Schwarzenegger/Buffet Don't Rule Out High Taxes

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Californians, what are we supposed to do? Do we recall our sitting governor for raising taxes only to re-elect someone with absolutely no experience so "they" can raise our taxes?



http://www.drudgereport.com/as2.htm



Schwarzenegger top economic adviser Warren Buffett told the WALL STREET JOURNAL this weekend that taxes in California are too low.



In the JOURNAL interview, Buffett -- a Democrat and vocal critic of President Bush's economic policies -- strongly suggested that California needs to bypass Prop 13 and raise its property tax rates to help fix the state's money mess.



"The truth is California has got some very serious financial problems," Buffett told the paper. "It's an economy that's the size of France and there's no way the US is going to have a healthy economy if California continues to have the problems it has... They have to do whatever is necessary on spending or taxes to get it in balance."




OUR TAXES ARE TOO LOW!?!? INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES!?!? ARE THESE GUYS INSANE!?!?



I urge all Californian's to vote NO on the recall and select NO ONE as a replacement!
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    Talk about making Larry Flynt look attractive...



    Geesh...



    Nick
  • Reply 2 of 21
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    This thread proves, once again, that most AI members cannot read and understand.



    Could someone please tell me what the function of the word "or" is in the last sentence of the second quote?
  • Reply 3 of 21
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    This thread proves, once again, that most AI members cannot read and understand.



    Could someone please tell me what the function of the word "or" is in the last sentence of the second quote?




    Seems Bill Simon also doesn't understand what the definition of "or" is...



    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94953,00.html
  • Reply 4 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    This thread proves, once again, that most AI members cannot read and understand.



    Could someone please tell me what the function of the word "or" is in the last sentence of the second quote?




    I'm curious if you even noticed this paragraph in the first post.



    Quote:

    In the JOURNAL interview, Buffett -- a Democrat and vocal critic of President Bush's economic policies -- strongly suggested that California needs to bypass Prop 13 and raise its property tax rates to help fix the state's money mess.



    Perhaps not.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Raising taxes will only make matters worse for CA. It is easy for Buffet to suggest that as he can afford any tax in this world. California has fallen victom to enlarged budgets with greater spending as a result of believing they could afford such increased budgets due to the tech boom. The boom is no longer feeding a dividend and actually the results of unemployement etc has shifted the good times to times of liability. Tax increases will only keep the CA economy from expanding that much longer. What CA needs is to make painful cuts to the countless budgets bringing back in line the spending with that which the state and local governments can afford.



    Here in my area in the DFW metroplex I have seen property taxes go through the roof. The taxing authorities for example value a home in my neighborhood at $216,000 and this home has been on the market for almost a year. The people selling started out asking $210,000 and it sat there, then they lowered to $199,000 and it sat there yet more months. Now they have it listed for $189,000 and it is still sitting there. The market will not pay this inflation in values which the taxing authorities "say" the homes are worth. So there you have it. Those people (and they are not alone) Can't even get $189,000 for a house that they are being taxed as being worth $216,000. That is a value of $27,000 they are paying property tax on in which they should not!!!



    The area in which I live has increased values on homes by the State limit of 10% and it is absurd. All the while the local governments are spending spending spending. In my area they are making the fire house "look nicer" by building a whole new facade and roof. It is not becoming larger or anything like that but it will have a new contemporary rounded metal roof and a new look from the street. Where did this money come from? Property taxes Not to mention all the new public soccer fields the city has build in the last 6 months with expensive parking and bathrooms snack stands etc. All AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE. I live in an area where the city manager, mayor, city council etc are all democrats and they do not know how to cut back spending. but my property sure gets taxed.... It is an outrage and democrats do not have the answer.



    Fellows
  • Reply 6 of 21
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Raising taxes will only make matters worse for CA. It is easy for Buffet to suggest that as he can afford any tax in this world. California has fallen victom to enlarged budgets with greater spending as a result of believing they could afford such increased budgets due to the tech boom. The boom is no longer feeding a dividend and actually the results of unemployement etc has shifted the good times to times of liability. Tax increases will only keep the CA economy from expanding that much longer. What CA needs is to make painful cuts to the countless budgets bringing back in line the spending with that which the state and local governments can afford.



    Here in my area in the DFW metroplex I have seen property taxes go through the roof. The taxing authorities for example value a home in my neighborhood at $216,000 and this home has been on the market for almost a year. The people selling started out asking $210,000 and it sat there, then they lowered to $199,000 and it sat there yet more months. Now they have it listed for $189,000 and it is still sitting there. The market will not pay this inflation in values which the taxing authorities "say" the homes are worth. So there you have it. Those people (and they are not alone) Can't even get $189,000 for a house that they are being taxed as being worth $216,000. That is a value of $27,000 they are paying property tax on in which they should not!!!



