Author Calexit  (Read 4114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Calexit
« Reply #60 on: November 12, 2016, 06:03:21 PM »
I still love Cali, but had to get out with the high cost of living, taxes, traffic, crime, etc.  I got frustrated that even with it's powerhouse economy, it was still so mismanaged by bureaucrats and has huge debt largely from unfunded liabilities.  I see it kinda like a mini-version of the federal gov't.
Yep, I actually think the traffic in L.A. where I live is getting worse, despite investments in public transit. But lots of folks ride the subway now, even though people said you'd never be able to get Angelenos out of their cars!

The state could mitigate some of our periodic financial woes by amending Prop. 13, the tax revolt initiative, but that's pretty much untouchable.


Calexit
« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2016, 07:49:31 PM »
Yep, I actually think the traffic in L.A. where I live is getting worse, despite investments in public transit. But lots of folks ride the subway now, even though people said you'd never be able to get Angelenos out of their cars!

The state could mitigate some of our periodic financial woes by amending Prop. 13, the tax revolt initiative, but that's pretty much untouchable.

Our legislature and Governor Brown can't wisely handle the money they get now, giving them more wouldn't improve anything (see:  bullet train boondoggle, see:  delta water tunnels boondoggle, see:  massive unfunded liability overhang). 

Prop 13 was passed for a reason, and it's not a coincidence this same Jerry Brown was the governor when it passed way back then.

Calexit
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2016, 04:59:04 AM »
Why do you say that? Is it because California receives back only 78 cents for every $1 we pay in federal taxes? Yes, in this respect we are net losers compared to many other states. That said, we're the world's sixth-largest economy. We have a preponderance of high-tech manufacturing, as opposed to the "rust belt" manufacturing jobs that aren't coming back to the U.S. (despite what Donald promised his voters). We also have higher levels of educational attainment than the states that supported Donald.

But the hope that California will secede is just a pipe dream. There doesn't seem to be a legal mechanism for us to do so. When the South tried it, I believe it was called "treason." :)

Well,  since 'we' stole the election.  You can steal California.  Fair?

Calexit
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2016, 07:07:14 AM »
Our legislature and Governor Brown can't wisely handle the money they get now, giving them more wouldn't improve anything (see:  bullet train boondoggle, see:  delta water tunnels boondoggle, see:  massive unfunded liability overhang). 

Prop 13 was passed for a reason, and it's not a coincidence this same Jerry Brown was the governor when it passed way back then.
Well, as a business reporter in California, I've interviewed lots of city managers, analysts, consultants and so forth, and when the topic of budget shortfalls comes up, they invariably put some of the blame on Prop. 13. One expert I spoke with recently believes we could amend Prop. 13 and still respect the "citizen activism" it reflected back in 1978 when the ballot initiative was passed. For example, we could reassess commercial and industrial property according to fair market value on a periodic basis -- rather than only upon change of ownership -- while retaining the acquisition-value assessment methodology for residential property.

This would enable California to reduce the tax burden on new investments by, for example, having a lower rate for commercial/industrial structures than for land. One consequence of Prop. 13 over the past nearly 40 years is that the property tax burden has shifted away from land and more toward structures -- discouraging new investments in structures, which necessarily need to be updated and replaced -- exactly the opposite of what an efficient tax system would do.

I think most people in California would agree we should try to create a more efficient, business-friendly property tax system, as opposed to a system that's rooted in the post-1978 notion of scheming to pay lawyers and accountants to avoid a change in ownership!

Calexit
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2016, 07:27:51 AM »
Well,  since 'we' stole the election.  You can steal California.  Fair?
Haha, I don't really think your side stole the election. You won fair and square! To be honest, I kinda wish we didn't have to wait until Jan. 20 for Donald to take over. I'm curious to see how he'll govern as president. I fervently hope there's no iota of difference between candidate Trump and President Trump. We've had enough of mealy-mouths who said things while campaigning, only to change their tune once elected!

Calexit
« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2016, 09:30:32 AM »
Well, as a business reporter in California, I've interviewed lots of city managers, analysts, consultants and so forth, and when the topic of budget shortfalls comes up, they invariably put some of the blame on Prop. 13. One expert I spoke with recently believes we could amend Prop. 13 and still respect the "citizen activism" it reflected back in 1978 when the ballot initiative was passed. For example, we could reassess commercial and industrial property according to fair market value on a periodic basis -- rather than only upon change of ownership -- while retaining the acquisition-value assessment methodology for residential property.

