How are we going to pay for all this shit?

So hopefully a few of you now know the SS is not a Ponzi Scheme and all States, except Vermont, are not allowed by law to carry deficits.

So California is now able to run deficits? Hmmmmm....also Cali is projected to have almost a 200 billion surplus this year.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...l%20government.


State and local governments do not have the economic ability to run fiscal deficits to encourage aggregate demand like the federal government Originally Posted by WTF

your problem is obvious. u are an idiot.

you post this ..


Governments in the US Run Fiscal Deficits?


By The Investopedia Team

Updated August 31, 2021

Reviewed by Charles Potters


Fact checked by Michael Logan


There is nothing to prevent state and local governments from running budget deficits in the same manner as the U.S. federal government. However, most state governments are required by law or their constitution to balance their budgets.1


 then walk away thinking just because Kalifornica has a balanced budget requirement you've proved your point.


yet Kalifornica is projected to have budget deficits over the next several years despite a balanced budget requirement.


how's that possible professor poofter?


here's your "balanced" budget .. it's how appropriately for Kalifornica .. "Hollywood Accounting".


State budget ‘balanced’ with massive new debt

https://calmatters.org/commentary/da...sive-new-debt/


by Dan Walters July 15, 2020


n summary Gov. Gavin Newsom says the new California state budget is balanced, but in reality it has a huge deficit that will be covered by indirect borrowing.



Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a 2020-21 state budget he described as “balanced, responsible and protects public safety and health, education, and services to Californians facing the greatest hardships.”


Whatever its other virtues may be, the budget is far from “balanced,” at least as most folks outside the Capitol would define it.

The 2020-21 budget spends far more — at least $20 billion more — than projected revenues, even including billions of dollars from the state’s emergency reserve.


The gap is closed, at least on paper, by running up the state’s credit card with debt of one kind or another, the most spectacular example being how it treats the budget’s largest single expenditure, state aid to school districts for the education of about 6 million kids.


It authorizes those districts to spend more or less what they would spend if the state wasn’t being battered by the COVID-19 pandemic, if its economy wasn’t in recession, and if the state’s revenues aren’t in a nosedive.


However, in actual money, the budget will give them at least $11 billion less than the authorized spending and assumes that local school officials will close the gap from their own reserves or by going into debt themselves. Under the constitution, the deferments must be made up in subsequent years, so in reality the state is borrowing money from the schools.


Billions more dollars counted as revenues in the budget are actually loans from dozens of state special funds — money collected for specific purposes, such as licensing fees — that also must be repaid eventually with interest.


The most interesting special fund raid is money set aside to rebuild the east wing of the state Capitol, which houses Newsom’s own office and those of legislators, as well as committee hearing rooms. The budget grabs $734 million and authorizes the issuance of bonds — borrowed money — for the construction project.


The budget counts about $4.5 billion in revenue from suspending a couple of corporate income tax breaks. But the suspension will be in effect for several years, generating about $9 billion for the budget. It’s really a massive loan from the affected corporations that would have to be repaid when they claim the accumulated tax credits after the suspension expires.


The sneakiest bit of borrowing is an assumption that the budget will save $2.8 billion, half in the general fund, by reducing the pay of state workers via deals negotiated with their unions. The details differ from union to union, but generally, workers will be required to work two days each month without pay, offset somewhat by reducing their contributions for fringe benefits.


The kicker is that those unpaid work days will go onto the books as time-off to be taken with pay later and doubles the ceiling on accumulated time-off. So eventually the state will be repaying workers, and probably at hourly rates substantially higher than their current salaries.


The budget declares that the extra time-off must be taken before an employee retires or resigns, but that’s a polite fiction. A smart worker will use up the extra time-off first and bank other vacation or time-off days, which will then become larger lump-sum payments when employment ends.


When the reduced fringe benefit contributions are included in the equation, it’s really a multi-billion-dollar, high-interest loan from workers.


