ForumsWEPRTax or Fee?

14 3060
Agent_86
offline
Agent_86
2,127 posts
Nomad

Well, there has been much uproar up in Sacramento lately. The California government is running out of money, and legislators are busy trying to solve the deficit problem. The Democrats, the majority of both houses, want to tax their way out of the problem, while the Republicans, the strong and vocal minority, want to cut spending.

The Democrats have pushed their agenda through to the Governator because of the difference of the wording of part of the emergency budget. Instead of calling higher taxes what they are, they are installing almost excessively high "fees".

For example, part of the proposed budget called for eliminationg the 26 cent/gallon gas tax and replacing it with a 39 cent/gallon gas fee. this way, they could pass the budget with only a simple majority and not with a 2/3 supermajority.

You see, for the lawmakers to pass a fee, they only need a 50%+1 vote in both houses. But if they want to impose a tax, they need a 2/3 majority, and thus would need some Republican votes.

Is this ethical? Is it even legal?

  • 14 Replies
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

This'll surprise you, but, er, I'm going to say both parties are officially expressing the vivid stupidity they've shared with each other for so long.

What frightens me is that Demmi's actually want to raise Gas prices in a reccesion, and call the fee's. Weird.

The republicans wanting to cut spending are smart and stupid, Cutting spending is #1, California blows off too much money, we all know it. But without a little tax here and there the government and the government run area's have officially no income or funding, and thus they will be running down the pathway of "Phail". Something most Americans don't like.


The Voting thing, though, is really gay, It should be fair to both parties.


Ethical.. Well, its not like its EVIL, or anything.

Legal... Idk., Apparently if what at the end you've listed are laws and facts, then yeah, very legal :P

Agent_86
offline
Agent_86
2,127 posts
Nomad

Well, according to the California constitution, a fee is described as "a payment of reimbursement for a product or service."

An example of a fee is the toll that you pay to get into a State Park.

I don't think the government is letting us borrow oil that they own. If they are, I didn't get the memo about this state becoming Communist.

Also, the teacher's union basically owns all of California. Whenever a new tax or bond comes out on the ballot, they always come out with (usually false) ads to the effect of, "It's for the children..."

Because too many voters react to these ads, the teacher's union can get the people to vote any way they the union heads want them to.

And as more than half the state's budget goes to the public school system, if there were cuts made, that would be the first thing to go on the chopping block.

But too many of the Democratic SOB's in Sacramento know what side their political bread is buttered on. If they support these cuts, the Teacher's union will cut off campaign money to them. In this way, more and more money gets thrown at the schools every year, and the greedy pigs in Sacramento keep sending us the bill.

Snakebite
offline
Snakebite
995 posts
Nomad

"it's for the children" My eye! the school systems in California are HORRIBLE! That's even comparing them to the TERRIBLE ones here in Dallas!

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

Well, the "Fee" you pay at the start anyway is your reimbursement, after all, why isn't the product free?

Meh, I doubt its Communist, but when someones poor and they own something they'll make sure they show that they own it.

Well, Go Teachers <3.

Well, Whats wrong with these cuts? If such monstrous deposits of money are going into schools every year, then obviously chopping off part of it wouldn't kill them, they've been stuffed forever. And I'm sure the Government can handle a union if they try hard enough, I doubt they'll let the economy of a city change because some teachers want to get a better payment.

Also, if there were more people to realize who these Demmikratiks were.. Then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess, After all... The people vote.


PS: Snakebite, what you said was an overveiw of California. California has the sixth-largest economy, some of their schools are beast. Accept the fact. Money means everything in Geopolitics.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

I don't think the government is letting us borrow oil that they own. If they are, I didn't get the memo about this state becoming Communist.


Oh god don't torture me!
Agent_86
offline
Agent_86
2,127 posts
Nomad

Well, the "Fee" you pay at the start anyway is your reimbursement, after all, why isn't the product free?


That isn't my point. The gas station charges you a fee for the gas because they own it. Then the government has all the right to tax that sale. But calling it a fee just so you can push the tax through is just plain wrong.

Well, Go Teachers <3.