This would enable California to reduce the tax burden on new investments by, for example, having a lower rate for commercial/industrial structures than for land. One consequence of Prop. 13 over the past nearly 40 years is that the property tax burden has shifted away from land and more toward structures -- discouraging new investments in structures, which necessarily need to be updated and replaced -- exactly the opposite of what an efficient tax system would do.

I think most people in California would agree we should try to create a more efficient, business-friendly property tax system, as opposed to a system that's rooted in the post-1978 notion of scheming to pay lawyers and accountants to avoid a change in ownership!

Asking the people that would benefit most from increased taxes is going to get a very biased response.  And they've been trained to refer to Prop 13, and place blame there.  I would guess asking anyone in the world if they would like more money would get the same answer.

The talk of Prop 13 destroying the tax revenue stream in California is BS.  Do some research into the amount of total taxes collected in the years before Prop 13 and the years after, up to now.  Then compare that to the population.  They are lying when they say they are getting less, or less per person, but it's pretty easy to make that claim when they know most people aren't going to look into it.  (And PS: the same goes for Reagan at the federal level with all his tax 'cuts'). 

There was no funding decrease in either case, but the greedy pigs in government will never be satisfied, and will never spend what they do get wisely.  That is the nature of government, and it's why anything that can be done by the private sector should be done by the private sector.


States get most of their funding three ways:  Income tax, property tax, and sales tax.  In most states one or two of those are much higher than the other one or two.  Some states don't even have an income tax, others don't even have a sales tax.  Property taxes, and property tax rates, are much lower in some states than in others.  California has very high tax rates for all three, and they still can't spend it effectively and get the things done we need done.  Giving them more money is not the solution, the solution is removing the Left from office.


About Prop 13 - I agree it should not apply to commercial property.  The real estate is owned by a company.  When those companies are sold (or their stock changes hands in the case of publicly owned companies), the real estate is not reappraised for the tax rolls because the property itself is not sold - it's still owned by the business.  Unlike homes, which mostly do turn over at least every decade or so.  Even so, there is no enthusiasm for updating Prop 13 and giving these people more money they won't spend properly.

Calexit
« Reply #66 on: November 13, 2016, 09:44:47 AM »
About taxes in general.  We've heard much over the past 30 years about 'taxing the rich', but somehow the rest of us always end up getting taxed more as well.

I think we should do away with income tax, sales tax, property tax, (and especially job killing) payroll tax, estate tax, the petty little business taxes, all of it.  And replace it with a wealth tax.  Do away with all those other taxes, and tax the value of what everyone owns - homes and other property, cars, bonds and money market investments, valuable artworks, the value of business investments - whether it's a personal small business or publicly traded stocks.

Sure, the richest may consider renouncing their citizenship and leaving the country, and perhaps there would be less foreign investment, but so what, the economy that would be unleashed would make people want to stay and foreigners to participate.  Everything in the US would be taxed, so a person couldn't leave and avoid paying the tax on their property here.  Corporations could leave, but if they did the tariffs these former US companies would then face on their goods coming in would be more than what the tax would have been had they stayed.

This wealth tax wouldn't have to be much 1-2% of the value of everything in the US, and on the value of what US citizens owned abroad.  I don't want to hear any more about 'taxing the rich' and 'paying their fair share' unless they junk the current system and go to something like this - actually tax the rich, and not the rest of us.

Calexit
« Reply #67 on: November 13, 2016, 11:15:05 AM »
About taxes in general.  We've heard much over the past 30 years about 'taxing the rich', but somehow the rest of us always end up getting taxed more as well....

Actually unless spending is ever dialed back the middle class probably needs to be taxed alot more.  The left's frequent attacks on the 'millionaires and billionaires' not 'paying their fair share' is intentional misdirection on their part because even if you taxed high income earners at 100% there's still not nearly enough there to pay for all the social programs, entitlements, and military expenditures which have basically become institutionalized. 

Of course they've gotten around this huge gap by just piling on more debt, but that's just a financial trick, which insulates the public from feeling the costs of all the spending they're told is so necessary.  Like I heard a commentator say once - Loan me 20 trillion dollars and I'll show you a good time too.   ;)

Calexit
« Reply #68 on: November 13, 2016, 05:45:09 PM »

Calexit
« Reply #69 on: November 13, 2016, 06:33:45 PM »
Me too, since it's my current turf.