All of these loans assume that the state’s economy and tax revenues will recover in subsequent years, so they can be easily repaid. It’s a multi-billion-dollar wager, with taxpayers on the hook if it’s a loser.

.

State and local governments do not have the economic ability to run fiscal deficits to encourage aggregate demand like the federal government Originally Posted by WTF

your problem is obvious. u are an idiot. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

If state and local governments were unable to "run fiscal deficits" they would be debt-free.

Question - how it is possible that state governments in the US currently owe over $1.2 trillion, while local governments are in hock for nearly $2.1 trillion?

Could that possibly be evidence of borrowing to finance fiscal deficits?

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_debt

If you can't explain it, feel free to plead guilty to being an idiot.

So hopefully a few of you now know I am truly an idiot. Originally Posted by WTF

Hey, that was quick! Thanks for confirming!

your problem is obvious. u are an idiot.

you post this ..


Governments in the US Run Fiscal Deficits?


By The Investopedia Team

Updated August 31, 2021

Reviewed by Charles Potters


Fact checked by Michael Logan


There is nothing to prevent state and local governments from running budget deficits in the same manner as the U.S. federal government. However, most state governments are required by law or their constitution to balance their budgets.1


 then walk away thinking just because Kalifornica has a balanced budget requirement you've proved your point.


yet Kalifornica is projected to have budget deficits over the next several years despite a balanced budget requirement.


how's that possible professor poofter?


here's your "balanced" budget .. it's how appropriately for Kalifornica .. "Hollywood Accounting".


State budget ‘balanced’ with massive new debt

https://calmatters.org/commentary/da...sive-new-debt/


by Dan Walters July 15, 2020


n summary Gov. Gavin Newsom says the new California state budget is balanced, but in reality it has a huge deficit that will be covered by indirect borrowing.



Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a 2020-21 state budget he described as “balanced, responsible and protects public safety and health, education, and services to Californians facing the greatest hardships.”


Whatever its other virtues may be, the budget is far from “balanced,” at least as most folks outside the Capitol would define it.

The 2020-21 budget spends far more — at least $20 billion more — than projected revenues, even including billions of dollars from the state’s emergency reserve.


The gap is closed, at least on paper, by running up the state’s credit card with debt of one kind or another, the most spectacular example being how it treats the budget’s largest single expenditure, state aid to school districts for the education of about 6 million kids.


It authorizes those districts to spend more or less what they would spend if the state wasn’t being battered by the COVID-19 pandemic, if its economy wasn’t in recession, and if the state’s revenues aren’t in a nosedive.


However, in actual money, the budget will give them at least $11 billion less than the authorized spending and assumes that local school officials will close the gap from their own reserves or by going into debt themselves. Under the constitution, the deferments must be made up in subsequent years, so in reality the state is borrowing money from the schools.


Billions more dollars counted as revenues in the budget are actually loans from dozens of state special funds — money collected for specific purposes, such as licensing fees — that also must be repaid eventually with interest.


The most interesting special fund raid is money set aside to rebuild the east wing of the state Capitol, which houses Newsom’s own office and those of legislators, as well as committee hearing rooms. The budget grabs $734 million and authorizes the issuance of bonds — borrowed money — for the construction project.


The budget counts about $4.5 billion in revenue from suspending a couple of corporate income tax breaks. But the suspension will be in effect for several years, generating about $9 billion for the budget. It’s really a massive loan from the affected corporations that would have to be repaid when they claim the accumulated tax credits after the suspension expires.


The sneakiest bit of borrowing is an assumption that the budget will save $2.8 billion, half in the general fund, by reducing the pay of state workers via deals negotiated with their unions. The details differ from union to union, but generally, workers will be required to work two days each month without pay, offset somewhat by reducing their contributions for fringe benefits.


The kicker is that those unpaid work days will go onto the books as time-off to be taken with pay later and doubles the ceiling on accumulated time-off. So eventually the state will be repaying workers, and probably at hourly rates substantially higher than their current salaries.


