News California Governor Jerry Brown Proposes Spending Cuts

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    california
AI Thread Summary
California Governor Jerry Brown is addressing a significant $25 billion budget deficit by proposing over $12.5 billion in cuts across various sectors, while state pensions appear to be exempt from these cuts. The governor's plan includes a potential special election to extend current tax increases on income, sales, and vehicle taxes, which could generate an additional $12 billion in revenue. However, skepticism exists regarding the feasibility of raising these funds, especially given the state's high unemployment rate of 12.4% and the historical resistance to tax increases among voters. Discussions also touch on the possibility of federal intervention, with concerns that a bailout could lead to an unfair financial burden on other states and encourage irresponsible fiscal behavior. Suggestions for alternative solutions include legalizing and taxing drugs, cutting welfare benefits, and restructuring state spending, particularly in relation to public-sector unions and healthcare costs. The overall sentiment reflects a deep concern about California's fiscal sustainability and the potential need for drastic reforms to avoid a financial crisis.
  • #51
WhoWee said:
Maybe they should just collect back taxes from all of the various convicted dealers - plus suspend all Medi-Cal benefits to prisoners (except for emergencies), and all benefits for "undocumented persons".

They already do the first one (police auctions). The second one is mostly true. The third one will never happen because 99% of California is Mexican.
ShawnD: Meth is pretty nasty... I'd say stick with weed and sell it to the nation; it's already being done from California so why not tax it?
Not addictive enough to be profitable. Alcohol withdrawal causes seizures, nicotine withdrawal causes irritability, caffeine withdrawal causes headaches. Marijuana withdrawal involves getting a job and taking a shower.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
ShawnD said:
They already do the first one (police auctions). The second one is mostly true. The third one will never happen because 99% of California is Mexican.

Police auction proceeds go to... the police, not the general budget pool AFAIK.

As for the last... come one now, if that were true I think we'd see more on TV... right? :rolleyes:
 
  • #53
ShawnD said:
The third one will never happen because 99% of California is Mexican.

Already?
 
  • #54
nismaratwork said:
Police auction proceeds go to... the police, not the general budget pool AFAIK.
The money goes to the police so the police do not require as much funding from taxes.


As for the last... come one now, if that were true I think we'd see more on TV... right? :rolleyes:
Ever watch that show Operation Repo? Crazy guy Matt is the only one there who isn't Mexican :wink:
 
  • #55
ShawnD said:
The money goes to the police so the police do not require as much funding from taxes.

Really? That strikes me as a bit of an oversight issue, and there have been issues.



ShawnD said:
Ever watch that show Operation Repo? Crazy guy Matt is the only one there who isn't Mexican :wink:

That's a scripted show, based on who knows what, acted by "former professionals"... you know that... RIGHT? Oh god, if you don't, let me know so I can clear my schedule for paroxysmal laughter.

Anyway, wink wink, if you were right it wouldn't matter. I shouldn't believe that 99% of priests are sticking it to little boys... right? That would be Twainish of my statistics, but funny... maybe true? I saw this episode of South Park that was very convincing...
 
  • #56
nismaratwork said:
That's a scripted show
Where every single character is Mexican.
 
  • #57
ShawnD said:
Where every single character is Mexican.

OOOOOoooohhh... So, we see them on TV... got it... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I should have added a caveat or two; I haven't heard a joke that clever since Chris Rock made the same joke using black people and COPS.edit: So... did you know? Really, my schedule... please? :smile:
 
  • #58
ShawnD said:
Ever watch that show Operation Repo? Crazy guy Matt is the only one there who isn't Mexican :wink:

Shawn, you know full well your statement is false. Ca isn't 99% Mexican. Wiki shows it at 25% Mexican. Beyond that, some of the people who strongly oppose benefits for illegal Mexican immigrans, are legal Mexican immigrants. Many legal immigrants resent the fact that they followed the law, and the illegals just jump the fence.

The largest named ancestries in California are Mexican (25%), German (9%), Irish (7.7%), English (7.4%) and Filipino (6%); there are 65 other ethnicities including Albanians, Haitians, Pakistanis, and Somalis. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have large numbers of residents with French, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Scandinavian ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California
 
  • #59
mheslep said:
The references provided here say Brown plans ~$12B cuts and another ~$12B increase from revenues to close the total $25B deficit.

