CA begins issuing IOUs.....for the Peons.

[Broomstick]

And when you compare (say) what CA's public education is like, compared to states that spend vastly less than we do, it's hard to explain to taxpayers why they should pony up to bail out the Legislature from the mess that they've made.

Since it is those very taxpayers who put those legislatures in office it is still the fault of the public at large that their state is in such a mess.

[Mayabird]

Washington state also had a big rainy day savings fund that the legislature could dip into specifically for times like now which helped close the budget gap. So now it's also like every single sob story you ever saw where some rich family lost their jobs and they didn't have a single cent saved in the bank and so had nothing to live on.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Washington state also had a big rainy day savings fund that the legislature could dip into specifically for times like now which helped close the budget gap. So now it's also like every single sob story you ever saw where some rich family lost their jobs and they didn't have a single cent saved in the bank and so had nothing to live on.

We actually were able to, with the budget that was closed, reestablish a 500 million dollar surplus, of which the continuing worsening economy has only eaten 200 million so far, and things seem to have stabilized there.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Uh, Mike, I said that the biennial budget was 59.5 billion, and then divided that in half to get the comparison with California. See this figure which shows that we actually hit even more than that with the 2008 supplementals.

Sorry Marina, I didn't read your post thoroughly enough. But as Broomstick points out, taxation is really complicated. Rates and fees are complicated in particular, but if you look at California's total state revenues vs Washington's total state revenues, it doesn't seem too mysterious at all. California projects revenue of $103 billion: obviously far less than its projected $135 billion spending. Washington State projects revenue of around $30 billion: roughly the same as its spending. You say Washington State has much lower taxes than California, but if anything's fishy, it would seem to be that statement, because its total revenue is much higher per capita than California's revenue. That revenue has to come from somewhere, and in lieu of some other explanation I would have to assume it's taxes.

California has the 6th highest tax burden in the US, and Washington State has the 35th highest out of all the US states, Mike, at least according to this website; but they're an anti-tax advocacy group so I'm not sure how their figures can be trusted, so I'll look for other sources.

EDIT: Looking around their website more seems to suggest they're actually more neutral than I thought, so perhaps the figures are indeed perfectly serviceable, and they apparently collect their data from the census board. Washington State generates a LOT of revenue through fees, too, though.

[Elfdart]

Uh, Mike, I said that the biennial budget was 59.5 billion, and then divided that in half to get the comparison with California. See this figure which shows that we actually hit even more than that with the 2008 supplementals.

Sorry Marina, I didn't read your post thoroughly enough. But as Broomstick points out, taxation is really complicated. Rates and fees are complicated in particular, but if you look at California's total state revenues vs Washington's total state revenues, it doesn't seem too mysterious at all. California projects revenue of $103 billion: obviously far less than its projected $135 billion spending. Washington State projects revenue of around $30 billion: roughly the same as its spending. You say Washington State has much lower taxes than California, but if anything's fishy, it would seem to be that statement, because its total revenue is much higher per capita than California's revenue. That revenue has to come from somewhere, and in lieu of some other explanation I would have to assume it's taxes.

Here are a couple of charts showing how much each state brought in, and how:

The first one lists total taxes, per capita taxes and percentage of individual income.

The second lists what is being taxed and what percentage of revenue is made up of (for example) sales taxes.

Now here's the real kicker: Per Capita Income By State

Going by these figures, California has the 12th highest per capita tax rate and that makes up 7.7% of personal income. However, Californians rank 7th highest in income. Hawaii has higher taxes and those taxes take a higher percentage of personal income, yet Hawaii's budget deficit is less than one-fiftieth California's. Oh, and Hawaii ranks 18th in per capita income. So it's not that California is crushed under heavy taxes. They simply spend more than they make and can't bring in more money thanks to their idiotic system of government. Until their system of government (one that makes the system where I live look almost rational -almost) is reformed that won't happen.

[Darth Wong]

Uh, Mike, I said that the biennial budget was 59.5 billion, and then divided that in half to get the comparison with California. See this figure which shows that we actually hit even more than that with the 2008 supplementals.

Sorry Marina, I didn't read your post thoroughly enough. But as Broomstick points out, taxation is really complicated. Rates and fees are complicated in particular, but if you look at California's total state revenues vs Washington's total state revenues, it doesn't seem too mysterious at all. California projects revenue of $103 billion: obviously far less than its projected $135 billion spending. Washington State projects revenue of around $30 billion: roughly the same as its spending. You say Washington State has much lower taxes than California, but if anything's fishy, it would seem to be that statement, because its total revenue is much higher per capita than California's revenue. That revenue has to come from somewhere, and in lieu of some other explanation I would have to assume it's taxes.

