California's new tax deal???????????
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 29

Thread:
California's new tax deal???????????

  1. #1
    Senior Member Not So Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lake Havasu
    Posts
    3,559

    Default California's new tax deal???????????

    I just caught a little of the tail end about California possibly having a flat tax code and it may just save them. Arnie was being interveiwed about it, anyone know the whole deal?? Thanks NSF
    CHARGERS ROCK !!!!

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    HELL OF A GUY TITTIES AND BEER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    HOMELESS
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    it might work?till they go broke again
    CLEAR YOUR MIND ,AND YOUR ASS WILL FOLLOW

  4. #3
    Passin Glass HOOLI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In a state of confusion
    Posts
    2,825

    Arrow

    They threw that idea around ...and out up here a few times.

  5. #4
    Nine pieces of Eight OCMerrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TITTIES AND BEER View Post
    it might work?till they go broke again

    No shit. Thay can't come up with enough scams to extract more $$.

    Laveycraft 20.8 Sebring, Jeep Rubicon Unlimited, and no cash left.

  6. #5
    RvRrat
    Guest

    Default

    What amazes me is they still don't get it. The State is living beyond its means. Instead of saving the windfall money from property taxes a few years ago, we spent it thinking the tree would continue to produce cash. So now the State is scrambling trying to come up with ways to increase revenue instead of reducing costs. Typical politicians I guess, worried more about re-election than making tough decisions.

  7. #6
    Cas
    Cas is offline
    Angry American Cas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    3,103

    Default

    Apparently the bill includes a 6.5% flat tax for anyone making $28,000.00 or more per year but it also includes a Business Net Receipt tax.

    SACRAMENTO, Sep 20, 2009 (Ventura County Star - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Sometime this week, Gerald Parsky, chairman of a commission tasked with proposing top-to-bottom changes in California's tax structure, will present the panel's final report to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders.
    The centerpiece of the plan will be a tax that few people in California have ever heard of, is virtually untested in the world, is disliked by business and labor interests alike and one that even commissioners acknowledge has not yet been fully vetted.
    It is called a business net receipts tax. It would be paid by businesses in every industry. Businesses would subtract from their gross receipts the costs they pay to other businesses for the purchase of materials and services, then pay a tax of about 4 percent on the difference. They could not subtract the key expenses of payroll or interest payments.
    Very small businesses would be exempt, because the requirement to pay the tax would not be triggered until a business reached $500,000 in annual gross receipts.
    The commission envisions that over time the revenue produced by the BNRT would allow California to eliminate its corporate income tax, do away with the state sales tax and dramatically reduce personal income taxes.
    While acknowledging that the BNRT "represents an extraordinary change in California's tax code," Commissioners John Cogan and Chris Edley summed up the commission's prevailing view in a Sept. 9 memo:
    "We believe the BNRT is sufficiently promising to warrant the commission's recommendation that the Legislature and the governor proceed with a public process to fully evaluate the BNRT (and) to enact a BNRT into law."
    Critics on the left and right have a far different view. They believe the BNRT proposal ought to be dead on arrival.
    "If this is the starting point, we've taken several steps behind the starting line," says Michael Shaw, an analyst with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. "It creates a labor tax, which is a huge problem for the retail and service industries."
    "I think the BNRT should be dismissed out of hand," said Jean Ross, executive director of the nonprofit California Budget Project, which analyzes state fiscal issues. "You could not say, 'We're going to tax child care so we can lower the income tax on millionaires.' But that's what this does. It's deliberately designed to be opaque."
    The chief selling point of the BNRT is that it would provide a way to levy a consumption tax -- everyone agrees that businesses would largely pass along the tax to consumers -- on products other than just the tangible goods that are now subject to sales taxes.
    Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders clearly hoped the panel, called the Commission on the 21st Century Economy, would devise a way to broaden the base of consumption taxes as a way to reduce the volatility of a California tax system that is extraordinarily dependent on income taxes.
    The original hope was the commission would produce a report that could be put to an up-or-down vote in the Legislature, but commissioners acknowledge their recommendations are not yet refined enough for that.
    Schwarzenegger has said he will call a special session of the Legislature to deal with the ideas submitted by the commission. He has been strongly advocating for changes that would reduce the volatility of the state's existing tax system in the hope of ending the roller-coaster cycle of booms and busts experienced by state government.
    The BNRT would achieve the goal of producing new revenues in order to allow a shift away from the more volatile income tax.
    Law firms would pay it, golf courses would pay it as would landscaping services, amusement parks, accounting firms, hospitals -- all businesses that produce services that are not now subject to the sales tax.
    Shaw said he believes the tax's chief appeal to the commission is that it provided a way to deal with the politically sensitive issue of levying a sales tax on services without having to confront it head-on.
    "Sales taxes on services are not popular," he said. "The truth is that this just takes the sales tax and shifts it to the business side of the equation rather the transaction side. This would be hidden from the consumer because the tax would be hidden in the price of goods."
    Support on the commission is far from unanimous, and it remains unclear how many of the 14 commissioners will sign the final report. Seven of the commissioners were appointed by Republican Schwarzenegger, and seven by Democratic legislative leaders.
    One who won't sign is Richard Pomp, a University of Connecticut tax law professor and nationally regarded tax policy expert appointed to the commission by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles.
    "I cannot in good faith send this proposal forward, especially when some commissioners want the tax described as 'promising,' " he wrote in a memo to colleagues on Friday. "I think it is anything but 'promising.'"
    Last Monday, on the day of the commission's final public meeting, Pomp sent a memo detailing what he saw as a litany of problems with the BNRT, including that fact it would encourage businesses to outsource jobs to independent contractors because payments to contractors could be written off while payroll costs could not.
    Because it would tax a business's payroll costs, Ross said it would disproportionately tax knowledge-based industries, which "everyone agrees is the best thing California has going for it."
    She said the net receipts for a company such as Wal-Mart would be a much smaller percentage of gross receipts than a company such as Oracle. While much of Wal-Mart's expenses are buying inventory, "most of the value of what Oracle sells is the brainpower of its highly compensated, highly skilled work force."
    "What type of businesses do we want to encourage in the California economy?"
    The commission analysis acknowledges its proposed tax changes would shift much of California's tax burden away from the very wealthy, who would be the chief beneficiary of a reduction in the personal income tax. The changes, according to the commission's analysis, would reduce revenue from the state income tax by $14 billion a year, with $7 billion of the savings going to the top 3 percent of taxpayers, or those who make more than $200,000 a year in adjusted gross income.
    Lenny Goldberg, president of the California Tax Reform Association, notes the BNRT would compound the shifting of the tax burden to the poor and middle-class by effectively taxing rents. Especially since landlords could not subtract interest payments on their property from their gross receipts, they would be forced to raise rents to cover the new taxes, he said.
    Shaw of the Federation of Independent Businesses said another drawback of the BNRT is it would tax struggling, startup businesses exactly the same as established, profitable ones. The existing corporate income tax is levied only on profits
    The California proposal is modeled largely on a similar tax enacted in Michigan in 2007, although the rate of the Michigan tax, 0.8 percent, is just a sliver of the 4.2 percent rate mentioned by the commission.
    Shaw of the Federation of Independent Businesses said he talked with affiliates in Michigan and also in Ohio and Texas, which have somewhat similar laws.
    "Nobody has a positive impression," he said. "Texas has got all kinds of problems with its system and Ohio has all sorts of issues. We're naturally concerned."

