or any other transportation purposed. And > there is a big differece between tax and fees. They currently go to support the government, which is where all taxes and fees go. It would be better if you could earmark them directly for what they pay for. But don't kid yourself - if you reduce income in one place you have to make up for it somewhere else. There ain't no free lunch. This discussion of detail is like a employer telling someone "we're going to cut your Job 13 hourly pay but make up for it with Job 17 hourly pay." After all, it comes out of a different fund." For most people, what matters is what they take home at the end of the week; what fund it comes from doesn't matter. Most people care only if the TOTAL changes. To get out of this mess we will have to cut spending and raise taxes. Once spending's under control we can lower taxes. But you can't decide to take away part of a state's income and figure that the money will just come from somewhere. It will come from you, one way or another; states _must_ balance their budgets (unlike the US government.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #55 September 19, 2003 Quote>Bill, you are not listening. Vehcle registration fees are not ear > marked for highways or any other transportation purposed. And > there is a big differece between tax and fees. They currently go to support the government, which is where all taxes and fees go. It would be better if you could earmark them directly for what they pay for. But don't kid yourself - if you reduce income in one place you have to make up for it somewhere else. There ain't no free lunch. This discussion of detail is like a employer telling someone "we're going to cut your Job 13 hourly pay but make up for it with Job 17 hourly pay." After all, it comes out of a different fund." For most people, what matters is what they take home at the end of the week; what fund it comes from doesn't matter. Most people care only if the TOTAL changes. To get out of this mess we will have to cut spending and raise taxes. Once spending's under control we can lower taxes. But you can't decide to take away part of a state's income and figure that the money will just come from somewhere. It will come from you, one way or another; states _must_ balance their budgets (unlike the US government.) But you are the one that keeps saying I should pay triple my registration fee because I ride my scooter on the highway. A user fee should be for what the user uses.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #56 September 19, 2003 >But you are the one that keeps saying I should pay triple my > registration fee because I ride my scooter on the highway. A user > fee should be for what the user uses. I'm not saying it should be triple or half of what you're paying now. It (and things like fuel taxes) should pay your share of all highway costs. I don't know what that number is; it's not zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #57 September 19, 2003 Quote I think it should be split between fuel and road-use (i.e. registration) taxes The other day, as I was filling my tank in my '96 Jetta (about 89K miles on it), I noticed the tax chart stuck to the side of the pump. $.37 of each gallon of gas is for taxes (Federal, surcharge, and sales). A low average of 300 miles to the tank (it varies - highway v. street, etc.but that's about right in a 14 gallon tank means for each fill-up I do, I pay $4.78 in taxes. I figure I average about 10,000 miles per year. Give or take a bit, but again, it's a good estimate...) So, 300 miles/10,000 per year means I fill up something like 33.3 times. That means, per year, in fuel taxes alone I pay about $159.17. Add to that my registration this year, which was something on the order of $280ish (i don't remember exactly, and don't feel like digging up the receipt)... So, between the registration and the fuel taxes, I pay about $440 in taxes/fees. Again, not such a large burden. Big enough, but still. Except... How many cars live in my area? Dunno, exactly. But let's say a rough estimate of a million cars in the San Fernando Valley. Taking my very conservative mileage (I have no daily commute), that means my little valley alone generates $159,000,000 per annum in fuel taxes alone. Add to that registration fees which vary so widely I can't really even make an estimate, and you have a whole passel of money. And that's just off the top of my head figures. Throwing more money at a problem will not solve the problem. It will only encourage the problem's origination and not correct the fundamental flaw which created the problem in the first place. If the flaw is not identified, and resolved, as it grows, more taxes/fees will be levied; and the vicious cycle continues unabated. If I recall correctly, Cora bought a new "economy" car recently (within the last 6 months). She paid something like $45 to register her brand new, never been driven car in that state. Here, she will pay a whole lot more... So why can't the state of CA do the same as the state of WI? I bet, with their freezing and thawing, their roads need just as much - if not more - upkeep than we do here in California (barring the occasional earthquake). If it's the national economy, don't you think that WI would've followed suit, and trebled their registration? I mean, if it's the national economy, the need would be present there, too, right? Grey Davis' fiscal policies suck. He spent so much money on things that were designed to get him re-elected, and has been nothing short of deadly to our local economy. I never found a petition to recall him, but had I, I would've signed it in a heartbeat. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #58 September 19, 2003 Out of that $.37 per gallon the State gets about $.12-.15 if Cali is anything like Ohio. We pay a total of I think $.45 per gallon in Taxes in some spots of the state since local counties are now getting in on the taxnig fuel too. We just added a new 6 mile section of interstate in Columbus. Total cost was 39 million dollars and it was financed completely via the General Fund for the state. DOT did'nt feel it needed added right now but the voter pressure got to the officials and they voted to pay for ir anyways. That needs picked up here in Ohio now by people that will never drive on the interstate. Lets not get into how much the DOT needed to dip into the general fund to buy more salt for the roads last winter when it kept snowing and the supply ran out. Just since the money is'nt 100% earmarked for Roads don't count on the money not being used on roads, repair, maintence, snow removal and other things that impact your daily driving.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #59 September 19, 2003 Quote>Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past > two years. State spending is up over 40%. It was mismanaged > projections of revenue, thinking that millionaires would stay even if > their taxes went up...they were wrong. Do you have a source for this, specifically government revenues over the past ten years? As promised, and from the Governor's own Budget, I present in the following scanned items (don't ask, I couldn't get Adobe to write to a PDF file, so I printed, scanned and cropped for size...). This reflects only General Fund expenditures, and does not include any Bond Issues, Special funds (including revenue). From FY00 through FY02 state spending increased $17Billion, from $65.85B to $82.85B. That's roughly 26% (my 40% remark appears to be incorrect, but you know what can happen with math ). When Bonds and Special funding is included, the budget expenditure swells to $99B (FY01) and $105B (FY02) <<-- On these I didn't scan the right info, so just take my word for it. This, was in the face of flat and declining revenue estimates. California was running a deficit over $10B in FY01, and judging the estimates, we were running past $30B for FY02. No wonder there have been so many attempts to recall Davis. I only wish we could recall the entire legislature too. These guys aren't even borrowing from "Peter" to pay "Paul" ...they're just spend-spend-spend-spend-spend-spend-spend...on nothing... Edit to add: Revenues since FY97 are up about 57% through FY01 cumulative to 41%, back up to about 55% through estimates through FY03-04So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TaeKwonDoDo 0 #60 September 19, 2003 I think the real point is being missed: One of the highest taxed states in the nation...