The unemployment rate in CA is also a problem - 12.4% in November 2010 - as compared to 9.3% nationally. Among the "big" states, only Florida is comparable.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ST370000:ST420000:ST510000:ST340000&tdim=true


It might be difficult to raise taxes enough to yield $12B?
 
  • #60
WhoWee said:
The unemployment rate in CA is also a problem - 12.4% in November 2010 - as compared to 9.3% nationally. Among the "big" states, only Florida is comparable.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ST370000:ST420000:ST510000:ST340000&tdim=true


It might be difficult to raise taxes enough to yield $12B?

I'm not saying that people want to be unemployed as a rule, but if ever there was a state to coast on public welfare, however well meaning... CA is it. There's nothing wrong with a social experiment; there's a LOT wrong with not knowing when to pull the plug.
 
  • #61
nismaratwork said:
I'm not saying that people want to be unemployed as a rule, but if ever there was a state to coast on public welfare, however well meaning... CA is it. There's nothing wrong with a social experiment; there's a LOT wrong with not knowing when to pull the plug.

As far as I'm aware, these numbers are not inclusive of the undocumented persons or the people who've exhausted unemployment benefits - they could be over 20% total (or more?) unemployment. I'm wondering if they have enough taxpayers - earning enough income - to pay $12Billion in ADDITIONAL taxes?
 
  • #62
WhoWee said:
As far as I'm aware, these numbers are not inclusive of the undocumented persons or the people who've exhausted unemployment benefits - they could be over 20% total (or more?) unemployment. I'm wondering if they have enough taxpayers - earning enough income - to pay $12Billion in ADDITIONAL taxes?

Yeah... I'd find this much more academic if CA wasn't such a big chunk of the US economy. This is just flat-out alarming, even if you take conservative estimates.
 
  • #63
What is the current California State tax rate? How high do we think it can go before voters stop it raising more?
 
  • #64
PhilKravitz said:
What is the current California State tax rate? How high do we think it can go before voters stop it raising more?

The better question is how much more does everyone need to pay?

The total population of CA is nearly 37,000,000 (36,961,664) people.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph

This total is up drastically nearly double since since 1970 - 19,971,069.
http://www.npg.org/states/ca.htm

The deficit of $25,000,000,000 total equals about $676 per (36,961,664) person.

Perhaps the burden should be shared equally - for people that pay taxes - pay extra AND for people that receive taxes - receive less. Why isn't this fair?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
Whowee the total expense in the budget is 100.7 billion for this year
see http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
with a population of 37 million we get $2700 per person so for a family of four that is $10,800. Of course not all tax comes from individuals so the real number is lower.

If your income range is between $0 and $7,168, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 1%.
If your income range is between $7,169 and $16,994, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2%.
If your income range is between $16,995 and $26,821, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $26,822 and $37,233, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6%.
If your income range is between $37,234 and $47,055, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 8%.
If your income range is between $47,056 and $1,000,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9.3%.
If your income range is $1,000,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 10.3%.

California seems in line with what other state spend and tax. What is the issue?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
PhilKravitz said:
Whowee the total expense in the budget is 100.7 billion for this year
see http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
with a population of 37 million we get $2700 per person so for a family of four that is $10,800. Of course not all tax comes from individuals so the real number is lower.

If your income range is between $0 and $7,168, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 1%.
If your income range is between $7,169 and $16,994, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2%.
If your income range is between $16,995 and $26,821, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $26,822 and $37,233, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6%.
If your income range is between $37,234 and $47,055, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 8%.
If your income range is between $47,056 and $1,000,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9.3%.
If your income range is $1,000,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 10.3%.

California seems in line with what other state spend and tax. What is the issue?

How many of the 37 million actually pay state taxes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
WhoWee said:
How many of the 37 million actually pay state taxes?

from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/LFHIST/CA-Self-Employed.pdf

16.2 million Californians work.

That works out to $6200 per worker. Again not all state tax is from individuals.

At the federal level it is something like $17,500 per worker. Seems like the state is a bargain.

School tax ?
County tax?
Town tax?

do they have county governments in California?
 
  • #68
PhilKravitz said:
from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/LFHIST/CA-Self-Employed.pdf

16.2 million Californians work.

That works out to $6200 per worker. Again not all state tax is from individuals.

