Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[Ziggurat]

Gollygee Billy Bob, ya think the state's population having increased by about fifty percent during that time period might have anything to do with it? Or the fact that a 2009 dollar was worth less than half of a 1983 dollar?

Yeah, you're missing some stuff, all right.

Revenue went from less than $35 billion on the left side of the graph to $130 billion on the right side. Inflation gets you to $75 billion, and population gets you to $112 billion. So that's pretty important. But we're still below actual revenues. So revenues haven't decreased in per capita inflation-adjusted terms. Where are all these giant tax cuts? And why does that revenue no longer suffice?

 

[TimCallahan]

Various parts of the UN are certainly working with "green" operations and advising on carbon cap and carbon trading schemes in various countries. But you've twisted the question around a bit from the actual OP, and I am sure you understand that the OP itself twisted reality quite a bit....we can find nutcases within the Tea Party, yes, but they are not representative of the whole. I view the UN as a self serving and self propagating bureaucracy, which at the same time is notably corrupt.

. . . (snip) . . .

Concerning the hilited area: Evidence?

 

[mhaze]

Concerning the hilited area: Evidence?

HuH? Starting to sound like another 'do my work for me' deal.....

Sorry, but FYI, it's all online.

 

[Ziggurat]

Concerning the hilited area: Evidence?

You could start here.

 

[Trakar]

Do you have a cite for these tax cuts for the rich in California Trakar?

I have no problem with the wealthy, most acknowledge that their taxes are inappropriately low. It is all the idiots who delusionally think that the main thing keeping them from their daydreams of loading up the truck and heading for Beverly Hills is the gubbermint hand in their billfolds.

as to evidence:
"...Starting to sound like another 'do my work for me' deal.....

Sorry, but FYI, it's all online."

 

[WildCat]

I have no problem with the wealthy, most acknowledge that their taxes are inappropriately low. It is all the idiots who delusionally think that the main thing keeping them from their daydreams of loading up the truck and heading for Beverly Hills is the gubbermint hand in their billfolds.

as to evidence:
"...Starting to sound like another 'do my work for me' deal.....

Sorry, but FYI, it's all online."

You could have just said "no".

Not that I didn't already know the answer when I asked you.

 

[Trakar]

I have no problem with the wealthy, most acknowledge that their taxes are inappropriately low. It is all the idiots who delusionally think that the main thing keeping them from their daydreams of loading up the truck and heading for Beverly Hills is the gubbermint hand in their billfolds.

as to evidence:
"...Starting to sound like another 'do my work for me' deal.....

Sorry, but FYI, it's all online."

after reading MHaze's response I couldn't resist using it in turnabout. Cites would start with my original response, which was -

Prop 13 was the start of California's fiscal issues, Reagan understood this, that's why as governor he repeatedly raised State taxes trying to address the revenue problems. For the most part the freeloading tax-deadbeats in california aren't the wealthy, though many of them do supply corporate, virtual citizen dopplegangers that milk the state of much of its rightful due.


http://rosereport.org/home/entry/a-history-of-californiau2019s-tax-initiatives

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/100707_No_Free_Lunch_bb.pdf​

 

[Trakar]

You could have just said "no".

Not that I didn't already know the answer when I asked you.

LOL, your psychic abilities are as valid as your economic acumen.

 

[WildCat]

LOL, your psychic abilities are as valid as your economic acumen.

Did I miss your link showing California gave tax cuts to the wealthy?

 

[Trakar]

Did I miss your link showing California gave tax cuts to the wealthy?

That's your red herring, not anything I stated.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did I miss your link showing California gave tax cuts to the wealthy?

That's your red herring, not anything I stated.

You're right, you didn't say tax cuts for the wealthy. But you said something pretty close:

Over-zealous and unnecessary tax cuts for those who didn't need them mostly.

So we're still left with the question, where are all those tax cuts you're talking about? And who got them, if not the wealthy?

 

[Trakar]

You're right, you didn't say tax cuts for the wealthy. But you said something pretty close:...

