How are we going to pay for all this shit?

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. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Yet you don't put Professor Poofter on ignore?

He's a partisan hack who contributes nothing but keeps beating dead horses over & over again. He constantly seeks to deflect new arguments he can't address by bringing up old arguments he already lost.

85 of WTF's posts in this thread alone are about Reagan, who has been out of office for 33 years. The thread is supposed to be about dim-retard over-spending! What does that tell you?

Yet you don't put Professor Poofter on ignore? He's a partisan hack who contributes nothing but keeps beating dead horses over & over again. He constantly seeks to deflect new arguments he can't address by bringing up old arguments he already lost. Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't know who that is. Not surprising since I rarely see anything besides name-calling in this Forum.

I don't know who that is... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Of course, you're being disingenuous again.

Poofter = WTF.

Of course, you're being disingenuous again.

Poofter = WTF. Originally Posted by lustylad

Why do you say that? I truly didn't know.

Am I supposed to keep track of everyone's vile nicknames? This Forum is getting more disgusting every day.

Why do you say that? I truly didn't know. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Well then, now you know!

Question - Do you think anyone who claims state & local governments can't run budget deficits is qualified to opine on economic matters in general? Do you think someone who is that utterly clueless has an ounce of credibility to preach to us about federal deficits/debt matters?

Asking for a friend.

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

Here is the post. I was responding to Wacko's claim about the state being 140 something billion in debt...which I found strange since they are projected to have a 97 billion dollar surplus this year.

Well then, now you know!

Question - Do you think anyone who claims state & local governments can't run budget deficits is qualified to opine on economic matters in general? Do you think someone who is that utterly clueless has an ounce of credibility to preach to us about federal deficits/debt matters?

Asking for a friend. Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm not your friend...

I doubt if any of us are experts on California's budgetary system. Now if lustylad is an expert, now is his time to shine.

I did find this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cali...state_finances

Edit
California uses two kinds of tax anticipation notes: Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANS), which are issued and paid back within a fiscal year, and Revenue Anticipation Warrants (RAWS), which are issued on a fiscal year and paid back the following fiscal year.[1] RANS are commonly used due to the delay between expenditure and tax collection while RAWS are only used in times of crisis.[1]

Our whole economic system is a budget deficit. Federal, State, Local.. Households. Unfunded mandates everywhere.

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. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you don't need to put someone on ignore to ignore them.


bahhahaaa

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 Originally Posted by lustylad

i would like to see Kalifornica do this. let's ignore for a moment that it would likely be unconstitutional because when did that ever stop Dems anyway? so what would Zuckerturd do if he had to cough up over 2 billion for not living in Kalifornica? what would he do if he had to shell out 4 billion to stay there?


of course Zuckerturd and Gatesy are not the only people that would be targeted, look at people like Larry Ellison, Peter Thiel and a whole slew of tech zillionaires in Silicon valley. Tommy Maypother "Cruise" and all those rich actors. Cruise will probably gross at least 100 million for his Top Gun Maverick movie.


also all those non-tech executives who live in Kalifornica for work.


and all those rich foreign nationals who own properties in sunny Kalifornica? how's that work? is Kalifornica gonna send the tax police to Saudi Arabia to collect billions from MBS and his family? like Saudi Arabia is going to allow them in the country, right?? while we are at it, send those tax police to China to waltz in and collect tax on all those Chinese billionaires. as dubious as it is for legality on US citizens this idiot plan has zero chance to be recognized in foreign nations.


butt let them try it anyway, it'll be fun to see!

I doubt if any of us are experts on California's budgetary system. Now if lustylad is an expert, now is his time to shine. Originally Posted by WTF

You're the one constantly pretending to be an expert, only to wind up proving yourself an idiot.

I was responding to Wacko's claim... which I found strange... Originally Posted by WTF

If you find something "strange" then you should dig deeper before you post something as stupid and arrogant as this:

So hopefully a few of you now know... all States, except Vermont, are not allowed by law to carry deficits. Originally Posted by WTF

Anyone who has ever heard of the municipal bond market knows that is bullshit!

Many (if not most) states run occasional (if not regular) deficits. They then issue general obligation and/or other types of muni bonds to cover the gap between their spending and revenues. They may have to obtain a waiver or authorization from their state legislature(s) to issue the debt, but one way or another they wind up financing the deficit.

California has been one of the most voracious state borrowers over the years. Historically they run deficits all the time!

you don't need to put someone on ignore to ignore them.


bahhahaaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'll second that shit!