Near my neck of the woods as well.  It's a pretty interesting idea that goes back a long ways.  A strain of independence still exists - in fact the NPR station in S. Oregon calls themselves Jefferson Public Radio.  Someone was on C2C awhile back discussing the initiative and it did make some good sense, given how different the political/economic/environmental forces are in the region relative to the respective states.

Calexit
« Reply #70 on: November 13, 2016, 06:41:53 PM »
...Like I heard a commentator say once - Loan me 20 trillion dollars and I'll show you a good time too.   ;)
LOL.  "Party on, dude."


Calexit
« Reply #71 on: November 13, 2016, 06:44:00 PM »
Near my neck of the woods as well.  It's a pretty interesting idea that goes back along ways.  In fact the NPR station in S. Oregon calls themselves Jefferson Public Radio.  Someone was on C2C awhile back discussing the initiative and it did make some good sense, given how different the political/economic/environmental forces are in the region relative to the respective states.
Historically I liked the idea of Texas and the old Cascadia but due to political differences (mainly between coast and Inland) the the "American Redoubt" area might be better but with the current election it might be better to have SC and maybe a few coastal cities in WA, OR, go as long as we in the rest have access to the Pacific (and we control that border when the Hollywood/Tech set realizes HS, I got to get out of here.) Frankly borders change in the world all the time. I don't see why, peacefully, (if we can't simply go back to a Constitutional model of government,) that we couldn't "devolution" or even totally separate. We "Americans" forget that most countries are smaller than some of our States. Yet, we are all supposed to agree on everything? Actually insane. Even Belgium has problems with this and frequently can't even form a government.

Calexit
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2016, 01:38:05 AM »
... But how do you force a state to stay if it demands independence?
...

One would hazaard a guess, but that has already bean decided...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2ZuR9BTXg

The Whiskey tax (&t al) is already decided, by both force of arms and hystorctimy...

Calexit
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2016, 02:46:24 AM »

Calexit
« Reply #74 on: November 14, 2016, 03:17:57 AM »

Calexit
« Reply #75 on: November 14, 2016, 11:22:30 AM »
Was the Union Army's invasion of the Confederate states more legal than secession?

The union is a contract. If it's not working a member should be able to ditch the club.

Calexit
« Reply #76 on: November 14, 2016, 08:44:41 PM »
Was the Union Army's invasion of the Confederate states more legal than secession?

The union is a contract. If it's not working a member should be able to ditch the club.

''When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

-Opening words of the Declaration of Independence.  It seems to take for granted the right to secede.  It's a courtesy to say why.  Reading through the rest of it - they were pissed, and thoroughly enjoyed telling the king to piss off.


''... [T]hese united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.''

- The beginning of the final paragraph.  'We're outta here'.  Lincoln simply declared the southern states couldn't secede, and he is revered for it, but I'm not sure where his authority to make that decision came from in a political sense.

Calexit
« Reply #77 on: November 14, 2016, 08:51:55 PM »
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun

 - Mao Tse-Tung

Calexit
« Reply #78 on: November 14, 2016, 08:57:00 PM »
''When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

-Opening words of the Declaration of Independence.  It seems to take for granted the right to secede.  It's a courtesy to say why.  Reading through the rest of it - they were pissed, and thoroughly enjoyed telling the king to piss off.


''... [T]hese united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.''

- The beginning of the final paragraph.  'We're outta here'.  Lincoln simply declared the southern states couldn't secede, and he is revered for it, but I'm not sure where his authority to make that decision came from.
He pulled it out of his ass, basically, what other kind of contract or agreement, save a Faustian one, cannot be broken by any means or payment?

Some people like to look to globalists and international bodies:

President Woodrow Wilson February 1918:
"National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . "

Nations Charter (June 1945) (Chapter I, Article 1).
relations between nations should be based on ‘respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’

Calexit
« Reply #79 on: November 14, 2016, 11:20:21 PM »
The legal argument centered around the same used by Jackson against South Carolina in the 1830s, that secession directly contravened Article I. And the South was providing a shitload of federal revenue via taxes and trade tariffs, the majority of which was being spent building Northern factories.


Calexit
« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2016, 12:11:35 AM »
would I need a passport to drive 2 hours east to Tahoe?

