How is this even legal?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

> You're just mad because I don't seem to gush with praise for President
>Obama, aincha.

I'm just puzzled that you'd blame California's actions on him. Why not blame them on, say, the governor of California? Is it because you like his political party and dislike Obama's?

Obama didn't ruin California, but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that the state is found on?

The State needs to cut pet projects, plain and simple. Dig deep into the spending and you will see where it all went wrong.

My Favorite is the millions spent on the hydrofoil that runs between San Diego and San Francisco designed to cut down on the traffic on I-5. In an effort to save money on the project it only runs at 10 am and 2 pm. What commuter would use that? How fuel efficient are boats again? Well thought out project. Last I heard someone grew a brain and killed it, finally.

How about the $40,000 each year for 25 to life to keep non violent three-strikers in jail for third offenses like stealing videotapes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

They're not talking about going from 6-9% up to 16-19%, but rather 6-9% up to 6.6-9.9% respectively. I don't really care that much about half a point... I usually owe California a few bucks at the end of the year anyway.

Maybe fine to you, but giving an interest free $1000 loan to Sacramento is not cool to me. It also does nothing to solve the problem - just puts off the bill till the next year.

And let's not forget the IOUs given last year - interest free loans don't work well for us if they won't pay.

I should clarify, I don't care about half a point over the next month and a half of this tax year. It will probably mean I'll be settled up with the state for 2009. I'll just have to do the math again and adjust my state withholdings for next year. I may buy a place next year, so I'm going to have to do that anyway.

/edited to add: and the rest of your post I agree with, as I noted in the rest of my last post.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> You're just mad because I don't seem to gush with praise for President
>Obama, aincha.

I'm just puzzled that you'd blame California's actions on him. Why not blame them on, say, the governor of California? Is it because you like his political party and dislike Obama's?

Obama didn't ruin California, but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that the state is found on?

The State needs to cut pet projects, plain and simple. Dig deep into the spending and you will see where it all went wrong.

My Favorite is the millions spent on the hydrofoil that runs between San Diego and San Francisco designed to cut down on the traffic on I-5. In an effort to save money on the project it only runs at 10 am and 2 pm. What commuter would use that? How fuel efficient are boats again? Well thought out project. Last I heard someone grew a brain and killed it, finally.

How about the $40,000 each year for 25 to life to keep non violent three-strikers in jail for third offenses like stealing videotapes?

so you think we should let the criminals out of jail? the three strike rule (imo) would greatly reduce crime. removing it would give many a reason to continue to steal.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I should clarify, I don't care about half a point over the next month and a half of this tax year. It will probably mean I'll be settled up with the state for 2009. I'll just have to do the math again and adjust my state withholdings for next year. I may buy a place next year, so I'm going to have to do that anyway.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not going to fiddle with this year's. It's a bit odd how the publicity of this change only came out in the last week or so.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

but giving an interest free $1000 loan to Sacramento

So given a worst case situation of this being a 0.9% increase which equals $1000. Hmm that would mean you pay a state income tax of $111,111 per year?

Boy, I wish I had your problems.

well, that's because you have your math wrong. Hopefully your money is coming from elsewhere.

It's a 10% increase in withholding, so 1000 extra translates to $10000 paid, not 111k as you calculate. This would apply to someone with a taxable income of roughly what you have stated - ~110k, since the marginal tax rate is ~9.4% right now.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that
>the state is found on?

It is indeed based on Pelosi's politics - and Arnold's politics. Also Gray Davis's and Pete Wilson's. Of course, if you want to decide who actually _founded_ modern politics in California, you'd be hard pressed to find a more influential governor than Ronald Reagan

>My Favorite is the millions spent on the hydrofoil that runs between San
>Diego and San Francisco designed to cut down on the traffic on I-5. In an
>effort to save money on the project it only runs at 10 am and 2 pm.

I have never heard of this! Heck, I'd use it if it ran. Where did you hear about this? If that cost only a few million, and is really in operation, I'd consider that a good use of money.