At the federal level it is something like $17,500 per worker. Seems like the state is a bargain.

School tax ?
County tax?
Town tax?

do they have county governments in California?

16.2 out of 37.5 work, but that includes retirees and people in school/internships, right?
 
  • #69
PhilKravitz said:
from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/LFHIST/CA-Self-Employed.pdf

16.2 million Californians work.

That works out to $6200 per worker. Again not all state tax is from individuals.

At the federal level it is something like $17,500 per worker. Seems like the state is a bargain.

School tax ?
County tax?
Town tax?

do they have county governments in California?

I'm not cetain your link provides current information. Also, I assume you're looking at the total tax burder as $12,500,000,000/16,200,000 = $771 additional taxes per worker?
 
  • #70
I have to wonder if this is the best use of these funds in the Central Valley - as compared to a re-investment into agriculture (water) perhaps?

http://www.constructiondigital.com/sectors/civil-engineering/california-benefits-rejected-arra-funding-high-speed-rail
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
WhoWee said:
I have to wonder if this is the best use of these funds in the Central Valley - as compared to a re-investment into agriculture (water) perhaps?

http://www.constructiondigital.com/sectors/civil-engineering/california-benefits-rejected-arra-funding-high-speed-rail

This is a common problem that in hindsight, we see Japan engaged in; runaway construction which ends in economic collapse. I doubt that this is so simple, but China's central pathology would be: the need to catch up at virtually any cost. Often, this leads to ambitious projects for the sake of ambition, or infrastructure that is poorly planned.

China is enjoying vast growth now, but it hasn't found anything like a sustainable model for it yet. China also has to be concerned about political and social stability on a scale that is truly daunting, and which is now tied directly to 'Chinese Prosperity'. Real or not, the fear in Beijing is that a faltering economy would equal faltering control; above all the maintenance of central control is at the heart of Chinese government ambition... this often conflicts with an increasingly profit-minded military.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
It's hard to imagine that environmental groups won't be outraged over the train project - driving the costs even higher.
 
  • #73
Marketing?

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/382822_2052509963480_1566452468_31550637_1799001446_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
The nation's smartest most modern state has found a way handle money... they have 49 other states to pay the bills. To California, "Just Say NO". At some point, the states need to learn financial responsibility. Don't build, buy, or promise what you can't pay for without using creative accounting. Make everyone pay some tax, so they will care about what the state promises and the cost to THEM. If CA were a company, the entire government would get life behind bars. They make Bernie Madoff look good.
 
  • #75
Lulz, my European penpals would call this austerity...

Austerity=Screw the People
 
  • #76
ThinkToday said:
The nation's smartest most modern state has found a way handle money... they have 49 other states to pay the bills. To California, "Just Say NO". At some point, the states need to learn financial responsibility. Don't build, buy, or promise what you can't pay for without using creative accounting. Make everyone pay some tax, so they will care about what the state promises and the cost to THEM. If CA were a company, the entire government would get life behind bars. They make Bernie Madoff look good.

One of the major problems I think with California was in allowing the public-sector workers in the state to unionize (the Dill Act signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the late 1970s). This gave the Democratic party and the political left a lock on the state government, but put most of them at the mercy of the government unions. A lot of the Democratic party politicians in the state legislature who might otherwise be open to some spending cuts can't be because the unions will get them voted out of office.

grendle7 said:
Lulz, my European penpals would call this austerity...

Austerity=Screw the People

That depends on what's being cut. If you are cutting an elderly or sick person's source of income, then sure, but if you are scaling back a generous social-welfare state, not really.
 
  • #77
CAC1001 said:
One of the major problems I think with California was in allowing the public-sector workers in the state to unionize (the Dill Act signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the late 1970s).
From a practical standpoint that seems to be the case. But disallowing unionization does seem to go against the American ideal ... "of, by and for the people". That is, disallowing unionization by any group would seem to, eventually, give undue power to the tiny minority of individuals in the populace that are already in positions of power.

I agree with grendle7 that austerity measures are usually applied to people who can least afford to be ... austeritized (I don't know it that's an accepted term.)

But the thing is that if austerity measures are necessary, and imminent, then it seems rather unlikely to me that the people who are running things will apply those measures to themselves.

Thus, the likely scenario, imho, is that aid programs for the poor, elderly, and infirm will be cut, while corporate welfare might actually increase.