    The area in which I live has increased values on homes by the State limit of 10% and it is absurd. All the while the local governments are spending spending spending. In my area they are making the fire house "look nicer" by building a whole new facade and roof. It is not becoming larger or anything like that but it will have a new contemporary rounded metal roof and a new look from the street. Where did this money come from? Property taxes Not to mention all the new public soccer fields the city has build in the last 6 months with expensive parking and bathrooms snack stands etc. All AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE. I live in an area where the city manager, mayor, city council etc are all democrats and they do not know how to cut back spending. but my property sure gets taxed.... It is an outrage and democrats do not have the answer.



    Fellows




    Democrats may not have the answer, but remember, neither do the Republicans.
  • Reply 7 of 21
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    That's messed up Fellows. Sorry to hear you have to put up with that crap in your neck of the woods. Around here, we have an super-intelligent local government that believes we need a second high school just because the first one is a bit crowded (kids from two towns). There are probably less than 10,000 people in the town and basically almost all of the land that's going to be (over)developed, has been.



    They're building it right down the street, are paying for it with taxpayer money, and the damn thing will sit 50% or more vaccant for 3-5 years AT LEAST until the population around here catches up. There are other towns (bigger towns, with bigger economies) nearby that did the same thing about 10 years ago. Their new high schools are JUST NOW becoming fully utilized. Did anyone bother to consult them? Doubtful.



    Total flippin waste of money, though it's better than a nice roof on the fire station I'll grant you. You'd think these morons would figure out that census projections are very iffy / not accurate enough by themselves to warrant building a 2000-3000 "seat" high school. That's assuming they looked at a census projection because there couldn't possibly be any "business reason" in this town to project a huge population increase.



    Retarded.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    That's messed up Fellows. Sorry to hear you have to put up with that crap in your neck of the woods. Around here, we have an super-intelligent local government that believes we need a second high school just because the first one is a bit crowded (kids from two towns). There are probably less than 10,000 people in the town and basically almost all of the land that's going to be (over)developed, has been.



    They're building it right down the street, are paying for it with taxpayer money, and the damn thing will sit 50% or more vaccant for 3-5 years AT LEAST until the population around here catches up. There are other towns (bigger towns, with bigger economies) nearby that did the same thing about 10 years ago. Their new high schools are JUST NOW becoming fully utilized. Did anyone bother to consult them? Doubtful.



    Total flippin waste of money, though it's better than a nice roof on the fire station I'll grant you. You'd think these morons would figure out that census projections are very iffy / not accurate enough by themselves to warrant building a 2000-3000 "seat" high school. That's assuming they looked at a census projection because there couldn't possibly be any "business reason" in this town to project a huge population increase.



    Retarded.




    High schools are like power plants. Both need to maintain a good deal of excess capacity.
  • Reply 9 of 21
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    High schools are like power plants. Both need to maintain a good deal of excess capacity.



    Of course that's not at all true.
  • Reply 10 of 21
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Of course that's not at all true.



    Right. Great rebuttal.



    *LA LA LA* NO IT ISN'T!!! *LA LA LA*



    *waits to be called anti-american*
  • Reply 11 of 21
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Well any good planner and contractor would build in *some* extra capacity. But leaving a facility even 30% (and in this case a lot more) untapped for several years is simply a waste of money IMO. It's basically an admission that no new facility was needed for some years yet, but they built it anyway so the local politicians can say "we built more new schools, repaired more wetlands, blah blah blah" than our predecessors. Re-elect us!"



    That might be on the cynical side, but I feel pretty much spot on here because I know for a fact there isn't enough new business being generated, or enough population in general to warrant two big high schools here. The only possible way I can see that, is if there is an abnormally high number of children approaching HS age. In which case, are you planning for right now or 20 years from now?



    Either way they've made a bad decision and are forcing everyone in the city to pay for it.



    HOWEVER, this thread being about California I feel I should apologize for perpetuating the hijack. By all means feel free to demonstrate to the rest of us just how trivial our political problems are. And they are, compared to California I'm sure....



  • Reply 12 of 21
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Well any good planner and contractor would build in *some* extra capacity. But leaving a facility even 30% (and in this case a lot more) untapped for several years is simply a waste of money IMO. It's basically an admission that no new facility was needed for some years yet, but they built it anyway so the local politicians can say "we built more new schools, repaired more wetlands, blah blah blah" than our predecessors. Re-elect us!"