The budget declares that the extra time-off must be taken before an employee retires or resigns, but that’s a polite fiction. A smart worker will use up the extra time-off first and bank other vacation or time-off days, which will then become larger lump-sum payments when employment ends.


When the reduced fringe benefit contributions are included in the equation, it’s really a multi-billion-dollar, high-interest loan from workers.


All of these loans assume that the state’s economy and tax revenues will recover in subsequent years, so they can be easily repaid. It’s a multi-billion-dollar wager, with taxpayers on the hook if it’s a loser.

. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

it is not 2020 Dorothy...

You realize that California is expected to have nearly a 100 billion dollar surplus this year. right?
https://calmatters.org/politics/2022...llion-surplus/

You won't find this on Netflix!!!

https://laist.com/californias-100-bi...-spending-plan

California’s $100 Billion Surplus: What To Know About Newsom’s Spending Plan

Cali is projected to have almost a 200 billion surplus this this year. Originally Posted by WTF

You realize that California is expected to have nearly a 100 billion dollar surplus this year, right? Originally Posted by WTF

You realize the way you keep changing your numbers, it may be gone tomorrow, right?

Still think state & local governments can't run deficits?

Please tell us what the muni debt market is for - and why state & local authorities currently have $3.3 trillion in outstanding debt!

...you haven't a clue with how much surplus taxes Cali is going to jave! Originally Posted by WTF

From whence comes these surplus of dollars of which you speaketh? They fall from the sky like rain or from the wallets of ye olde tax payers?

You realize the way you keep changing your numbers, it may be gone tomorrow, right?

Still think state & local governments can't run deficits?

Please tell us what the muni debt market is for - and why state & local authorities currently have $3.3 trillion in outstanding debt! Originally Posted by lustylad

The first was a typo, you creepo

From whence comes these surplus of dollars of which you speaketh? They fall from the sky like rain or from the wallets of ye olde tax payers? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

They're free to move

The first was a typo, you creepo Originally Posted by WTF

Going with that typo excuse again, are ya? Only off by a mere 100 billion... no biggie, right?

Ya think Gov. Gruesome will apply any of the surplus, should it materialize, to pay down the state's $144 billion debt or the additional $363 billion owed by local governments in the state?

But wait a minute! Where did that mountain of debt come from?

Didn't you just tell us state & local governments don't have any ability to run deficits? If so, then how/why did Cali ever borrow so much?

Please explain...

The first was a typo, you creepo Originally Posted by WTF

... Next time, start with a smaller thimble, mate.
You can't fill a larger one. ...

### Salty

They're free to move Originally Posted by WTF

Ya thinks?

Read on... the taxman from Sacramento will continue to follow you wherever you go...

(Where's Tiny when we need him to comment on this??)


A California Plan to Chase Away the Rich, Then Keep Stalking Them

A proposed wealth tax would apply for a decade to anyone who spends 60 days in the state in a single year.

By Hank Adler
Dec. 18, 2020 5:44 pm ET


California’s Legislature is considering a wealth tax on residents, part-year residents, and any person who spends more than 60 days inside the state’s borders in a single year. Even those who move out of state would continue to be subject to the tax for a decade—a provision that calls to mind the Eagles’ famous “Hotel California” lyric: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

The California Constitution probably allows a statewide wealth tax on residents, but any effort to create a tax capable of reaching across state borders is likely to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun.

Each year this tax net would gather up a new crop of taxpayers for the next decade. The range of people it proposes to ensnare is staggering: every student attending college in California, anyone having a major medical procedure at a California hospital and needing an extended in-state recovery period, and those who spend two months in California away from New York or London winters. Under California tax law, there is no distinction between a nonresident from Minnesota and a nonresident from Dubai.

Assembly Bill 2088 proposes calculating the wealth tax based on current world-wide net worth each Dec. 31. For part-year and temporary residents, the tax would be proportionate based on their number of days in California. The annual tax would be on current net worth and therefore would include wealth earned, inherited or obtained through gifts or estates long before and long after leaving the state.

The proposed wealth tax would fall on a star high-school or college athlete who grows up in California but becomes a wealthy professional in another state after graduation. It would grab a scientist who develops a drug to cure cancer years after leaving California. A grandchild who spent a single summer surfing in Southern California would be subject to the tax. It would include anyone returning home to a foreign country after 60 days in California.

Imagine the child of a Saudi prince being asked to pay a California wealth tax during college and for nine years after graduation.

The authors of the bill estimate the wealth tax will provide Sacramento $7.5 billion in additional revenue every year. Another proposal—to increase the top state income-tax rate to 16.8%—would annually raise another $6.8 billion. Today, California’s wealthiest 1% pay approximately 46% of total state income taxes. Adding the wealth tax to individual taxes and including those taxpayers who have abandoned California, the combination of the two proposals would have 1% of the state’s population paying about 53% of individual taxes.

California has enough financial woes for an entire large nation. Most are of its own making, including unfulfillable public pension promises and a vast social safety net beyond the capacity of California’s workers to fund. So the Legislature looks to the wealthiest Californians to fill funding gaps without considering the constitutionality of the proposals and the ability of people and companies to pick up and leave the state, which news reports suggest they are doing in large numbers. The very act of collecting the financial information necessary to calculate the A.B. 2088 wealth tax would be an invasion of privacy.

Proponents argue that the wealth tax is “only” 0.4% on net worth over $30 million, and the percentage of net worth taxed would decline each year during the 10-year “tail” should a taxpayer leave the state. While the rate appears negligible and the $30 million base seems high, it is a slippery slope. In California, tax rates rarely get lower. The state’s top income-tax rate was 9.3% in 2003. Soon it could be 16.8%. Why 0.4% instead of 1%, 2% or 10%? Why not a $10 million base?

Even at 0.4%, there are eye-popping new levels of actual tax. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg would face a first-year tax of approximately $400 million. If he moved out of state immediately, his total wealth tax over the subsequent decade would be another $2 billion. If he remained in California, the wealth tax would extract $4 billion over that decade.

If Bill Gates spent 60 days a year in his Palm Desert home, for each day in California his wealth tax would be more than $1 million. While the tax would diminish each year if he stayed out of the state, he would continue to be subject to a tax on his world-wide net worth for another decade.

The cost of compliance by taxpayers and the cost of enforcement by the state would be monumental. For most taxpayers, the cost of compliance would far exceed the amount of the tax. A resident with a net worth of $31 million would be subject to a wealth tax of $4,000. The cost of an annual appraisal of each of that taxpayer’s assets could easily exceed $100,000. The state would have to hire auditors to chase people all over the world.

As of this moment, there are no police roadblocks on the freeways trying to keep moving trucks from leaving California. If A.B. 2088 becomes law, the state may need to consider placing some.

Mr. Adler is associate professor of accounting at Chapman University.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-calif...em-11608331448

You realize the way you keep changing your numbers, it may be gone tomorrow, right? Originally Posted by lustylad

The first was a typo, you creepo Originally Posted by WTF

Gee, maybe Tiny and Wacko ought to start a thread titled... "WTF... a short class to help with your math deficiencies!"

Gee, maybe Tiny and Wacko ought to start a thread titled... "WTF... a short class to help with your math deficiencies!" Originally Posted by lustylad

Wacko should look inside himself and decide if he wants to be a Contributor, or remain a Troll who spins every post to argue. He became so pitiful I put him on ignore.

Gee, maybe Tiny and Wacko ought to start a thread titled... "WTF... a short class to help with your math deficiencies!"


Originally Posted by lustylad

You and Tiny keep posting about proposals as if they're etched in stone.

I said the people were free to move if they didn't care for California taxes.