If that is the case CA is in the position where it should cut taxes to stimulate growth. They have already chased away more than enough money and jobs. Still I think better than fluctuating tax rates that go up and down depressing and then stimulating the economy perhaps government should focus on finding the sweet spot that maximizes economic growth and thus tax revenues.
Why not tax Arnold, Warren Buffet and all these other California billionares? They arent going anywhere, they have movie contracts, remember the movie industry is all liberals right? Thats what the conservatives love to hype.
Why not tax the liberals? They like high taxes right?
Only if there is a rich guy that thinks it's still worthwhile to invest the money when any profits he would have seen from the investement will just be taken by government. Besides in many if not most cases the market is still filled... That business that moved to AZ still kept all their clients in CA (those that didn't move to AZ too), they're just taking the profits out of CA and enjoying them at a low tax rate in AZ. The business that *tries* to start up to fill the market in CA now has to compete with a guy that can undercut him on price every time because he takes home more after taxes even though he's making less - and his business isn't burdened with crazy labor laws or an insane energy bill.
So your arguement also applies to outsourcing, unless America becomes completely tax free all of our businesses will leave and stop hiring American workers, our economy is doomed.
I'm being facetious to point out that your reasoning assumes a static model when the impact of taxes are dynamic. Raising taxes does not necessarily result in greater revenues. In the obvious example of raising the taxes to 100% the revenues from that tax would spike and then fall to absolutely nothing. The taxes in CA are already too high and are suffering from the law of diminishing returns, a further tax hike would just cause revenues to fall.
For the short term it does, for the long term it doesnt, I never said we should hike taxes for the long term, just long enough to fix the budget.
The problem with this thinking is that "the rich" that are most effected by tax hikes *are* the small businessmen. Big corporations have a few rich executives and millions of middle class stockholders, they are large and stable and can afford the slings and arrows of adverse legislation and are probably already headquartered in AZ anyway without it affecting their ability to compete with their smaller and more burdened local competitors. It is the little guy making six figures in profits from a 4 or 5 million dollar outfit employing a dozen guys just a year or two out of his garage that doesn't have the resources to deal with excessive regulation and really notices when his taxes go up.
When I say tax the Rich I'm talking Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, Arnold, George Lucus and whoever else has over 100 million dollars. These guys arent small business people, they are rich, they are filthy rich at that, I never mentioned tax the upper class, I said the rich. Maybe if we put more of the tax Burden on Warren Buffet we wouldnt have to tax small businesses as much.
A big part of California's economic problems are caused by their high tax rate (and energy bills, and excessive regulation). Raising taxes will only make things worse at this point.
Lowering taxes will not create jobs and will not fix the deficit. Raising taxes will not create jobs but will fix the deficit. You cannot fix the economy by messing around with taxes because it doesnt sole the outsourcing problem, also there will always be a place with less taxes.
The solution is to allow normal people to start businesses by taking the tax burden off them, allowingt them to buy more property and collect more wealth.
The same reason Bill Gates profits off of us. I'm not saying hes our daddy, but he makes most of the money, so he should pay most of the taxes. His class of people have more money than they can spend, at some point we need either a salary cap, or we need to raise taxes on them, which would you prefer?
Anyone trying to balance the budget should care. If you have fewer rich people to tax to get the same amount you have to raise the taxes on them even more, which cause more to leave, so you have to tax those that remain even more, which causes more to leave, wash, rinse, repeat.
No you dont, you cut taxes when the rich leave, to stimulate growth, when new people become rich you raise taxes and repeat.
When rich people leave they tend to take jobs with them.
If their businesses move, new local businesses will form to fill the market, let them leave.
By your simplistic static reasoning you might as well just tax the rich people at 100% - think of all the money you would get to balance the budget! Now think about it a little more.
I'm not saying 100%, I'm just saying I dont care if they leave. Tax people like Bill Gates, force them to buy a new house, it helps the economy when someone like this spends 90 million on a new house somewhere else.
Also getting big business out of the community helps local businesses who want to expand, so I'm all for taxing out the rich to help the small businesses and the poor, the small businesses will eventuslly become big businesses and become rich themselves.