    That might be on the cynical side, but I feel pretty much spot on here because I know for a fact there isn't enough new business being generated, or enough population in general to warrant two big high schools here. The only possible way I can see that, is if there is an abnormally high number of children approaching HS age. In which case, are you planning for right now or 20 years from now?



    Either way they've made a bad decision and are forcing everyone in the city to pay for it.



    HOWEVER, this thread being about California I feel I should apologize for perpetuating the hijack. By all means feel free to demonstrate to the rest of us just how trivial our political problems are. And they are, compared to California I'm sure....







    Have you at least studied the demographics of your town? Is there a larger number of students entering junior high school now?
  • Reply 13 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    Californians, what are we supposed to do? Do we recall our sitting governor for raising taxes only to re-elect someone with absolutely no experience so "they" can raise our taxes?



    Arnold got out of the gate as strongly as anyone could hope but the finish line is still a long way off. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I think most people aren't skeptical about the second half of that description. He has to establish the fiscal conservative part. I don't know if he will be able to do that.
    Quote:

    OUR TAXES ARE TOO LOW!?!? INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES!?!? ARE THESE GUYS INSANE!?!?



    I urge all Californian's to vote NO on the recall and select NO ONE as a replacement!




    Why not vote for McClintock or Simon instead?
  • Reply 14 of 21
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Americans pay among the lowest taxes in the Western world, but all they do is complain that their taxes are too high. Meanwhile, they can't even see it clear to provide adequate healthcare to a good proportion of their population. American taxes are too low, and have been too low for some time.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney

    Americans pay among the lowest taxes in the Western world, but all they do is complain that their taxes are too high. Meanwhile, they can't even see it clear to provide adequate healthcare to a good proportion of their population. American taxes are too low, and have been too low for some time.



    You know I read this bunk, over and over. You find for me who does not get medical care in the U.S. About 85% are covered by private plans. The rest are covered by medicare/medicaid/(medi-cal in California probably called something else in another state)



    People who have no private care just end up going to county or state facilities where they are cared for on the public dime.



    You find me the story where some guy is sitting outside a hospital dying from some gunshot wound because he doesn't have insurance.



    I call 100% BS on that.



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 21
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    You have insurance? So what. How much do you pay if your wife gets pregnant? I paid about US$50 when my wife had a baby and that included an emergency caesarean and 2 days hospital stay. Most Americans may have some sort of coverage, but it certainly isn't enough.



    Nice reasoning. Gee you have something that does the job for 99% of the time, let's blow it up for and start in fantasy land.



    Let's trying your sentences with some other words and see it works.



    Most Americans may have some sort of home, but it certainly isn't enough.



    Most Americans may have some sort of money, but it certainly isn't enough.



    Most Americans may have some sort of car, but it certainly isn't enough.



    Yep, I bet you want the government to go around handing everyone a life, I guess supposedly for free.



    Nick
  • Reply 17 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Nice reasoning. Gee you have something that does the job for 99% of the time, let's blow it up for and start in fantasy land.





    No need to get so defensive.



    Having insurance for the 99% of the time you're not ill is great but you still get kicked in the balls when your kid gets diagnosed with some rare incurable disorder and end up paying through the nose.



    And then you lose your job and no insurance company will touch you when you get a new one unless you totally exclude 'known' illnesses. Great!



    The whole point of insurance is to balance the probabilites. Letting people be excluded bit by bit by private insurance providers defeats the whole purpose and you suddenly end up back where the ill pay and the healthy spend willy-nilly till they find out that they were one of the 'ill' all along.



    Socialist health care provision has always been a massive success.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Yep, I bet you want the government to go around handing everyone a life, I guess supposedly for free.



    To save lives, yeah sure. I mean, why else are we killing the Iraqis?
  • Reply 20 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You find for me who does not get medical care in the U.S. About 85% are covered by private plans.



    I guess it depends on how "covered" you really are by your medical plan.



    My wife and I have money taken out of our paychecks, have deductibles, co-pays, etc. When you add it all up, we pay well over $4,000 a year out of pocket (this for about 2-3 visits to the doctor a year), not counting what our employers pay, and that amount will certainly be increasing in the future (we are only 30 and have no medical problems). And this year, my wife's pregnancy has cost us about $1,000 additional (so far--she is not due until October 1).



    Meanwhile, the executives of my health provider (Maryland based Carefirst) were trying to sell the currently not-for-profit company to a for-profit provider, while "earning" themselves $20 million in bonuses for the sale. Thankfully, the sale was stopped.



    I feel sorry for families that have real medical problems and median incomes, I can't imagine how they afford it.
Sign In or Register to comment.