Actually, I even clarified that this bizarre assumption that the wealthy are the only people who get unneeded and unnecessary tax-cuts had little to do with what I was saying with:

I have no problem with the wealthy, most acknowledge that their taxes are inappropriately low. It is all the idiots who delusionally think that the main thing keeping them from their daydreams of loading up the truck and heading for Beverly Hills is the gubbermint hand in their billfolds.

So we're still left with the question, where are all those tax cuts you're talking about? And who got them, if not the wealthy?

I provided reference links to start the exploration, but I can't force you to read them.

 

[Ziggurat]

I provided reference links to start the exploration, but I can't force you to read them.

The first link primarily concerns propositions which limited the growth of taxes. That's not a tax cut. Nor are there any budget figures attached to any of the items listed.

The second link is an analysis of the effects of tax cuts on economic growth. It argues that tax cuts aren't effective in spurring growth. But so far I don't see anything in that link describing massive California tax cuts. I'm not going to read it line by line when I don't even know if there's anything in there.

Basically, you still haven't actually provided any evidence to support your assertion. Your links are insufficient, especially since you haven't indicated what content from the links is supposed to be relevant. What are these massive tax cuts you refer to?

 

[WildCat]

That's your red herring, not anything I stated.

That's exactly what you stated:

And WHY.....is CA broke?

Over-zealous and unnecessary tax cuts for those who didn't need them mostly. The obvious isn't as elusive as those with an agenda often seem to portray it.

So what California tax cuts are you talking about?

 

[eeyore1954]

California hisrtorically has one the the top tax rates on high earners.

In the 1990's they did have a top rate of 11% which was lowered to 9.3 in the mid 1990's still one of the top rates. So there was a cut but if I recall correctly it did not cut into revenues. Sales tax rates in California are also very high.
Because less high earners moved out of state.


Currently the top rate in California is 10.3 Which I believe is the 3rd highest rate of all states. I would be willing to bet California has been in the top 5 of all state for the past 20 years. (not 10,000 like Romney)

 

[mhaze]

That's exactly what you stated:


So what California tax cuts are you talking about?

Well, could it be the tax cuts on the people who earned less, or nothing, like those who got fired? They would have then paid less, and I guess you could call that a "tax cut".

 

[Trakar]

That's exactly what you stated:

Which says nothing about tax cuts on the wealthy.

So what California tax cuts are you talking about?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8025064&postcount=147

to begin with, we can cover more if there is still any further exploration interest after these are addressed.

For any who are hard of reading that starts with state corporate tax rates over the last 40 or so years. This isn't so much an issue of massive cuts but merely depressed and repressed rates.

But starting with prop 13 we get into "Over-zealous and unnecessary tax cuts for those who didn't need them mostly."

prop 13 property tax rollback and super-majority legislation requirement

prop 5 gift tax elimination

prop 6 inheritance tax elimination

prop 7 indexing tax to inflation rate

prop 62 requiring 2/3 popular vote to approve raising local special taxes, 2/3 local government vote and popular majority vote to raise local general taxes

prop163 repealing snack tax

It is best to start with this history of public propositions as it is this process which fosters and demonstrates most clearly that misguided concept that all taxes are bad, and the delusion that all tax cuts are good and benefit people and the economy.

 

[lomiller]

Yeah, brilliant comment - now tell me what happens when supply increases faster than demand and also market competition increases.

How exactly is doubling or tripling natural gas in order to replace petroleum use going to increases production faster than consumption open your claim?

It won’t obviously; your claim that switching from petroleum to natural gas would reduce the cost of natural gas is absurd. You should observe the rule of holes and stop digging.

HSR as a greenhouse gas reduction scheme is vastly expensive compared to other approaches.

Strawman noted. HSR isn’t about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it’s about positioning the economy to adapt to much higher transportation costs.

 

[WildCat]

This isn't so much an issue of massive cuts but merely depressed and repressed rates.

Ah, so now you're retracting your claim of tax cuts and blaming the fiscal mess on failure to raise tax rates?

 

[WildCat]

Strawman noted. HSR isn’t about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it’s about positioning the economy to adapt to much higher transportation costs.

You have yet to show that transportation costs will be higher, or that travel by HSR will cost less than other options.