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Just another reason to sell my business, homes and everything I own in CA and move on with life in another state. If it wasn't for my daughter living here, I'd have everything up for sale TODAY!! I hate this state!

  9. #8
    VOTE! RodnJen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fullerton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default Confusing at best

    It is not a flat-tax as much as it is a flattening of the income tax. It is designed to reduce the state dependency on wealthy wage earners and reduce the volitility of tax receipts to better budget revenues in future years.

    I am not sold on the idea although something needs to change. I agree with the earleir post that controlling spending is what needs to happen first, especially if they are going to sell an overhaul to the voters.

    The state portion of the current sales tax will be phased out over five years, I believe, but you will still pay local taxes like the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation in OC and the Measures A & C in LA.

    Revamping Prop 13 in addition to this would go a long way, but that is the sacred cow to many CA taxpayers. The whole idea is to stabilize revenues while probably extracting more from your average citizen.

  10. #9
    Senior Member NiceGuyEddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Anaheim Hills
    Posts
    5,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RvRrat View Post
    What amazes me is they still don't get it. The State is living beyond its means. Instead of saving the windfall money from property taxes a few years ago, we spent it thinking the tree would continue to produce cash. So now the State is scrambling trying to come up with ways to increase revenue instead of reducing costs. Typical politicians I guess, worried more about re-election than making tough decisions.

    Bingo!

  11. #10
    Senior Member 500BBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    CIUDAD MEXICO NORTE
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    Nothing they do will fix the dumbass liberals that run this state.
    That is the one and only problem, these people are fcking stupid no matter how much tax money they steal they will just spend more and drive wage earners and business owners out of the state.
    "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though" President Barack Obama.

    Liberals just chose to ignore relevant information about the world they live in, and then call themselves sophisticated for having chosen to be more stupid than God made them.

  12. #11
    Senior Member 500BBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    CIUDAD MEXICO NORTE
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RodnJen View Post
    It is not a flat-tax as much as it is a flattening of the income tax. It is designed to reduce the state dependency on wealthy wage earners and reduce the volitility of tax receipts to better budget revenues in future years.

    I am not sold on the idea although something needs to change. I agree with the earleir post that controlling spending is what needs to happen first, especially if they are going to sell an overhaul to the voters.

    The state portion of the current sales tax will be phased out over five years, I believe, but you will still pay local taxes like the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation in OC and the Measures A & C in LA.

    Revamping Prop 13 in addition to this would go a long way, but that is the sacred cow to many CA taxpayers. The whole idea is to stabilize revenues while probably extracting more from your average citizen.

    No it's much to simple for you to grasp.

    Try this, spend less than you tax.
    "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though" President Barack Obama.

    Liberals just chose to ignore relevant information about the world they live in, and then call themselves sophisticated for having chosen to be more stupid than God made them.

  13. #12
    VOTE! RodnJen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fullerton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    I'll ease out on the complex sentences, I forgot about the folks in the PR forum.

  14. #13
    Senior Member 500BBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    CIUDAD MEXICO NORTE
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RodnJen View Post
    I'll ease out on the complex sentences, I forgot about the folks in the PR forum.


    "Revamping Prop 13 in addition to this would go a long way, but that is the sacred cow to many CA taxpayers. The whole idea is to stabilize revenues while probably extracting more from your average citizen. "


    I'll help ya a little here, this would crash real estate and drive 100's of thousands of wage earners out of the state. Leaving liberals and illegal aliens as the major tax base.

    We can't "stabilize" revenues, we could stabilize spending but that won't happen in this state because people here are to stupid to throw the tax and overspend liberals out of office. We are past the tipping point, there are to many morons allowed to vote here that will continue to vote for more welfare.
    "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though" President Barack Obama.

    Liberals just chose to ignore relevant information about the world they live in, and then call themselves sophisticated for having chosen to be more stupid than God made them.

  15. #14
    Will work for Boat pronstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The LBC
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Any solution the current legislature comes up with will basically require "more money" and not "reduced spending"

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95