This will not, imho, necessarily help any country in general (and might even, in general, hurt a country), but it will, necessarily, help those who run it. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
ThomasT said:
From a practical standpoint that seems to be the case. But disallowing unionization does seem to go against the American ideal ... "of, by and for the people". That is, disallowing unionization by any group would seem to, eventually, give undue power to the tiny minority of individuals in the populace that are already in positions of power.

I agree with grendle7 that austerity measures are usually applied to people who can least afford to be ... austeritized (I don't know it that's an accepted term.)

But the thing is that if austerity measures are necessary, and imminent, then it seems rather unlikely to me that the people who are running things will apply those measures to themselves.

Thus, the likely scenario, imho, is that aid programs for the poor, elderly, and infirm will be cut, while corporate welfare might actually increase.

This will not, imho, necessarily help any country in general (and might even, in general, hurt a country), but it will, necessarily, help those who run it. Just my opinion.

Hey, Thomas.

The accepted word is "getting cuts," according to my Euro penpals. Still, I'll consider writing a letter to Merriam-Webster Inc. that the adjective "austerized" is on the prowl! [lulz]

And, like you mentioned in your last short-paragraph, it could have its bad consequences. If we take a look at Europe, in general, austerity hasn't provided any growth/help. Look at Greece, Italy, Romania, Latvia, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, France, Netherlands, and England. It has actually screwed the people over, in my opinion; actually increased the national debts, of these nations; aided in bailing out high/elite corporate institutions; and has, however, toned down the speed of the Euro falling into a pit of death.

Then again, It's quite fallible to compare the possible impacts of austerity between a European country and the state of California. Both are two very different entities.
 
  • #79
Last edited:
  • #80
ThomasT said:
From a practical standpoint that seems to be the case. But disallowing unionization does seem to go against the American ideal ... "of, by and for the people". That is, disallowing unionization by any group would seem to, eventually, give undue power to the tiny minority of individuals in the populace that are already in positions of power.

I don't think public worker unions should be abolished. But the problem is, when it comes time to negotiate a contract, who is representing the taxpayers if the person across the table from the Union rep is a Democrat? Dems are strongly supported by unions.

Now, I nearly always vote Dem. But still, I see this as a conflict of interest.

I think it would be more appropriate to assign a non-partisan commission to negotiate with public sector unions.
 
  • #81
First, guys, note the age of the thread...

grendle7 said:
And, like you mentioned in your last short-paragraph, it could have its bad consequences. If we take a look at Europe, in general, austerity hasn't provided any growth/help.
Austerity is not done for the purpose of providing growth or "help" if by that you mean help to people who are hurt by the economic downturn. Austerity is strictly there to prevent the country from going bankrupt, which would then make the downturn worse, hurting more.
Austerity=Screw the People
And does no one get screwed when social programs are paid for with borrowed money?
 
  • #82
russ_watters said:
First, guys, note the age of the thread...
Noted. But the general issues are still relevant. Aren't they?

russ_watters said:
Austerity is not done for the purpose of providing growth or "help" if by that you mean help to people who are hurt by the economic downturn. Austerity is strictly there to prevent the country from going bankrupt, which would then make the downturn worse, hurting more.
Is there any imminent threat of that wrt the US?

russ_watters said:
And does no one get screwed when social programs are paid for with borrowed money?
As far as I'm aware, paying for things with borrowed money is the norm. Who gets screwed when social programs are paid for with borrowed money? Who gets screwed when the federal budget isn't balanced? As far as I can tell, nobody ... necessarily. It's just that as long as the US government operates with budget deficits, then the longer it will take to pay off the national debt. Presumably, the US can continue to operate with budget deficits and increasing debt ... pretty much indefinitely. Why not? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
  • #83
ThomasT said:
Presumably, the US can continue to operate with budget deficits and increasing debt ... pretty much indefinitely. Why not? What am I missing?

Because at some point people will stop loaning money to the government - or at least demand higher interest rates to do this.

If 10-year Treasuries were at their 1981 historic highs and not their 2012 historic lows, interest on the debt would be approximately where total government spending is today. Even with today's low interest rates, interest on the national debt is about half of the total revenues from individual income tax. Both the left and right should be able to agree that this money could be put to better use.
 

Similar threads

News Schwarzenegger replaces chief of staff, appoints gay democrat
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top