Well, it's not the teachers, it's the teacher's union. And they almost never have the teachers in mind. The higher-ups in the union just want to siphon more and more money away from the schools and into their pockets.

California has the sixth-largest economy


Eighth-largest, not sixth.
thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

I don't think the government is letting us borrow oil that they own. If they are, I didn't get the memo about this state becoming Communist.

I'm so sick and tired of people labeling taxes as "communist" or "socialist." Most of these people seem uneducated about the issue.

crazjayz
offline
crazjayz
243 posts
Nomad

Originally posted by thelistman

I'm so sick and tired of people labeling taxes as "communist" or "socialist." Most of these people seem uneducated about the issue.


Most people use these terms whenever the government starts to 1) start to control every aspect of life or 2) when the government begins to pool everyone's resources together and hand them out again

Don't be so hung up on the definitions of "communism" and "socialism", they're just characteristically phrases use to describe the actions of a government.
Eshploded
offline
Eshploded
469 posts
Nomad

Whoa. I better start walking to school more often. (rain plz go away)

I always thought spending helped the economy, instead of us saving it. (money circulation)

Anyways, as long as the tax is proportionate to the people's income levels, I think it's fine.

Also, I hate it when people start whining about how it's socialist or communist. We're drifting to the left, but we're a mixed economic system anyways, and we were meant to be flexible.

Timegoesby
offline
Timegoesby
1,006 posts
Nomad

They do that because they have to keep the econonmy stable. People don't want to hear it, but it would help right now to tax more so that there would be more government spending.

Ricador
offline
Ricador
3,715 posts
Shepherd

the strong and vocal minority


Biased?

Governator


LMFAO ^.^

Ethical, no. Legal, yes.

Unfortunately those Dumbocrats are excessively comfortable in there house seats, with a nice little wage, and they don't realize what this tax would do to some people, seeing we are in a recession.

But, since Arnie calls himself a Conservative (yeah right), he will try to oppose it, but like you said, the 50%=1 thing...

Either way, sucks for you guys down there >.>
Aaroniscool
offline
Aaroniscool
254 posts
Nomad

Honestly, I think that cutting taxes is a bad thing. America is already in debt up to its eyeballs. Wouldn't cutting taxes mean less benefits? I'll admit, the idea of the government getting rid of the programs that don't work is a good one, but that can't be enough to put America back in the black.

The way I see it, the amount taxed is proportional to the amount of benefits received. But if we cut taxed, we are also cutting benefits. That could mean less library books, less police officers on the road, less governmental jobs, and plenty more potholes on the streets.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

The general reasons govts cut taxes is to encourage its people to spend more money and stimulate the economy. If this happens then hopefully in a few years the govt will be able to resume spending on infrastructure, at least that is the idea.

Agent_86
offline
Agent_86
2,127 posts
Nomad

Hooray!!!
The John and Ken phone blast is working!!!
The Governator has admitted that he will not sign this illegal budget!!! =)

They do that because they have to keep the econonmy stable. People don't want to hear it, but it would help right now to tax more so that there would be more government spending.
Did you just say that we need more government spending?! That's what got us into this problem in the first place!!! Yes, revenue to Sacramento has gone up since Joe "Gumbee" Davis came into office, but spending has gone up at twice the rate of revinue increases!!! So don't give me the crap that we need to spend our way out of it...

Biased?
Yes, Ricador, I believe everybody is biased one way or another on this issue, whether they admit it or not.

The way I see it, the amount taxed is proportional to the amount of benefits received. But if we cut taxed, we are also cutting benefits. That could mean less library books, less police officers on the road, less governmental jobs, and plenty more potholes on the streets.
Don't give me this piece of shit again. That's all I've been hearing since I understood the word "tax".
Whenever a tax increase comes on the ballot, they always say that it's for the children or it's for the schools or it's for the roads, etc...
And nothing ever changes!!!

And if I were king of California, I would first completely overhaul the California public school system, which takes up over half the budget!!! And the public schools here are absolute shit!!! The politicians in Sacramento just want to throw more money at the problem, and that just makes the probelm bigger!!!
Showing 1-14 of 14