California has the 6th highest tax burden in the US, and Washington State has the 35th highest out of all the US states, Mike, at least according to this website; but they're an anti-tax advocacy group so I'm not sure how their figures can be trusted, so I'll look for other sources.

EDIT: Looking around their website more seems to suggest they're actually more neutral than I thought, so perhaps the figures are indeed perfectly serviceable, and they apparently collect their data from the census board. Washington State generates a LOT of revenue through fees, too, though.

Whether it's done through fees or taxes or some other arcane scheme, the point is that they somehow raise more revenue per capita than California does. Some of that may be draining emergency funds, but at the end of the day, whether it's taxes, service fees, or some other mechanism, they are extracting more money per capita than California is. Simply dividing their total revenue by population produces that conclusion.

I don't even see how someone can directly compare tax rates, when there is no single rate. Most regions use some kind of progressive taxation, and the function for tax rate relative to income level would be different. Suppose California has a steeper progressive taxation system, so that its wealthy are subjected to a particularly high tax rate while its poor are taxed much less, while another state has a shallower progressive taxation system, so that its wealthy pay less while everyone else pays more. I'd bet a typical tax advocacy site would compare the two states' highest tax rates (for wealthy people), and then use that to compare the two states' levels of taxation.

[Master of Ossus]

Since it is those very taxpayers who put those legislatures in office it is still the fault of the public at large that their state is in such a mess.

I suppose. I think that CA's a state that illustrates the problems of single-party dominance. Essentially, the two parties here have become so insular, and politics so dominated by non-budget/state function issues, that most politicians here don't feel accountable for handling the budget. It's not what gets people elected.

The issue I have with all of the focus on tax rates is that it's an entirely circular way of looking at the state's problems. Essentially, it's saying "The state has a problem in that its spending is greater than its revenues, so therefore its revenues must rise." But that ignores the other argument, which is that the spending is the problem. Fundamentally, I don't think Californians get their money's worth when they pay the state, right now, and cuts in spending are the only realistic way to fix that problem. Incidentally, because of the spectacular unpopularity of the budget initiatives, it seems that most voters feel the same way that I do.

[Darth Wong]

The issue I have with all of the focus on tax rates is that it's an entirely circular way of looking at the state's problems.

How is it circular? At no point does it employ a premise as a conclusion. Nobody is saying that tax increases are the only method to solve the problem. We are just pointing out that it is feasible, and that the people who say it is not feasible are ignoring the fact that CA does not have untenable high tax rates. Many other states have higher taxes already.

Essentially, it's saying "The state has a problem in that its spending is greater than its revenues, so therefore its revenues must rise." But that ignores the other argument, which is that the spending is the problem.

No it doesn't. It simply recognizes that nobody, not even the right-wingers, has proposed any remotely realistic way to come up with $30 billion in service cuts. In fact, none of the people here advocating tax increases are even saying that they are necessarily opposed to all service cuts. A combination of both approaches is quite acceptable. The people in favour of service cuts are, on the other hand, dogmatically opposed to any tax increases. They insist that 100% of corrective measures must come in the form of service cuts, and they fail to present any real rationale for this, or any kind of figures whatsoever to justify their premise that taxes in California have hit some kind of hard upper limit beyond which further increases would be unacceptable or infeasible.

[Broomstick]

The issue I have with all of the focus on tax rates is that it's an entirely circular way of looking at the state's problems. Essentially, it's saying "The state has a problem in that its spending is greater than its revenues, so therefore its revenues must rise." But that ignores the other argument, which is that the spending is the problem. Fundamentally, I don't think Californians get their money's worth when they pay the state, right now, and cuts in spending are the only realistic way to fix that problem. Incidentally, because of the spectacular unpopularity of the budget initiatives, it seems that most voters feel the same way that I do.

I have repeatedly said that cutting spending is a way to balance the budget. However, cuts must be made in an intelligent and humane manner. Some service are more vital than others. I am not convinced that either the California legislature or the California public at large has the stomach or the wisdom to cut spending properly.

[starslayer]

I have repeatedly said that cutting spending is a way to balance the budget. However, cuts must be made in an intelligent and humane manner. Some service are more vital than others. I am not convinced that either the California legislature or the California public at large has the stomach or the wisdom to cut spending properly.

Your feelings are correct; they and we do not. What California really needs is to do away with the damned proposition system entirely; it has resulted in too much damage to the state and its citizens. Since this would require a constitutional convention, us doing so is unlikely. That two-thirds vote necessary to pass a tax increase, as well as the majority vote for amending the state constitution, also need to disappear. Both have caused far more trouble than they are worth.