Thats my solution, I'll never buy a new CD again, I'll only buy used CDs.
You can boycott and still get music from the idiots who refuse to boycott, this means less sales from the RIAA, so do it, the guys who resell their CDs already made a copy on CD-R and once you make your copy you can resell the CD too.
Our main problem is that while we have big guns, we have a bunch of uneducated idiots controlling them.
Its useless to have all these guns if we dont use our money to provide a better education than the Chinese.
Do you think that India and China shouldn't also have an opportunity for prosperity?
America first. Let China and India build their own economies instead of on our backs.
We are all human, after all, and it isn't like their "commie" ideology will last much longer,
The more technology we get the more communism begins to work, so you can say it wont last much longer, but the same could be said about capitalism when we had slaves doing all the work, it just couldnt last right? Once the social problems are solved and the government becomes stable, theres no reason why it couldnt.
ohn Ashcroft and your Dean friend can try to steal our liberties through spy networks or nationalized social programs all they want in the happy-faced claim towards safety and equality, but, ultimately, only a fundamentally sound global economy and a foriegn policy that doesn't fuck over every third-world country on the planet will lead to genuine safety.
Dean isnt a Hawk, Bush and Ashcroft are hawks, it wasnt Dean who passed the patriot act, I admit Dean does want bigger government but who else do I have to choose from? Bush wants a even bigger government than Dean in the name of security.
Third world countries have a right to have opportunity, but not when it takes opportunity from me, if thats the case I'll move over there.
Yes but the budget will be fixed and when that happens the taxes can go back down and new businesses will start and new people will become rich.
Let them flee, who cares? You act like the rich people matter, all we need them to do is pay the taxes and leave and then make room for their replacements who will come in later on once the budget is in a surplus.
When you put the tax burden on the rich, the rich leave yes, but the deficit is fixed, and with the fixed deficit you can pay for better schools, and then you can lower taxes so that new businesses will be started.
Thats because California is over populated, and also california is the biggest state so of course they will have a big out population or whatever you want to call it, either way it doesnt matter.
My point is, in Cali people will pay higher taxes, not everyone will move, some will but not everyone, and if they do move who cares? The budget will be fixed and Cali can bring new businesses in to replace them.
Its a progressive tax system, in this system the people who make the most money and benefit most from what America has to offer, pay most of the taxes.
You cannot expect a person with no wealth to pay taxes, you can expect bill gates who has all the wealth to pay most of the taxes.
Wealth redistribution? who decides the distribution in the first place? the CEO? Ok so if the CEO decides to take all the wealth, we should give the CEO all the taxes.
I dont care, tax them! No one cares where Bill Gates lives, all we care about is where the offices are and considering the fact that hes moving most of his offices to India I think its fair that we punish him for doing this by raising the taxes on him.
Because 30 years ago, it made sense to do business in the silcon valley. Converting orchards to industrial parks was cheap, and the government wasn't as intrusive. Where do you think all of Intel's new fabs are being built? Those pentium chips all come from Oregon, not California!
Actually they come from India, which has no taxes at all.
Lowering taxes will not keep jobs in the country, because no matter how low you go, its always cheaper in some other place.
The stock market and housing has absolutely nothing to do with the ratio of jobs created vs jobs lost.
We still have a shortage of jobs and a very difficult market place to find jobs, until more jobs are created the economy sucks by most peoples standards, of course a rich person gives a damn about the stock market and cheap housing, the rest of us just want a job.
Unless you make millions of dollars, you arent the "rich" that I was talking about. I was talking abbout the rich, not the upper middle class making in the 100-500 a year range, I'm talking millionares here.
From somebody's perspective... I'm rich. I'd have a hard time agreeing with somebody that's poorer than me, or unemployed who says I should pay most of the taxes because I earn more.
You earn most of the money, logic says you should pay most of the taxes.
. I may earn more, but I shouldn't have to pick up their share of the state's problems.
No, but you should definately pay more than someoen who earns less because you earn more!
I believe that people should be accountable for themselves, their own financial development, and their own futures. There will always be people that are wealthier than me, and there will always be people that are poorer than me.... but to dump the tax burden on one group of people because it's the popular solution doesn't seem fair.
This isnt about you and what you want or what you like, this is about solving the deficit. You MUST pay more taxes, period, theres no debate here, the only way to solve the deficit problem is to raise taxes, and the poor dont have enough money to pay anymore taxes without completely destroying the economy.
Be a good Californian and pay your share of the taxes, and yes you should pay more than someone making minimum wage, so shut up and stop whining you upper middle class greedy bastard. People who make less money pay just as much if not a greater percentage of their money on taxes, and they do not complain as much.
This is why people like to believe that you whine and complain.
r. After all, there's somebody financially below you that'd be more than happy if you paid all of their taxes. Suck it up... or move.
If you have all the money you should pay all the taxes.
And as a side-note... I don't give a shit whether she prefers boxers, briefs or going commando. She was put in a position to answer some useless questions, and I suppose her only option was to answer them... but the questions sent to her show the tone that the entire election has taken on... one of stupidity and comical value for political control over a state that's got a lot of serious issues up in the air. I'm glad I don't live there.
I dont know if she has the worth ethic to be gov, but shes definately intelligent.
This is paying the debt. Paying taxes is not wealth distribution, welfare is wealth distribution. Everyone pays taxes, the rich just need to pay more taxes to bring down the deficit.
I dont think the majority of poor people in cali would care if the billionare and millionares pay more taxes. Just shift the taxes to people who can afford to pay them and leave taxes for the majority of the people the same, suddenly the deficit gets paid.
California is a liberal place, you cannot put a conservative government on top of a liberal state, most of the people in cali are minorities, then you have san francisco, alot of gay people, you are telling me that they want some anti gay anti affirmative action conservative to come there and lock the boarders, inscrease the college standards, and reduce services?
You need to research the culture of california, the do not like conservatives, thats what you like.
If these old men could run the country so well we wouldnt be in the current situation, perhaps we need some young college kids to run things. Old people seem to be doing a bad job, look at cali, its run by old rich white men, perhaps its time for change.
Sure right now no one needs PHDs, 40-50 years ago no one needed bachlors degrees or masters, now everyone needs one.
Jobs are hard to come by, how do you survive a recession, or a weak economy? Sure experience is good, but you have to work for over 10 years to get your experience and job security.
At McDonalds, the only place which hires people with no experience and no degrees.
You are a frigging idiot if you think you can get a job in IT without a degree, I have the knowledge and the skills and the only way I can get work is through the temp agencies.
So please tell me how the hell someone can get a job with no degree at all? Sure if you want to live in the ghetto working at mc donalds go ahead, I dont care, but I wont lie to people like you do and give them advice which sets them up to fail.
This is just it, you want less competition so you deliberately give bad advice to people, "oh dont worry, you wont need a diploma, yeah right, and have fun working at mc donalds or retail, the only jobs people can get without an education, maybe you can do construction too while you have your youth, until you get hurt.
Otherwise, it is perfectly feasible to get paid $40,000/year with a two-year degree and a bit of experience. That's a salary many indebted college graduates only dream about.
Yes thats possible but how do you get experience when theres no entry level jobs for people who have no degree? All the entry level jobs ask for a BA or BS.
Also, I've seen clear and unabiguous evidence that the market provides little or no rewards for anything more than a two year degree for most people. In fact, there is a trend away from four-year degrees in many disciplines, where a bachelor's degree is actually a mark against canidates.
Thats just a damn lie, I've seen evidence proving the opposite, which says a person with a bachlors makes twice as much as someone without. Sure in 2000 you could get a job without a degree, I had a job without a degree, this is 2003, the world has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
You know when someone has billions of dollars that no one cares if we tax them, in fact they dont even care themselves in most cases.
They donate, they employ people, and they generate tax revenues just by existing..
Donating to India, Creating jobs in India, generating revenue etc does nothing for me.
If that is the case CA is in the position where it should cut taxes to stimulate growth. They have already chased away more than enough money and jobs. Still I think better than fluctuating tax rates that go up and down depressing and then stimulating the economy perhaps government should focus on finding the sweet spot that maximizes economic growth and thus tax revenues.
Why not tax Arnold, Warren Buffet and all these other California billionares? They arent going anywhere, they have movie contracts, remember the movie industry is all liberals right? Thats what the conservatives love to hype.
Why not tax the liberals? They like high taxes right?
Only if there is a rich guy that thinks it's still worthwhile to invest the money when any profits he would have seen from the investement will just be taken by government. Besides in many if not most cases the market is still filled... That business that moved to AZ still kept all their clients in CA (those that didn't move to AZ too), they're just taking the profits out of CA and enjoying them at a low tax rate in AZ. The business that *tries* to start up to fill the market in CA now has to compete with a guy that can undercut him on price every time because he takes home more after taxes even though he's making less - and his business isn't burdened with crazy labor laws or an insane energy bill.
So your arguement also applies to outsourcing, unless America becomes completely tax free all of our businesses will leave and stop hiring American workers, our economy is doomed.
I'm being facetious to point out that your reasoning assumes a static model when the impact of taxes are dynamic. Raising taxes does not necessarily result in greater revenues. In the obvious example of raising the taxes to 100% the revenues from that tax would spike and then fall to absolutely nothing. The taxes in CA are already too high and are suffering from the law of diminishing returns, a further tax hike would just cause revenues to fall.
For the short term it does, for the long term it doesnt, I never said we should hike taxes for the long term, just long enough to fix the budget.
The problem with this thinking is that "the rich" that are most effected by tax hikes *are* the small businessmen. Big corporations have a few rich executives and millions of middle class stockholders, they are large and stable and can afford the slings and arrows of adverse legislation and are probably already headquartered in AZ anyway without it affecting their ability to compete with their smaller and more burdened local competitors. It is the little guy making six figures in profits from a 4 or 5 million dollar outfit employing a dozen guys just a year or two out of his garage that doesn't have the resources to deal with excessive regulation and really notices when his taxes go up.
When I say tax the Rich I'm talking Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, Arnold, George Lucus and whoever else has over 100 million dollars. These guys arent small business people, they are rich, they are filthy rich at that, I never mentioned tax the upper class, I said the rich. Maybe if we put more of the tax Burden on Warren Buffet we wouldnt have to tax small businesses as much.
A big part of California's economic problems are caused by their high tax rate (and energy bills, and excessive regulation). Raising taxes will only make things worse at this point.
Lowering taxes will not create jobs and will not fix the deficit. Raising taxes will not create jobs but will fix the deficit. You cannot fix the economy by messing around with taxes because it doesnt sole the outsourcing problem, also there will always be a place with less taxes.
The solution is to allow normal people to start businesses by taking the tax burden off them, allowingt them to buy more property and collect more wealth.
Thats what people like you said last year, and the year before that.
The economy is more stable but its not getting better, we wont know its getting better for at least another 6 months.
The same reason Bill Gates profits off of us. I'm not saying hes our daddy, but he makes most of the money, so he should pay most of the taxes. His class of people have more money than they can spend, at some point we need either a salary cap, or we need to raise taxes on them, which would you prefer?
Anyone trying to balance the budget should care. If you have fewer rich people to tax to get the same amount you have to raise the taxes on them even more, which cause more to leave, so you have to tax those that remain even more, which causes more to leave, wash, rinse, repeat.
No you dont, you cut taxes when the rich leave, to stimulate growth, when new people become rich you raise taxes and repeat.
When rich people leave they tend to take jobs with them.
If their businesses move, new local businesses will form to fill the market, let them leave.
By your simplistic static reasoning you might as well just tax the rich people at 100% - think of all the money you would get to balance the budget! Now think about it a little more.
I'm not saying 100%, I'm just saying I dont care if they leave. Tax people like Bill Gates, force them to buy a new house, it helps the economy when someone like this spends 90 million on a new house somewhere else.
Also getting big business out of the community helps local businesses who want to expand, so I'm all for taxing out the rich to help the small businesses and the poor, the small businesses will eventuslly become big businesses and become rich themselves.
Maybe not yet, but their new fabs are all being built in other countries not the USA
Thats my solution, I'll never buy a new CD again, I'll only buy used CDs.
You can boycott and still get music from the idiots who refuse to boycott, this means less sales from the RIAA, so do it, the guys who resell their CDs already made a copy on CD-R and once you make your copy you can resell the CD too.
Lets treat CDs like we treat expensive books.
Our main problem is that while we have big guns, we have a bunch of uneducated idiots controlling them.
Its useless to have all these guns if we dont use our money to provide a better education than the Chinese.
Do you think that India and China shouldn't also have an opportunity for prosperity?
America first. Let China and India build their own economies instead of on our backs.
We are all human, after all, and it isn't like their "commie" ideology will last much longer,
The more technology we get the more communism begins to work, so you can say it wont last much longer, but the same could be said about capitalism when we had slaves doing all the work, it just couldnt last right? Once the social problems are solved and the government becomes stable, theres no reason why it couldnt.
ohn Ashcroft and your Dean friend can try to steal our liberties through spy networks or nationalized social programs all they want in the happy-faced claim towards safety and equality, but, ultimately, only a fundamentally sound global economy and a foriegn policy that doesn't fuck over every third-world country on the planet will lead to genuine safety.
Dean isnt a Hawk, Bush and Ashcroft are hawks, it wasnt Dean who passed the patriot act, I admit Dean does want bigger government but who else do I have to choose from? Bush wants a even bigger government than Dean in the name of security.
Third world countries have a right to have opportunity, but not when it takes opportunity from me, if thats the case I'll move over there.
Yes but the budget will be fixed and when that happens the taxes can go back down and new businesses will start and new people will become rich.
Let them flee, who cares? You act like the rich people matter, all we need them to do is pay the taxes and leave and then make room for their replacements who will come in later on once the budget is in a surplus.
When you put the tax burden on the rich, the rich leave yes, but the deficit is fixed, and with the fixed deficit you can pay for better schools, and then you can lower taxes so that new businesses will be started.
Thats because California is over populated, and also california is the biggest state so of course they will have a big out population or whatever you want to call it, either way it doesnt matter.
My point is, in Cali people will pay higher taxes, not everyone will move, some will but not everyone, and if they do move who cares? The budget will be fixed and Cali can bring new businesses in to replace them.
You also know that some people make minimum wage so its impossible for everyone to pay the same amount in taxes.
I live in Boston, I know about taxes, but look, I'm a student, I could never afford to pay the same amount of taxes as bill gates.
Sure I should pay taxes, like sales tax and stuff but Bill Gates should pay MORE taxes because he has more money and owns more things.
Wealth redistribution to who?
Its a progressive tax system, in this system the people who make the most money and benefit most from what America has to offer, pay most of the taxes.
You cannot expect a person with no wealth to pay taxes, you can expect bill gates who has all the wealth to pay most of the taxes.
Wealth redistribution? who decides the distribution in the first place? the CEO? Ok so if the CEO decides to take all the wealth, we should give the CEO all the taxes.
Its alittle too soon to come to any conclusion about where its headed just because it went down
PLEASE!
This is like me saying Bush's approval rating is in freefall just because its gone down a bit, come on people, you are as politcal as the far left.
The stock market going up means more companies will be hiring. IN INDIA
Housing starts mean more labor is being employed.
Or it could mean more people are buying houses because of the low interest rates.
I dont care, tax them! No one cares where Bill Gates lives, all we care about is where the offices are and considering the fact that hes moving most of his offices to India I think its fair that we punish him for doing this by raising the taxes on him.
Because 30 years ago, it made sense to do business in the silcon valley. Converting orchards to industrial parks was cheap, and the government wasn't as intrusive. Where do you think all of Intel's new fabs are being built? Those pentium chips all come from Oregon, not California!
Actually they come from India, which has no taxes at all.
Lowering taxes will not keep jobs in the country, because no matter how low you go, its always cheaper in some other place.
You think everyone would move to Arizona? I disagree.
The rich in Cali are usually liberal and like paying taxes.
If we cant tax the Rich CEOs, why do we care if they live in our state? I mean if they really want to move let them.
The rest of what you said made no sense, if Oregon was so great why isnt silicon valley in Oregon?!
NOTHING is in portland, theres no one to tax, Cali has all the rich movie stars, alot of them are liberal and wont mind paying higher taxes.
Tax them damnit!
The stock market and housing has absolutely nothing to do with the ratio of jobs created vs jobs lost.
We still have a shortage of jobs and a very difficult market place to find jobs, until more jobs are created the economy sucks by most peoples standards, of course a rich person gives a damn about the stock market and cheap housing, the rest of us just want a job.
Unless you make millions of dollars, you arent the "rich" that I was talking about. I was talking abbout the rich, not the upper middle class making in the 100-500 a year range, I'm talking millionares here.
From somebody's perspective
You earn most of the money, logic says you should pay most of the taxes.
. I may earn more, but I shouldn't have to pick up their share of the state's problems.
No, but you should definately pay more than someoen who earns less because you earn more!
I believe that people should be accountable for themselves, their own financial development, and their own futures. There will always be people that are wealthier than me, and there will always be people that are poorer than me
This isnt about you and what you want or what you like, this is about solving the deficit. You MUST pay more taxes, period, theres no debate here, the only way to solve the deficit problem is to raise taxes, and the poor dont have enough money to pay anymore taxes without completely destroying the economy.
Be a good Californian and pay your share of the taxes, and yes you should pay more than someone making minimum wage, so shut up and stop whining you upper middle class greedy bastard. People who make less money pay just as much if not a greater percentage of their money on taxes, and they do not complain as much.
This is why people like to believe that you whine and complain.
r. After all, there's somebody financially below you that'd be more than happy if you paid all of their taxes. Suck it up
If you have all the money you should pay all the taxes.
And as a side-note
I dont know if she has the worth ethic to be gov, but shes definately intelligent.
This is paying the debt. Paying taxes is not wealth distribution, welfare is wealth distribution. Everyone pays taxes, the rich just need to pay more taxes to bring down the deficit.
I dont think the majority of poor people in cali would care if the billionare and millionares pay more taxes. Just shift the taxes to people who can afford to pay them and leave taxes for the majority of the people the same, suddenly the deficit gets paid.
California is a liberal place, you cannot put a conservative government on top of a liberal state, most of the people in cali are minorities, then you have san francisco, alot of gay people, you are telling me that they want some anti gay anti affirmative action conservative to come there and lock the boarders, inscrease the college standards, and reduce services?
You need to research the culture of california, the do not like conservatives, thats what you like.
If these old men could run the country so well we wouldnt be in the current situation, perhaps we need some young college kids to run things. Old people seem to be doing a bad job, look at cali, its run by old rich white men, perhaps its time for change.
Sure right now no one needs PHDs, 40-50 years ago no one needed bachlors degrees or masters, now everyone needs one.
Jobs are hard to come by, how do you survive a recession, or a weak economy? Sure experience is good, but you have to work for over 10 years to get your experience and job security.
What if all the indians, chinese, etc get PHDs while you just stay with your bachlors, why should any company hire American workers then?
At McDonalds, the only place which hires people with no experience and no degrees.
You are a frigging idiot if you think you can get a job in IT without a degree, I have the knowledge and the skills and the only way I can get work is through the temp agencies.
So please tell me how the hell someone can get a job with no degree at all? Sure if you want to live in the ghetto working at mc donalds go ahead, I dont care, but I wont lie to people like you do and give them advice which sets them up to fail.
This is just it, you want less competition so you deliberately give bad advice to people, "oh dont worry, you wont need a diploma, yeah right, and have fun working at mc donalds or retail, the only jobs people can get without an education, maybe you can do construction too while you have your youth, until you get hurt.
Otherwise, it is perfectly feasible to get paid $40,000/year with a two-year degree and a bit of experience. That's a salary many indebted college graduates only dream about.
Yes thats possible but how do you get experience when theres no entry level jobs for people who have no degree? All the entry level jobs ask for a BA or BS.
Also, I've seen clear and unabiguous evidence that the market provides little or no rewards for anything more than a two year degree for most people. In fact, there is a trend away from four-year degrees in many disciplines, where a bachelor's degree is actually a mark against canidates.
Thats just a damn lie, I've seen evidence proving the opposite, which says a person with a bachlors makes twice as much as someone without. Sure in 2000 you could get a job without a degree, I had a job without a degree, this is 2003, the world has changed.