(in the top 5 of ALL states). Schools, Roads AND Infrastructure (i.e., power) is among the worst bottom 5 of ALL states. I don't mind paying taxes - everyone (yes, everyone) should pay their equal percentage. But like I want to give these phuckers MORE of MY money to mismanage. Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. Don't forget - our deficit is LARGER than ALL remaining 49 states combined. Again, where do I sign? - Jeff "That's not flying, it's falling with style." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #61 September 19, 2003 > . . .that means my little valley alone generates $159,000,000 per >annum in fuel taxes alone. Add to that registration fees which vary > so widely I can't really even make an estimate, and you have a > whole passel of money. In terms of roads themselves, the income from your valley would let you build 3 miles of new freeway a year in your area. Since California will increase its population by 50% by 2025* if populations continue to grow as they have, we will have to build a _lot_ of 3 mile sections of freeway. One of the prices of living in one of the faster growing states. (* - Calif Dept of Finance prediction.) >So why can't the state of CA do the same as the state of WI? I think it would be a easier to do that if our population was growing only as fast as Wisconsin's. Per the 2000 census, we're growing at 13.8% a decade; Wisconsin is 9.6%. In addition, the last time I was in Madison, it didn't have anything like the traffic problems that LA does. Perhaps this is just better planning, or perhaps it's that Madison can expand in four directions while LA can only grow in one. >I bet, > with their freezing and thawing, their roads need just as much - if > not more - upkeep than we do here in California (barring the > occasional earthquake). Agreed, but new road construction costs more than maintenance. >If it's the national economy, don't you think that WI would've > followed suit, and trebled their registration? I mean, if it's the > national economy, the need would be present there, too, right? It is. Wisconsin is about 2 billion in debt; we're around 18 billion in debt. The need to make up the difference is certainly there - and they have 1/6 the people to tax than we do. >Grey Davis' fiscal policies suck. I agree. I wasn't talking about his fiscal policies. I was talking about how to apportion taxes. The budget must be cut; perhaps Gawain's plan of a 2% across the boards cut a year would work. In the interim, taxes will also have to be raised to close the gaping hole in the budget. Once that hole is closed (likely after Davis is gone) they can be lowered. After you reduce the budget, you still have to pay taxes (although hopefully less.) I believe that taxing people based on the services they use makes more sense than paying for roads via income taxes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #62 September 19, 2003 >>For most people, what matters is what they take >>home at the end of the week; what fund it comes >>from doesn't matter. Most people care only if the >>TOTAL changes. Actually most people do not look at the 'total' picture. I bet if this same tax or fee or whatever was DEDUCTED from our income income tax, then people would still be raising a big ruckus. If the average registration fee has increased by $250 per vehicle, then you would get about $10 more per paycheck (per vehicle). You think people would compare their income and vehicle taxes and realize they were still the same? I don't think so. They want no fees or taxes to go up and all fees and taxes to go down. If one goes up and the other down, most would just complain that one went up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #63 September 19, 2003 QuoteDo you have a source for this? I'd be interested to see revenues from 1996-2002. QuoteDo you have a source for this, specifically government revenues over the past ten years? ***You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and you ignore them and move on to population growth. You seem to have a very low opinion of other peoples intelligence and their ability to understand concepts at your lofty level. But trust me, most of us are not as intellectually challenged as you seem to believe. Further discussion with you on this matter would be fruitless. jmhoMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #64 September 19, 2003 So if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #65 September 19, 2003 QuoteSo if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. See my post above, there's a graph outlining revenues since FY96 through projections of FY04. Revenues are up, yet flat the past three years, spending is a steady increase, approximately 15-20% every year, depending on bond issues.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #66 September 19, 2003 QuoteSo if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. *** You should read the thread, they are posted.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #67 September 19, 2003 >You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and > you ignore them and move on to population growth. Uh, I didn't ignore them. I asked for them, and when he posted them, I read them. Interestingly, revenues for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are LOWER than 2000-2001. Makes sense to me since the economy was tanking. This seems to be the opposite of something Gawain said before, which was "Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years." The other charts don't agree with each other; one says the general fund put out 80 billion on 00-01, the other says 68 billion in 00-01. Perhaps the difference was the (unexpected) power purchases in 2000. >You seem to have a very low opinion of other peoples intelligence > and their ability to understand concepts at your lofty level. But trust > me, most of us are not as intellectually challenged as you seem to > believe. Oh, don't get your knickers all in a knot. It's possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are idiots. I disagree with Gawain all the time; doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #68 September 19, 2003 OK - that revenue graph shows the following (numbers rounded) 1996 - $48billion 1997 - $53billion +5billion from previous year 1998 - $58billion +5billion from previous year 1999 - $70billion +12billion from previous year 2000 - $75billion +5billion from previous year 2001 - $67billion LOST 8billion from year 2000 2002 - $74billion LOST 1billion from year 2000, although up from previous year So from 1996 to 2000 we are on a nice revenue growth trend averaging 12% per year. Suddenly in 2001 everything goes to hell and revenue falls 8billion. From the previous 4 years we have average