My bad, it was from Carlsbad to San Diego-
http://www.takethewave.com/
I haven't lived in San Diego since 1999. They have made some changes and it's still running.

My point was that the California budget is full of pet projects. Why did california spend the money on this rather than expand the trolley or train system? trolleys may have a higher initial start up cost than a hydrofoil, but a trolley can make more inland (more people can use it) stops and costs a hell of a lot less to operate.

Someone pocketed some cash.

the governator may try to stop it, but the liberal politicians got to get their back scratched. Every one likes to blame the governor (or president) but everyone forgets who writes and modifies the bills.

Down with Polosi and Ried in 2010

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

How about the $40,000 each year for 25 to life to keep non violent three-strikers in jail for third offenses like stealing videotapes?

so you think we should let the criminals out of jail? the three strike rule (imo) would greatly reduce crime. removing it would give many a reason to continue to steal.

I know I'm pretty cynic and completely insensitive person, but one would have to steal a lot of stuff to steal 40K per year for 25 years (unless they become Enron or AIG executives, of course).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,998]

>My bad, it was from Carlsbad to San Diego-

Ah, OK. (actually from San Diego to Oceanside from the looks of it.)

>My point was that the California budget is full of pet projects.

Agreed.

>Why did california spend the money on this rather than expand the
>trolley or train system?

Probably because it would have funded around .2% of the cost of the mid coast trolley project.

>trolleys may have a higher initial start up cost than a hydrofoil, but
>a trolley can make more inland (more people can use it) stops and costs
>a hell of a lot less to operate.

Agreed! That would be a great pet project.

>Someone pocketed some cash.

Yep. Probably the captains, crew, parking lot attendants, boat manufacturers, insurance underwriters, fuel providers and dock owners.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> You're just mad because I don't seem to gush with praise for President
>Obama, aincha.

I'm just puzzled that you'd blame California's actions on him. Why not blame them on, say, the governor of California? Is it because you like his political party and dislike Obama's?

Obama didn't ruin California, but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that the state is found on?

The State needs to cut pet projects, plain and simple. Dig deep into the spending and you will see where it all went wrong.

My Favorite is the millions spent on the hydrofoil that runs between San Diego and San Francisco designed to cut down on the traffic on I-5. In an effort to save money on the project it only runs at 10 am and 2 pm. What commuter would use that? How fuel efficient are boats again? Well thought out project. Last I heard someone grew a brain and killed it, finally.

How about the $40,000 each year for 25 to life to keep non violent three-strikers in jail for third offenses like stealing videotapes?

so you think we should let the criminals out of jail? the three strike rule (imo) would greatly reduce crime. removing it would give many a reason to continue to steal.

Funny that a guy who is so in favor of reducing government spending should approve of spending $1 MILLION to keep a petty shoplifter locked up for 25 years.

BTW, there is NO evidence that crime has been reduced by the 3 strikes law, and violent crime has actually increased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Agreed! That would be a great pet project.

It's great that you think mass transit systems are pet projects. If you ever go to a country with a well developed mass transit system, you will see how much good it can do for heavily populated areas. When managed properly, they don't cost the tax payers anything.

To me, a pet project (I guess I should call fraud, waste or abuse) has no chance of ever turning a buck, is completely useless, and lines someone's pocket. Honestly, for the hydrofoil to be profit neutral, how much do you think they would have to charge for tickets? How much do you think they would have to charge for tickets on a mid coast trolley? Which do you think would get used more?

Does California have the money to sink into this novelty? It's all I'm saying.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,998]

>To me, a pet project (I guess I should call fraud, waste or abuse) has
>no chance of ever turning a buck, is completely useless, and lines
>someone's pocket.

Hmm. To me, a pet project is a project that is someone's personal favorite. They can be good or bad, profitable or costly. Most such projects "line someone's pockets." This is a good thing in my book; employment for captains, crew, drivers, maintenance people etc is a plus.