What does that tell you? Originally Posted by lustylad

It tells me the dim-retards are over-spending!

i would like to see Kalifornica do this. let's ignore for a moment that it would likely be unconstitutional because when did that ever stop Dems anyway? so what would Zuckerturd do if he had to cough up over 2 billion for not living in Kalifornica? what would he do if he had to shell out 4 billion to stay there?

of course Zuckerturd and Gatesy are not the only people that would be targeted, look at people like Larry Ellison, Peter Thiel and a whole slew of tech zillionaires in Silicon valley. Tommy Maypother "Cruise" and all those rich actors. Cruise will probably gross at least 100 million for his Top Gun Maverick movie.

also all those non-tech executives who live in Kalifornica for work.

and all those rich foreign nationals who own properties in sunny Kalifornica? how's that work? is Kalifornica gonna send the tax police to Saudi Arabia to collect billions from MBS and his family? like Saudi Arabia is going to allow them in the country, right?? while we are at it, send those tax police to China to waltz in and collect tax on all those Chinese billionaires. as dubious as it is for legality on US citizens this idiot plan has zero chance to be recognized in foreign nations.

butt let them try it anyway, it'll be fun to see! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yup. What's depressing to contemplate is how Californica is now essentially a one-party libtard state, so all those greedy grubby woke progressive smelly unwashed redistributionist assholes in Sacramento just sit around all day toking 420 and dreaming up crazy shit like this, fantasizing it might actually work!

I'm not rich and I hate Zuckerturd too, but I gotta agree - just let 'em try this idiot idea!

As Captain Midnight pointed out to you in his link to the CNN web site, and as I did in a post, you're totally ignoring what came after ERTA. Subsequent bills passed during the Reagan administration broadened the base and eliminated loopholes and tax shelters. You're the Laffer Curve expert, but I'd suspect when you drop the maximum marginal rate from 70% to 28%, as Reagan and Congress did, you don't loose as much revenue as people would think. At 70% people are scrambling to find ways to avoid recognizing income and paying tax. At 28%, not so much. Originally Posted by Tiny

Reply:

I'm not sure you even realize what your saying as you seem to be bragging about Reagan's increasing taxes on one hand and cutting them on the other.

Reagan lowers taxes on higher income and then turns around with the most significant slight of hand ever! He raises the SS/Medicare tax. That is base broadening for sure!

No, it is not! The base-broadening was a function of the elimination of a whole smorgasbord of loopholes, shelters, and exclusions.

I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out how by cutting taxes on higher wages and increased taxing on all wages under what was it 65k at the time (as that what the SS tax did)?....would create more income inequality. Which it did...(No, it did not!) Originally Posted by WTF

First, there was no sleight-of-hand associated with the 1983 "Greenspan Commission" finding that resulted in adjustments made to the Social Security system in order to shore up its long-term outlook. The resultant payroll tax increases were small potatoes compared to the across-the-board income tax cuts, which sharply cut rates across the income distribution. The result was that total federal taxes (income and payroll taxes combined) were reduced substantially for middle-class taxpayers.

Second, as I pointed out earlier, and as was explained in the link I posted, the 1986 tax law actually raised taxes on the wealthy!

So, if myriad tax policy changes passed during Reagan's presidency reduced the tax burden on the middle class while shifting a greater portion of it to the wealthy, how is it that you believe they somehow increased income inequality?

I'm going to have to get you and CM out to eat sometime and like Laffer....I can help explain things on a napkin to you! Originally Posted by WTF

(That was directed at Tiny.)

I don't know about Tiny, but if you're up for taking me out to a fine restaurant the next time I'm in Houston, I'm all in! (Especially if you spring for a fine bottle of Cabernet as well.)

Regarding that "explaining things on a napkin" thing though, I'm afraid you're going to need a little luck.

If you think you're going to cogently rebut any of the points I made above, that better be a pretty fucking magical napkin!

.

It tells me the dim-retards are over-spending! Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

it's the only thing they do well.

bahahahhaaa

Yup. What's depressing to contemplate is how Californica is now essentially a one-party libtard state, so all those greedy grubby woke progressive smelly unwashed redistributionist assholes in Sacramento just sit around all day toking 420 and dreaming up crazy shit like this, fantasizing it might actually work!

I'm not rich and I hate Zuckerturd too, but I gotta agree - just let 'em try this idiot idea! Originally Posted by lustylad

it'll be the perfect litmus test. let's see if they literally put their money where their liberal mouths are. remember when all those liberal asshole actors claimed they would leave the US when Trump got elected? (they said the same thing when G Bushy II got elected). none did of course.


"IF" this passes and even in uber lib Kalifornica there is some serious doubt on that but if any place could get this done it is of course Kalifornica so if it gets passed let's see how the uber rich libtards react to getting robbed of billions of their sacred money to fund the very state their liberal policies ruined. oh the irony!


BAAHHAAAAA

I don't know about Tiny, but if you're up for taking me out to a fine restaurant the next time I'm in Houston, I'm all in!

If you think you're going to cogently rebut any of the points I made above, that better be a pretty fucking magical napkin!

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Just to let you know.. With 8.6% inflation, the restaurant will be Taco Bell, and the napkin will be one of their flimsy chocolate brown offering. Be sure and bring an orange magic marker, and don't press too hard.

And stay close to the rest room.