Calexit
« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2016, 09:15:07 PM »
Asking the people that would benefit most from increased taxes is going to get a very biased response.  And they've been trained to refer to Prop 13, and place blame there.  I would guess asking anyone in the world if they would like more money would get the same answer.

The talk of Prop 13 destroying the tax revenue stream in California is BS.  Do some research into the amount of total taxes collected in the years before Prop 13 and the years after, up to now.  Then compare that to the population.  They are lying when they say they are getting less, or less per person, but it's pretty easy to make that claim when they know most people aren't going to look into it.  (And PS: the same goes for Reagan at the federal level with all his tax 'cuts'). 

There was no funding decrease in either case, but the greedy pigs in government will never be satisfied...

In addition to researching total Calif state taxes collected in the years before and after Prop 13 and comparing that to the population, adjusted for inflation (tax dollars per resident), another metric would be the ratio of state workers to the general population - i.e., how many California state employees have there been for every 100 California residents from year to year.  See if that has increased or decreased from the pre-Prop 13 years until now.  And what about inflation adjusted average pay?

Once completed, we can look at individual budget items.  For example has the dollar amount of pension payouts per resident increased or decreased, etc?  What areas of spending have increased or decreased as a total, and on a per resident basis.  Why?

Doing a little research in the areas I've suggested may yield some very surprising results.  It just may be that Prop 13 is not the problem, although it's certainly been easy to blame any lack of funds on that by those who have arguably been criminally irresponsible with our tax money.

Calexit
« Reply #83 on: September 16, 2020, 04:00:42 PM »

Calexit
« Reply #84 on: September 17, 2020, 09:21:03 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u978w4CurDk
He’s going to Nashville.

He's just scared of human progress. How "racist" of him to expect a front street not littered with used needles.*

*The problem is that most (not Shapiro) of the people who are moving from California are bringing their failed ideas and values with them. Oh, they don't want as many homeless., but sky high taxes and social justice are great. Burn one state down and move on to the next... I see it in people who move from the east for "freedom" but then vote against actual freedom and for the same problems / values as they just fled.

Calexit
« Reply #85 on: September 17, 2020, 09:32:44 PM »
He's just scared of human progress. How "racist" of him to expect a front street not littered with used needles.*

*The problem is that most (not Shapiro) of the people who are moving from California are bringing their failed ideas and values with them. Oh, they don't want as many homeless., but sky high taxes and social justice are great. Burn one state down and move on to the next... I see it in people who move from the east for "freedom" but then vote against actual freedom and for the same problems / values as they just fled.


Like locusts.

Calexit
« Reply #86 on: November 09, 2020, 02:51:15 PM »
This should work out just fine:

" Anyone with minor injuries from misdemeanor hit-and-run incidents and other crashes will be instructed to file a report online under the plan, the Times said." "Station desks will no longer be manned on weekends under the plan, along with planned cut to LAPD Metropolitan Division, and air support, robbery and homicide and gang and narcotics divisions."



https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/lapd-to-move-more-officers-to-patrol-downsize-air-support-robbery-homicide-divisions/

So the logic goes: let's not investigate accidents- and even hit-and-runs. And not investigate robberies, gang crime, drug crime, and homicides, at least on weekends?

Because: "The effort comes as homicides spiked by about 25% this year compared with 2019" and these ideas in a sanctuary city bordering a Narco-State? It will end well.

Calexit
« Reply #87 on: November 09, 2020, 03:15:08 PM »
This should work out just fine:

" Anyone with minor injuries from misdemeanor hit-and-run incidents and other crashes will be instructed to file a report online under the plan, the Times said." "Station desks will no longer be manned on weekends under the plan, along with planned cut to LAPD Metropolitan Division, and air support, robbery and homicide and gang and narcotics divisions."



https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/lapd-to-move-more-officers-to-patrol-downsize-air-support-robbery-homicide-divisions/

So the logic goes: let's not investigate accidents- and even hit-and-runs. And not investigate robberies, gang crime, drug crime, and homicides, at least on weekends?

Because: "The effort comes as homicides spiked by about 25% this year compared with 2019" and these ideas in a sanctuary city bordering a Narco-State? It will end well.

Cool. So it'll be like a Death Race kind of a deal there on weekends?

Friday and Gannon would love the time off. They were always so busy before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfwZa5rRRNQ