>How much do you think they would have to charge for tickets on a mid
>coast trolley?

_Very_ roughly about $8 a ticket to cover just the initial costs over 20 years. Add operating costs to that.

>Does California have the money to sink into this novelty?

What novelty? The new trolley? I'd say it was a good investment. The hydrofoil? That was ended years ago.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

BTW, there is NO evidence that crime has been reduced by the 3 strikes law, and violent crime has actually increased.

I have always been incredulous that an increasingly common standard of penal law in the US has its direct basis in the rules of baseball. I hope it's realized that, hypothetically, if baseball had always had, say, 5 strikes instead of 3, the "hip and with-it" legislatures would be robotically passing "5 strikes and you're out" laws. It's so blindingly brainless it makes me want to cry.

Next time I'm in court, and I make an objection that gets sustained, I'm going to ask the judge for a couple of free throws. Lets' see how that flies.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have always been incredulous that an increasingly common standard of penal law in the US has its direct basis in the rules of baseball.

Baseball allows 3 strikes (and for that matter 3 outs) for the same reason the three strikes rule for crime was so appealing. It establishes a pattern.

A person can screw up, pays his crime.
Perhaps he has a weak moment and relapses, pays his crime.
But if it happens again, and these are only the incidents for which he was caught, it's clear that he doesn't want to abide by the laws of society. You don't need to wait for 5 offenses to know he's a loser.

This doesn't mean that mandated sentences are good policy, or without unpleasant consequences, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible, has absolutely nothing to do with America's (former) pastime.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I have always been incredulous that an increasingly common standard of penal law in the US has its direct basis in the rules of baseball.

Baseball allows 3 strikes (and for that matter 3 outs) for the same reason the three strikes rule for crime was so appealing. It establishes a pattern.

A person can screw up, pays his crime.
Perhaps he has a weak moment and relapses, pays his crime.
But if it happens again, and these are only the incidents for which he was caught, it's clear that he doesn't want to abide by the laws of society. You don't need to wait for 5 offenses to know he's a loser.

This doesn't mean that mandated sentences are good policy, or without unpleasant consequences, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible, has absolutely nothing to do with America's (former) pastime.

NO evidence that crime has been reduced by the 3 strikes law, and violent crime has actually increased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have always been incredulous that an increasingly common standard of penal law in the US has its direct basis in the rules of baseball.

Baseball allows 3 strikes (and for that matter 3 outs) for the same reason the three strikes rule for crime was so appealing. It establishes a pattern.

A person can screw up, pays his crime.
Perhaps he has a weak moment and relapses, pays his crime.
But if it happens again, and these are only the incidents for which he was caught, it's clear that he doesn't want to abide by the laws of society. You don't need to wait for 5 offenses to know he's a loser.

This doesn't mean that mandated sentences are good policy, or without unpleasant consequences, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible, has absolutely nothing to do with America's (former) pastime.

NO evidence that crime has been reduced by the 3 strikes law, and violent crime has actually increased.

Do you have a cite for that info - I've not seen anything relating to that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

They're not talking about going from 6-9% up to 16-19%, but rather 6-9% up to 6.6-9.9% respectively. I don't really care that much about half a point... I usually owe California a few bucks at the end of the year anyway.

Maybe fine to you, but giving an interest free $1000 loan to Sacramento is not cool to me. It also does nothing to solve the problem - just puts off the bill till the next year.

And let's not forget the IOUs given last year - interest free loans don't work well for us if they won't pay.

Easy solution. Claim married and 9 (dependents), put the extra cash in the bank every week and pay them at tax time. Fuck em.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have always been incredulous that an increasingly common standard of penal law in the US has its direct basis in the rules of baseball.

Baseball allows 3 strikes (and for that matter 3 outs) for the same reason the three strikes rule for crime was so appealing. It establishes a pattern.