growth of 12%, but lets use a forecast of 10% growth to start that year. The growth forecast would be for $82billion in revenues for 2001, so we actually fell short $15billion of that forecast. Lets stay in the year 2000 and forecast through to the year 2002. Forecast for 2001 is $82billion +10% growth is $90billion. We fell short of that by another $16billion. So for those two years we have fallen short $31billion of what may have been forecast in 2000. Did they fugk up the forecasts? Absolutely, but you will NEVER find someone who can predict the future. You also must keep in mind that budgets are built on forecasts for the following year. You don't wait to find out how much you made then spend it. And when the economy is building and revenues are increasing, spending has to increase with it because of bigger business, more people, etc. The basic fact is when the economy falls apart, it sucks for everyone. That is what we have to deal with right now. It sucks that we have to pay for forecast growth that didn't happen. It sucks that elected officials are blamed for the losses. It sucks that some of us have been out of work or at least out of the high paying job we used to have. But as much as it sucks we still have to try and fix it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #69 September 19, 2003 QuoteYou also must keep in mind that budgets are built on forecasts for the following year. You don't wait to find out how much you made then spend it. Yes I do. I don't spend money before I get it. Well, not anymore. That's why I'm paying off credit cards right now. That's because I made up my mind to be financially responsible. Why doesn't the government say, "Hmmm. We don't know how much money we'll get next year. Why not play it safe and plan for the worst." They don't. And therefore they get in a hole. When you are in a hole, quit digging. But the government does NOT quit digging. That's why it runs deficits almost every year. Why is there such a huge deficit if, by what you are showing, the CA government is 1 billion short of its record level of revenue? Because the government spends and spends like they will set a new record every year for revenues taken in. It's a dumb thing to spend more than you have. It's an even dumber thing to spend money in the hopes you'll get it tomorrow. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #70 September 19, 2003 What if your wife or significant other suddenly becomes pregnant... with triplets! If you don't have a significant other just play along. Now you are forced to increase your budget. And what makes this worse for you is those triplets do not bring in any additional income for you. If a city is growing you have to increase the government budget to accomodate it. Fortunately the growing city also brings in more money for the government to pay for the extra expenses. But when the city stops its previously predictable annual growth, now your budgeting get all messed up and you can't just stop the momentum on a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 September 19, 2003 QuoteBut when the city stops its previously predictable annual growth, now your budgeting get all messed up and you can't just stop the momentum on a dime. Bullshit. If I have triplets, I guess it's no more fine ales for me. No more good coffee for me in the morning, no sir! And no more jumping, since I gotta have the money saved. Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending on anything other than that which is absolutely necessary. Yes, you can stop the budgeting momentum on a dime. "The buck stops here." Guess what, folks? No more of those superflous moneys passed out. No increases in spending this year. In fact, if you can circumcise a man, you can take 10 percent off of anything. Yes, the budget momentum can be stopped on a dime. You just need to try it. It isn't easy, and it will hurt, but it can be done. Just try it... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #72 September 19, 2003 >>Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending >>on anything other than that which is absolutely >>necessary. Government expenditures are not supposed to be luxury items to begin with. It is supposed to provide what is absolutely necessary for the community. The government should not be buying 'fine ale' and 'good coffee' to begin with. I know that is does buy stuff it doesn't need, and I completely agree that this should be taken out, but that will not come close to solving this severe of a budget problem. Lets look at the big expenditures that are causing the problems - and can't be stopped on a dime. Large road improvement projects take years to plan and build. There is a current road project in Denver, CO called TREX with a construction timeline of 7 years. Boston's Big Dig took something like 10 years and a labor force of 5,000 people. The Big Dig may or may not have been a mistake, but Denver's project is a required improvement to their interstate that can no longer hold the number of people who are moving there. These projects have HUGE budgets - should we stop construction in Denver because their tech economy has gone to shzt. It's not like the construction is out of the way from normal traffic. Bridges are down, cars are rerouted, temporary lanes are being used. This is a multi year plan that needs to be followed through on and will continue to cost money. Emergency and rescue services cannot just be cut back on a dime either. You don't wait until people die because you don't have enough emergency vehicles to cover an expanding city area. You see an area is getting bigger and you plan for it. You may stop buying that cup of coffee, but you are forced to buy car seats to keep your new family safe in the car. When I say you can't stop momentum on a dime, what I mean is you shouldn't. You CAN decide to not buy that car seat for your child - but it is irresponsible. Lack of forecasting would be irresponsible for the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #73 September 20, 2003 Quote>You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and > you ignore them and move on to population growth. Uh, I didn't ignore them. I asked for them, and when he posted them, I read them. Interestingly, revenues for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are LOWER than 2000-2001. Makes sense to me since the economy was tanking. This seems to be the opposite of something Gawain said before, which was "Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years." Now, I did correct myself (for the record) and the reality was in fact, much worse than my own mis-statement. Spending continued to rise in the face of falling revenue. QuoteThe other charts don't agree with each other; one says the general fund put out 80 billion on 00-01, the other says 68 billion in 00-01. Perhaps the difference was the (unexpected) power purchases in 2000. You may be right, but I don't think so, the actuals of FY01 versus proposed are incremental across the board. The power was a $10+B over a 10 year deal. Either way Davis engaged in that agreement under duress, and should have cut spending and engaged in a shorter term. Not only did he act too late, he wholly f**ked it up. I could've negotiated a better deal. QuoteOh, don't get your knickers all in a knot. It's possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are idiots. I disagree with Gawain all the time; doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. I gotta get my posterior down there to SD and jump with you sometime. Intelligent discourse benefits everyone with an open mind (left and right of center, even if the left is wrong... ) and an opinion.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #74 September 20, 2003 Quote>>Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending >>on anything other than that which is absolutely >>necessary. Government expenditures are not supposed to be luxury items to begin with. It is supposed to provide what is absolutely necessary for the community. Unfortunately, in California, it is "luxury" items in a lot of ways. Tax dollars are spent to provide equal benefits to illegal aliens. Tax dollars are spent on education with no accountability for the teachers. Tax dollars are spent on all sorts of programs in Calfornia that government could never hope to manage well, and they serve so few. The majority of these elective type programs are designed to create a dependency. If things continue the way they're going, there will be a collapse which will liken itself to how the Soviet Union collapsed -- government unable to function, provide, protect, maintain and an economy unable to adapt.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rmsmith 1 #75 September 20, 2003 QuoteThe majority of these elective type programs are designed to create a dependency. If things continue the way they're going, there will be a collapse which will liken itself to how the Soviet Union collapsed -- government unable to function, provide, protect, maintain and an economy unable to adapt. I'm glad someone else is still thinking clearly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rmsmith 1 #53 September 19, 2003 QuotePeople who use services should pay for them. Correct, Bill. The state of California simply has too many parasites for Joe Six Pack to support! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #54 September 19, 2003 >Bill, you are not listening. Vehcle registration fees are not ear > marked for highways or any other transportation purposed. And > there is a big differece between tax and fees. They currently go to support the government, which is where all taxes and fees go. It would be better if you could earmark them directly for what they pay for. But don't kid yourself - if you reduce income in one place you have to make up for it somewhere else. There ain't no free lunch. This discussion of detail is like a employer telling someone "we're going to cut your Job 13 hourly pay but make up for it with Job 17 hourly pay." After all, it comes out of a different fund." For most people, what matters is what they take home at the end of the week; what fund it comes from doesn't matter. Most people care only if the TOTAL changes. To get out of this mess we will have to cut spending and raise taxes. Once spending's under control we can lower taxes. But you can't decide to take away part of a state's income and figure that the money will just come from somewhere. It will come from you, one way or another; states _must_ balance their budgets (unlike the US government.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #55 September 19, 2003 Quote>Bill, you are not listening. Vehcle registration fees are not ear > marked for highways or any other transportation purposed. And > there is a big differece between tax and fees. They currently go to support the government, which is where all taxes and fees go. It would be better if you could earmark them directly for what they pay for. But don't kid yourself - if you reduce income in one place you have to make up for it somewhere else. There ain't no free lunch. This discussion of detail is like a employer telling someone "we're going to cut your Job 13 hourly pay but make up for it with Job 17 hourly pay." After all, it comes out of a different fund." For most people, what matters is what they take home at the end of the week; what fund it comes from doesn't matter. Most people care only if the TOTAL changes. To get out of this mess we will have to cut spending and raise taxes. Once spending's under control we can lower taxes. But you can't decide to take away part of a state's income and figure that the money will just come from somewhere. It will come from you, one way or another; states _must_ balance their budgets (unlike the US government.) But you are the one that keeps saying I should pay triple my registration fee because I ride my scooter on the highway. A user fee should be for what the user uses.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #56 September 19, 2003 >But you are the one that keeps saying I should pay triple my > registration fee because I ride my scooter on the highway. A user > fee should be for what the user uses. I'm not saying it should be triple or half of what you're paying now. It (and things like fuel taxes) should pay your share of all highway costs. I don't know what that number is; it's not zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #57 September 19, 2003 Quote I think it should be split between fuel and road-use (i.e. registration) taxes The other day, as I was filling my tank in my '96 Jetta (about 89K miles on it), I noticed the tax chart stuck to the side of the pump. $.37 of each gallon of gas is for taxes (Federal, surcharge, and sales). A low average of 300 miles to the tank (it varies - highway v. street, etc.but that's about right in a 14 gallon tank means for each fill-up I do, I pay $4.78 in taxes. I figure I average about 10,000 miles per year. Give or take a bit, but again, it's a good estimate...) So, 300 miles/10,000 per year means I fill up something like 33.3 times. That means, per year, in fuel taxes alone I pay about $159.17. Add to that my registration this year, which was something on the order of $280ish (i don't remember exactly, and don't feel like digging up the receipt)... So, between the registration and the fuel taxes, I pay about $440 in taxes/fees. Again, not such a large burden. Big enough, but still. Except... How many cars live in my area? Dunno, exactly. But let's say a rough estimate of a million cars in the San Fernando Valley. Taking my very conservative mileage (I have no daily commute), that means my little valley alone generates $159,000,000 per annum in fuel taxes alone. Add to that registration fees which vary so widely I can't really even make an estimate, and you have a whole passel of money. And that's just off the top of my head figures. Throwing more money at a problem will not solve the problem. It will only encourage the problem's origination and not correct the fundamental flaw which created the problem in the first place. If the flaw is not identified, and resolved, as it grows, more taxes/fees will be levied; and the vicious cycle continues unabated. If I recall correctly, Cora bought a new "economy" car recently (within the last 6 months). She paid something like $45 to register her brand new, never been driven car in that state. Here, she will pay a whole lot more... So why can't the state of CA do the same as the state of WI? I bet, with their freezing and thawing, their roads need just as much - if not more - upkeep than we do here in California (barring the occasional earthquake). If it's the national economy, don't you think that WI would've followed suit, and trebled their registration? I mean, if it's the national economy, the need would be present there, too, right? Grey Davis' fiscal policies suck. He spent so much money on things that were designed to get him re-elected, and has been nothing short of deadly to our local economy. I never found a petition to recall him, but had I, I would've signed it in a heartbeat. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #58 September 19, 2003 Out of that $.37 per gallon the State gets about $.12-.15 if Cali is anything like Ohio. We pay a total of I think $.45 per gallon in Taxes in some spots of the state since local counties are now getting in on the taxnig fuel too. We just added a new 6 mile section of interstate in Columbus. Total cost was 39 million dollars and it was financed completely via the General Fund for the state. DOT did'nt feel it needed added right now but the voter pressure got to the officials and they voted to pay for ir anyways. That needs picked up here in Ohio now by people that will never drive on the interstate. Lets not get into how much the DOT needed to dip into the general fund to buy more salt for the roads last winter when it kept snowing and the supply ran out. Just since the money is'nt 100% earmarked for Roads don't count on the money not being used on roads, repair, maintence, snow removal and other things that impact your daily driving.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #59 September 19, 2003 Quote>Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past > two years. State spending is up over 40%. It was mismanaged > projections of revenue, thinking that millionaires would stay even if > their taxes went up...they were wrong. Do you have a source for this, specifically government revenues over the past ten years? As promised, and from the Governor's own Budget, I present in the following scanned items (don't ask, I couldn't get Adobe to write to a PDF file, so I printed, scanned and cropped for size...). This reflects only General Fund expenditures, and does not include any Bond Issues, Special funds (including revenue). From FY00 through FY02 state spending increased $17Billion, from $65.85B to $82.85B. That's roughly 26% (my 40% remark appears to be incorrect, but you know what can happen with math ). When Bonds and Special funding is included, the budget expenditure swells to $99B (FY01) and $105B (FY02) <<-- On these I didn't scan the right info, so just take my word for it. This, was in the face of flat and declining revenue estimates. California was running a deficit over $10B in FY01, and judging the estimates, we were running past $30B for FY02. No wonder there have been so many attempts to recall Davis. I only wish we could recall the entire legislature too. These guys aren't even borrowing from "Peter" to pay "Paul" ...they're just spend-spend-spend-spend-spend-spend-spend...on nothing... Edit to add: Revenues since FY97 are up about 57% through FY01 cumulative to 41%, back up to about 55% through estimates through FY03-04So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TaeKwonDoDo 0 #60 September 19, 2003 I think the real point is being missed: One of the highest taxed states in the nation...(in the top 5 of ALL states). Schools, Roads AND Infrastructure (i.e., power) is among the worst bottom 5 of ALL states. I don't mind paying taxes - everyone (yes, everyone) should pay their equal percentage. But like I want to give these phuckers MORE of MY money to mismanage. Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. Don't forget - our deficit is LARGER than ALL remaining 49 states combined. Again, where do I sign? - Jeff "That's not flying, it's falling with style." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #61 September 19, 2003 > . . .that means my little valley alone generates $159,000,000 per >annum in fuel taxes alone. Add to that registration fees which vary > so widely I can't really even make an estimate, and you have a > whole passel of money. In terms of roads themselves, the income from your valley would let you build 3 miles of new freeway a year in your area. Since California will increase its population by 50% by 2025* if populations continue to grow as they have, we will have to build a _lot_ of 3 mile sections of freeway. One of the prices of living in one of the faster growing states. (* - Calif Dept of Finance prediction.) >So why can't the state of CA do the same as the state of WI? I think it would be a easier to do that if our population was growing only as fast as Wisconsin's. Per the 2000 census, we're growing at 13.8% a decade; Wisconsin is 9.6%. In addition, the last time I was in Madison, it didn't have anything like the traffic problems that LA does. Perhaps this is just better planning, or perhaps it's that Madison can expand in four directions while LA can only grow in one. >I bet, > with their freezing and thawing, their roads need just as much - if > not more - upkeep than we do here in California (barring the > occasional earthquake). Agreed, but new road construction costs more than maintenance. >If it's the national economy, don't you think that WI would've > followed suit, and trebled their registration? I mean, if it's the > national economy, the need would be present there, too, right? It is. Wisconsin is about 2 billion in debt; we're around 18 billion in debt. The need to make up the difference is certainly there - and they have 1/6 the people to tax than we do. >Grey Davis' fiscal policies suck. I agree. I wasn't talking about his fiscal policies. I was talking about how to apportion taxes. The budget must be cut; perhaps Gawain's plan of a 2% across the boards cut a year would work. In the interim, taxes will also have to be raised to close the gaping hole in the budget. Once that hole is closed (likely after Davis is gone) they can be lowered. After you reduce the budget, you still have to pay taxes (although hopefully less.) I believe that taxing people based on the services they use makes more sense than paying for roads via income taxes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frig 0 #62 September 19, 2003 >>For most people, what matters is what they take >>home at the end of the week; what fund it comes >>from doesn't matter. Most people care only if the >>TOTAL changes. Actually most people do not look at the 'total' picture. I bet if this same tax or fee or whatever was DEDUCTED from our income income tax, then people would still be raising a big ruckus. If the average registration fee has increased by $250 per vehicle, then you would get about $10 more per paycheck (per vehicle). You think people would compare their income and vehicle taxes and realize they were still the same? I don't think so. They want no fees or taxes to go up and all fees and taxes to go down. If one goes up and the other down, most would just complain that one went up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #63 September 19, 2003 QuoteDo you have a source for this? I'd be interested to see revenues from 1996-2002. QuoteDo you have a source for this, specifically government revenues over the past ten years? ***You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and you ignore them and move on to population growth. You seem to have a very low opinion of other peoples intelligence and their ability to understand concepts at your lofty level. But trust me, most of us are not as intellectually challenged as you seem to believe. Further discussion with you on this matter would be fruitless. jmhoMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #64 September 19, 2003 So if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #65 September 19, 2003 QuoteSo if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. See my post above, there's a graph outlining revenues since FY96 through projections of FY04. Revenues are up, yet flat the past three years, spending is a steady increase, approximately 15-20% every year, depending on bond issues.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #66 September 19, 2003 QuoteSo if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. *** You should read the thread, they are posted.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #67 September 19, 2003 >You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and > you ignore them and move on to population growth. Uh, I didn't ignore them. I asked for them, and when he posted them, I read them. Interestingly, revenues for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are LOWER than 2000-2001. Makes sense to me since the economy was tanking. This seems to be the opposite of something Gawain said before, which was "Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years." The other charts don't agree with each other; one says the general fund put out 80 billion on 00-01, the other says 68 billion in 00-01. Perhaps the difference was the (unexpected) power purchases in 2000. >You seem to have a very low opinion of other peoples intelligence > and their ability to understand concepts at your lofty level. But trust > me, most of us are not as intellectually challenged as you seem to > believe. Oh, don't get your knickers all in a knot. It's possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are idiots. I disagree with Gawain all the time; doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #68 September 19, 2003 OK - that revenue graph shows the following (numbers rounded) 1996 - $48billion 1997 - $53billion +5billion from previous year 1998 - $58billion +5billion from previous year 1999 - $70billion +12billion from previous year 2000 - $75billion +5billion from previous year 2001 - $67billion LOST 8billion from year 2000 2002 - $74billion LOST 1billion from year 2000, although up from previous year So from 1996 to 2000 we are on a nice revenue growth trend averaging 12% per year. Suddenly in 2001 everything goes to hell and revenue falls 8billion. From the previous 4 years we have average growth of 12%, but lets use a forecast of 10% growth to start that year. The growth forecast would be for $82billion in revenues for 2001, so we actually fell short $15billion of that forecast. Lets stay in the year 2000 and forecast through to the year 2002. Forecast for 2001 is $82billion +10% growth is $90billion. We fell short of that by another $16billion. So for those two years we have fallen short $31billion of what may have been forecast in 2000. Did they fugk up the forecasts? Absolutely, but you will NEVER find someone who can predict the future. You also must keep in mind that budgets are built on forecasts for the following year. You don't wait to find out how much you made then spend it. And when the economy is building and revenues are increasing, spending has to increase with it because of bigger business, more people, etc. The basic fact is when the economy falls apart, it sucks for everyone. That is what we have to deal with right now. It sucks that we have to pay for forecast growth that didn't happen. It sucks that elected officials are blamed for the losses. It sucks that some of us have been out of work or at least out of the high paying job we used to have. But as much as it sucks we still have to try and fix it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #69 September 19, 2003 QuoteYou also must keep in mind that budgets are built on forecasts for the following year. You don't wait to find out how much you made then spend it. Yes I do. I don't spend money before I get it. Well, not anymore. That's why I'm paying off credit cards right now. That's because I made up my mind to be financially responsible. Why doesn't the government say, "Hmmm. We don't know how much money we'll get next year. Why not play it safe and plan for the worst." They don't. And therefore they get in a hole. When you are in a hole, quit digging. But the government does NOT quit digging. That's why it runs deficits almost every year. Why is there such a huge deficit if, by what you are showing, the CA government is 1 billion short of its record level of revenue? Because the government spends and spends like they will set a new record every year for revenues taken in. It's a dumb thing to spend more than you have. It's an even dumber thing to spend money in the hopes you'll get it tomorrow. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #70 September 19, 2003 What if your wife or significant other suddenly becomes pregnant... with triplets! If you don't have a significant other just play along. Now you are forced to increase your budget. And what makes this worse for you is those triplets do not bring in any additional income for you. If a city is growing you have to increase the government budget to accomodate it. Fortunately the growing city also brings in more money for the government to pay for the extra expenses. But when the city stops its previously predictable annual growth, now your budgeting get all messed up and you can't just stop the momentum on a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 September 19, 2003 QuoteBut when the city stops its previously predictable annual growth, now your budgeting get all messed up and you can't just stop the momentum on a dime. Bullshit. If I have triplets, I guess it's no more fine ales for me. No more good coffee for me in the morning, no sir! And no more jumping, since I gotta have the money saved. Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending on anything other than that which is absolutely necessary. Yes, you can stop the budgeting momentum on a dime. "The buck stops here." Guess what, folks? No more of those superflous moneys passed out. No increases in spending this year. In fact, if you can circumcise a man, you can take 10 percent off of anything. Yes, the budget momentum can be stopped on a dime. You just need to try it. It isn't easy, and it will hurt, but it can be done. Just try it... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites frig 0 #72 September 19, 2003 >>Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending >>on anything other than that which is absolutely >>necessary. Government expenditures are not supposed to be luxury items to begin with. It is supposed to provide what is absolutely necessary for the community. The government should not be buying 'fine ale' and 'good coffee' to begin with. I know that is does buy stuff it doesn't need, and I completely agree that this should be taken out, but that will not come close to solving this severe of a budget problem. Lets look at the big expenditures that are causing the problems - and can't be stopped on a dime. Large road improvement projects take years to plan and build. There is a current road project in Denver, CO called TREX with a construction timeline of 7 years. Boston's Big Dig took something like 10 years and a labor force of 5,000 people. The Big Dig may or may not have been a mistake, but Denver's project is a required improvement to their interstate that can no longer hold the number of people who are moving there. These projects have HUGE budgets - should we stop construction in Denver because their tech economy has gone to shzt. It's not like the construction is out of the way from normal traffic. Bridges are down, cars are rerouted, temporary lanes are being used. This is a multi year plan that needs to be followed through on and will continue to cost money. Emergency and rescue services cannot just be cut back on a dime either. You don't wait until people die because you don't have enough emergency vehicles to cover an expanding city area. You see an area is getting bigger and you plan for it. You may stop buying that cup of coffee, but you are forced to buy car seats to keep your new family safe in the car. When I say you can't stop momentum on a dime, what I mean is you shouldn't. You CAN decide to not buy that car seat for your child - but it is irresponsible. Lack of forecasting would be irresponsible for the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #73 September 20, 2003 Quote>You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and > you ignore them and move on to population growth. Uh, I didn't ignore them. I asked for them, and when he posted them, I read them. Interestingly, revenues for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are LOWER than 2000-2001. Makes sense to me since the economy was tanking. This seems to be the opposite of something Gawain said before, which was "Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years." Now, I did correct myself (for the record) and the reality was in fact, much worse than my own mis-statement. Spending continued to rise in the face of falling revenue. QuoteThe other charts don't agree with each other; one says the general fund put out 80 billion on 00-01, the other says 68 billion in 00-01. Perhaps the difference was the (unexpected) power purchases in 2000. You may be right, but I don't think so, the actuals of FY01 versus proposed are incremental across the board. The power was a $10+B over a 10 year deal. Either way Davis engaged in that agreement under duress, and should have cut spending and engaged in a shorter term. Not only did he act too late, he wholly f**ked it up. I could've negotiated a better deal. QuoteOh, don't get your knickers all in a knot. It's possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are idiots. I disagree with Gawain all the time; doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. I gotta get my posterior down there to SD and jump with you sometime. Intelligent discourse benefits everyone with an open mind (left and right of center, even if the left is wrong... ) and an opinion.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #74 September 20, 2003 Quote>>Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending >>on anything other than that which is absolutely >>necessary. Government expenditures are not supposed to be luxury items to begin with. It is supposed to provide what is absolutely necessary for the community. Unfortunately, in California, it is "luxury" items in a lot of ways. Tax dollars are spent to provide equal benefits to illegal aliens. Tax dollars are spent on education with no accountability for the teachers. Tax dollars are spent on all sorts of programs in Calfornia that government could never hope to manage well, and they serve so few. The majority of these elective type programs are designed to create a dependency. If things continue the way they're going, there will be a collapse which will liken itself to how the Soviet Union collapsed -- government unable to function, provide, protect, maintain and an economy unable to adapt.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rmsmith 1 #75 September 20, 2003 QuoteThe majority of these elective type programs are designed to create a dependency. If things continue the way they're going, there will be a collapse which will liken itself to how the Soviet Union collapsed -- government unable to function, provide, protect, maintain and an economy unable to adapt. I'm glad someone else is still thinking clearly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
frig 0 #64 September 19, 2003 So if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #65 September 19, 2003 QuoteSo if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. See my post above, there's a graph outlining revenues since FY96 through projections of FY04. Revenues are up, yet flat the past three years, spending is a steady increase, approximately 15-20% every year, depending on bond issues.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #66 September 19, 2003 QuoteSo if you have the source for California revenues during the past 5 years, can you post them rather then just using a name? I am also very skeptical that revenues continued to rise after the recent decline in the economy. I am also sure everyone reading this thread would love to see that information. *** You should read the thread, they are posted.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #67 September 19, 2003 >You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and > you ignore them and move on to population growth. Uh, I didn't ignore them. I asked for them, and when he posted them, I read them. Interestingly, revenues for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are LOWER than 2000-2001. Makes sense to me since the economy was tanking. This seems to be the opposite of something Gawain said before, which was "Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years." The other charts don't agree with each other; one says the general fund put out 80 billion on 00-01, the other says 68 billion in 00-01. Perhaps the difference was the (unexpected) power purchases in 2000. >You seem to have a very low opinion of other peoples intelligence > and their ability to understand concepts at your lofty level. But trust > me, most of us are not as intellectually challenged as you seem to > believe. Oh, don't get your knickers all in a knot. It's possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are idiots. I disagree with Gawain all the time; doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frig 0 #68 September 19, 2003 OK - that revenue graph shows the following (numbers rounded) 1996 - $48billion 1997 - $53billion +5billion from previous year 1998 - $58billion +5billion from previous year 1999 - $70billion +12billion from previous year 2000 - $75billion +5billion from previous year 2001 - $67billion LOST 8billion from year 2000 2002 - $74billion LOST 1billion from year 2000, although up from previous year So from 1996 to 2000 we are on a nice revenue growth trend averaging 12% per year. Suddenly in 2001 everything goes to hell and revenue falls 8billion. From the previous 4 years we have average growth of 12%, but lets use a forecast of 10% growth to start that year. The growth forecast would be for $82billion in revenues for 2001, so we actually fell short $15billion of that forecast. Lets stay in the year 2000 and forecast through to the year 2002. Forecast for 2001 is $82billion +10% growth is $90billion. We fell short of that by another $16billion. So for those two years we have fallen short $31billion of what may have been forecast in 2000. Did they fugk up the forecasts? Absolutely, but you will NEVER find someone who can predict the future. You also must keep in mind that budgets are built on forecasts for the following year. You don't wait to find out how much you made then spend it. And when the economy is building and revenues are increasing, spending has to increase with it because of bigger business, more people, etc. The basic fact is when the economy falls apart, it sucks for everyone. That is what we have to deal with right now. It sucks that we have to pay for forecast growth that didn't happen. It sucks that elected officials are blamed for the losses. It sucks that some of us have been out of work or at least out of the high paying job we used to have. But as much as it sucks we still have to try and fix it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #69 September 19, 2003 QuoteYou also must keep in mind that budgets are built on forecasts for the following year. You don't wait to find out how much you made then spend it. Yes I do. I don't spend money before I get it. Well, not anymore. That's why I'm paying off credit cards right now. That's because I made up my mind to be financially responsible. Why doesn't the government say, "Hmmm. We don't know how much money we'll get next year. Why not play it safe and plan for the worst." They don't. And therefore they get in a hole. When you are in a hole, quit digging. But the government does NOT quit digging. That's why it runs deficits almost every year. Why is there such a huge deficit if, by what you are showing, the CA government is 1 billion short of its record level of revenue? Because the government spends and spends like they will set a new record every year for revenues taken in. It's a dumb thing to spend more than you have. It's an even dumber thing to spend money in the hopes you'll get it tomorrow. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frig 0 #70 September 19, 2003 What if your wife or significant other suddenly becomes pregnant... with triplets! If you don't have a significant other just play along. Now you are forced to increase your budget. And what makes this worse for you is those triplets do not bring in any additional income for you. If a city is growing you have to increase the government budget to accomodate it. Fortunately the growing city also brings in more money for the government to pay for the extra expenses. But when the city stops its previously predictable annual growth, now your budgeting get all messed up and you can't just stop the momentum on a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 September 19, 2003 QuoteBut when the city stops its previously predictable annual growth, now your budgeting get all messed up and you can't just stop the momentum on a dime. Bullshit. If I have triplets, I guess it's no more fine ales for me. No more good coffee for me in the morning, no sir! And no more jumping, since I gotta have the money saved. Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending on anything other than that which is absolutely necessary. Yes, you can stop the budgeting momentum on a dime. "The buck stops here." Guess what, folks? No more of those superflous moneys passed out. No increases in spending this year. In fact, if you can circumcise a man, you can take 10 percent off of anything. Yes, the budget momentum can be stopped on a dime. You just need to try it. It isn't easy, and it will hurt, but it can be done. Just try it... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frig 0 #72 September 19, 2003 >>Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending >>on anything other than that which is absolutely >>necessary. Government expenditures are not supposed to be luxury items to begin with. It is supposed to provide what is absolutely necessary for the community. The government should not be buying 'fine ale' and 'good coffee' to begin with. I know that is does buy stuff it doesn't need, and I completely agree that this should be taken out, but that will not come close to solving this severe of a budget problem. Lets look at the big expenditures that are causing the problems - and can't be stopped on a dime. Large road improvement projects take years to plan and build. There is a current road project in Denver, CO called TREX with a construction timeline of 7 years. Boston's Big Dig took something like 10 years and a labor force of 5,000 people. The Big Dig may or may not have been a mistake, but Denver's project is a required improvement to their interstate that can no longer hold the number of people who are moving there. These projects have HUGE budgets - should we stop construction in Denver because their tech economy has gone to shzt. It's not like the construction is out of the way from normal traffic. Bridges are down, cars are rerouted, temporary lanes are being used. This is a multi year plan that needs to be followed through on and will continue to cost money. Emergency and rescue services cannot just be cut back on a dime either. You don't wait until people die because you don't have enough emergency vehicles to cover an expanding city area. You see an area is getting bigger and you plan for it. You may stop buying that cup of coffee, but you are forced to buy car seats to keep your new family safe in the car. When I say you can't stop momentum on a dime, what I mean is you shouldn't. You CAN decide to not buy that car seat for your child - but it is irresponsible. Lack of forecasting would be irresponsible for the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #73 September 20, 2003 Quote>You asked for a source of these revenues, Gawain provides it and > you ignore them and move on to population growth. Uh, I didn't ignore them. I asked for them, and when he posted them, I read them. Interestingly, revenues for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are LOWER than 2000-2001. Makes sense to me since the economy was tanking. This seems to be the opposite of something Gawain said before, which was "Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years." Now, I did correct myself (for the record) and the reality was in fact, much worse than my own mis-statement. Spending continued to rise in the face of falling revenue. QuoteThe other charts don't agree with each other; one says the general fund put out 80 billion on 00-01, the other says 68 billion in 00-01. Perhaps the difference was the (unexpected) power purchases in 2000. You may be right, but I don't think so, the actuals of FY01 versus proposed are incremental across the board. The power was a $10+B over a 10 year deal. Either way Davis engaged in that agreement under duress, and should have cut spending and engaged in a shorter term. Not only did he act too late, he wholly f**ked it up. I could've negotiated a better deal. QuoteOh, don't get your knickers all in a knot. It's possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are idiots. I disagree with Gawain all the time; doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. I gotta get my posterior down there to SD and jump with you sometime. Intelligent discourse benefits everyone with an open mind (left and right of center, even if the left is wrong... ) and an opinion.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #74 September 20, 2003 Quote>>Ooh, no more fun in my life, no more spending >>on anything other than that which is absolutely >>necessary. Government expenditures are not supposed to be luxury items to begin with. It is supposed to provide what is absolutely necessary for the community. Unfortunately, in California, it is "luxury" items in a lot of ways. Tax dollars are spent to provide equal benefits to illegal aliens. Tax dollars are spent on education with no accountability for the teachers. Tax dollars are spent on all sorts of programs in Calfornia that government could never hope to manage well, and they serve so few. The majority of these elective type programs are designed to create a dependency. If things continue the way they're going, there will be a collapse which will liken itself to how the Soviet Union collapsed -- government unable to function, provide, protect, maintain and an economy unable to adapt.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #75 September 20, 2003 QuoteThe majority of these elective type programs are designed to create a dependency. If things continue the way they're going, there will be a collapse which will liken itself to how the Soviet Union collapsed -- government unable to function, provide, protect, maintain and an economy unable to adapt. I'm glad someone else is still thinking clearly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
