No Free Lunch in California

I agree. I (we) am the problem by expecting too much from my government, and by voting for those that cause more spending for my benefit (pork).

I have the government that I deserve. But I promise to change my selfish ways and to deserve a better government. I do expect that the bloated Sacramento monster will not easily accept a healthy diet. There are nasty times ahead as I once again assert my role as master of the government.

How much money could be saved by cutting the internal spending in Sacramento? I am referring to the all of the expenses incurred by the weasels and their empires. No one knows how much money the Legislator spends because they want it that way. We have no visibility into the perks and "expenses" of each member. We need public visibility of the details of all expenditures driven by the Capitol. And I do mean ALL expenditures, including expenses directed/caused by the members but funded separately.

I wager that a 20% cut at the top would save a ton of money and not adversely affect the voters.

Governator - - are you listening!

"I agree. I (we) am the problem by expecting too much from my government, and by voting for those that cause more spending for my benefit (pork)."

You're "agreeing" with something Jerry didn't say. The problem is INADEQUATE REVENUE, because people have bought the propaganda of the wealthy that taxation is evil. Every time something is written about the horrors of raising taxes, the authors will dishonestly omit or misrepresent who pays them in what proportion. By swallowing their nonsense, you might as well be writing a check directly to the Chinese government, because they have a huge interest in the corporations who are the primary beneficiaries of this anti-tax mania, and you end up paying for the many services that they use and that you need.

An economy based on low-paying service and agricultural industries cannot support the kind of education and health care services "Progressives" want. California's infrastructure was built in the 50s and 60s by the taxes paid by highly paid workers in aerospace and manufacturing. These industries, and the tax revenue they generated are gone -- think MacDonnell-Douglas, GM and General Dynamics, all of which shut down operations in Southern California in the 80s and 90s. These were not just defense contractors -- GM built cars in Southgate and Mac-Dac built passenger aircraft in Long Beach.

Jerry, I heard on your TV program that the problem in California is that "Anglo" voters won't agree to higher taxes. Well, the "Anglos" are leaving the state as fast as possible. Already, only 30% of K-12 students are "white." Who will you blame for California's misfortune when the last "Anglo" has left, driven out by the hostility of the multiculturalist progressives and Latino supremacists? You wanted "diversity", you got it so stop complaining.

IMHO the major problem here is that the majority of the taxpayers in CA just want someone else to pay the bill. And California has stupidly based most of its revenue plan on personal income tax receipts, which vary wildly with the economy and the stock market. Result being that when the economy and market are down, the "wealthy" (usually defined as someone with more than you) become the target for ever more "progressive" taxation.

In California, the top 1/2 of 1% of the taxpayers already pay 50% of the state income tax, while half the taxpayers pay nothing. That's pretty damn "progressive" by any measure. And those high end taxpayers have options:
1. they can (and do) leave the state, so pay NO income tax here, thus making the problem worse.
2. they declare residence in TX or WY or another notax state and live there for 183 days of the year, live in CA the balance of the year and pay NO income tax here, thus making the problem worse.

And the very well-intentioned Prop 13 has turned into a sort of welfare program for those who bought homes long ago and stayed in them - or maybe that was the intent - but now we have a significant part of the CA population not paying their arguably fair share of tax revenue (my neighbor pays roughly a tenth what I pay on a roughly comparable home).

Taxation is not inherently evil, but the idea that one can continually demand more and more services from the government without incurring any personal expense is immature and irresponsible. The CA governments, state and local, have raised to an art form the process of funnelling tax dollars to unions so that the unions will in turn support the governments. All at the expense of the ordinary citizens who have to pay for all this. Remember, people, government produces nothing of economic value (except education, but not in CA, rated 2nd lowest in the country); government is pure cost.

There is no simple answer to this mess, but a start would be to demand less government "service" and a dramatic reduction in government employee compensation - in many, many studies throughout the US over the past 20 years it has been repeatedly found that government employees are significantly higher compensated in wages and fringes when compared to the private sector (except, as one might expect, for those studies commissioned by governments and unions) .

How about a ballot proposition for an across the board 15% reduction in salaries and benefits for all government employees? Or, and here's one that should bring out the rage, a ballot eliminating unions for government employees? Or at least eliminating their right to strike? Or extending the idea of term limits to any government post (4 or 6 years in any elected office and you're out of the running for any elective office for good) - with the stated intent of eliminating politics as a "profession". The concept of "public service" got drowned years ago at the public trough. Food for thought.

I think every numbskull who voted for that silly high speed train ought to be taxed triple. It probably wouldn't make a dent in the overall economy, but it might make the idiocracy realize that things have to be paid for.

Prop 13 seems perfectly fair to me. I pay taxes based on what I paid for my house just like I pay taxes on a coat or art based on what I paid for the item.
When I sell, if I sell for a profit I pay tax on the profit. Think of property tax like sales tax except you get to pay for it on installments.
I've lived in my home for 30 years and pay a fraction of the property tax my neighbor pays. But over the past 30 years with 60% of my taxes going to education I have paid enough toward education to educate 5-6 kids and my 2 children mostly went to private schools. At 60+ years old I do not expect I will be having any more children, and Ianyway 've already paid way over my 'fair share'. What would be fair about me paying more?

With retirement coming up in a few years I would not be able to afford higher property taxes anyway -- so would you provide me with taxpayer subsidized affordable housing to move it to? or should I move to Nevada?

California per student spending on education is amongst the lowest in the nation however the revenue that the state of CA gets is amongst the highest in the nation. We have a failed budget process and the wrong spending priorities.

Agree on the education/budgeting point.

And even though I also benefit from Prop 13, and I understand your comments, I'll bet that a realistic accounting of how many dollars in tax you paid would show that you didn't really cover the costs of government that you used or were entitled to. BTW, your choice to use private schools was your choice, so be sure to include the cost of educating 2 kids in the government services you paid for.

But all in all, I'm skeptical that the politicians and voters in current-day California could come up with an equitable fix to Prop 13, so best to leave it be. It was certainly needed when it passed. I suspect the bigger issue in tax revenue is the shift in incomes (and therefore income taxes) down the economic scale since 1978.

JohnLocke,

I agree with your idea of reducing gov't worker salaries 10-15%. It is exactly what has happened in private industry over the last year, it is time for gov't to do the same. Gov't workers would not even need to take a salary cut, they just need to stop their over the top retirement benefits. Just move the retirement benefits to a 401K type 5% matching for current workers. Do a retroactive 5%/year with interest calculations for the retiree's and give each of them a lump sum payout -- DONE!

BTW, If property taxes stayed at the purchase price it would be a different story but with the 1%/year increases and remodel assesments it really does not stay at the orginal cost. Prop 13 may not be perfect but is is much more fair than what we had.