A person can screw up, pays his crime.
Perhaps he has a weak moment and relapses, pays his crime.
But if it happens again, and these are only the incidents for which he was caught, it's clear that he doesn't want to abide by the laws of society. You don't need to wait for 5 offenses to know he's a loser.

This doesn't mean that mandated sentences are good policy, or without unpleasant consequences, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible, has absolutely nothing to do with America's (former) pastime.

NO evidence that crime has been reduced by the 3 strikes law, and violent crime has actually increased.

Yes, I covered that in paragraph 3.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

This doesn't mean that mandated sentences are good policy, or without unpleasant consequences, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible, has absolutely nothing to do with America's (former) pastime.

Statutorily-prescribed (a) mandatory minimums and (b) enhanced penalties for an offender's pattern of recidivism are nothing new, that is true. And whether 3, or 4, or 5, or 6 "chances" is the best number is beside the point I'm making. But the threshhold of "3 strikes" in contemporary American penal law was founded not on empirical criminlogy, and jurisprudential history, and serious legal scholarship, but on the rules of baseball. It's a feel-good sound byte, designed to be lapped-up like slop in the trough, codified into the laws of the land. And that's the part that's idiotic.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It's great that you think mass transit systems are pet projects. If you ever go to a country with a well developed mass transit system, you will see how much good it can do for heavily populated areas. When managed properly, they don't cost the tax payers anything.

IMHO this is kinda not true.

First, I do not know ANY single mass transit system which does not cost taxpayers anything, i.e. is self-sufficient. In every country, in every city I lived local mass transit systems were either owned by the government, or received significant contributions. All of them had negative income. Here in Silicon Valley we have VTA, BART and Caltrain, and they all cost taxpayers something.

Second, a country with a well developed mass transit system usually is populated much more dense (speak about NYC). And if you to suburban areas in those countries, their mass transit typically consist from a bus running twice a day, and a train station 10 miles away.

Quote

To me, a pet project (I guess I should call fraud, waste or abuse) has no chance of ever turning a buck, is completely useless, and lines someone's pocket.

What you describe is stealing from budget, not pet project. In this case the project may actually have a good chance to turn a buck, but since the money are stolen, it will not happen anyway.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Easy solution. Claim married and 9 (dependents), put the extra cash in the bank every week and pay them at tax time. Fuck em.

This would be illegal, as when signing W-4 you're stating under penalty of perjury that the information you provided is correct.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Easy solution. Claim married and 9 (dependents), put the extra cash in the bank every week and pay them at tax time. Fuck em.

This would be illegal, as when signing W-4 you're stating under penalty of perjury that the information you provided is correct.

He was joking, George.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Easy solution. Claim married and 9 (dependents), put the extra cash in the bank every week and pay them at tax time. Fuck em.

This would be illegal, as when signing W-4 you're stating under penalty of perjury that the information you provided is correct.

Actually, you're claiming allowances, not dependents. The IRS doesn't give a shit how many allowances you claim, so long as they get their money.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,998]

>First, I do not know ANY single mass transit system which does not cost
>taxpayers anything, i.e. is self-sufficient.

Agreed. That's true of the highway system as well of course.

>Second, a country with a well developed mass transit system usually is
>populated much more dense (speak about NYC).

Those are more amenable to high volume systems. Buses and light rail work better in lower density cities.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Actually, you're claiming allowances, not dependents. The IRS doesn't give a shit how many allowances you claim, so long as they get their money.

That what I was told on another Russian forum as well. But in my opinion it's flawed since the number of allowances you're supposed to put should be based on "from line H above or from the applicable worksheet on page 2". So I don't see how could you legally put a random number there, and facing a potential perjury charge to save $100 sounds like complete waste to me. However I'm not a lawyer, and I know some people who did exactly that, and are not in jail (yet?), so one can claim "it works" too.

But claiming you're married while you're not is pretty obvious lie.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

He was joking, George.

This is actually a very popular discussion topic in Russian forums, and some people even claim it's completely legal (like if someone else signs your W-4 or so).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *