[sfbarentersfed] Measure filed authorizing massive additional robbery by state government has been filed!

Discussion
1

Forcibly removing $11 billion per year from the voluntary sector of the economy (individuals and families) and transferring the money to the coercive sector (government) sounds "exciting" in kind of the same way that getting an operation to remove one of your organs (and being required to come back every year for a follow-up operation) would be "exciting".

  It is a usually unobserved but practical reality that virtually no one actually owns property in this state. Either you pay rent to independent landlords, or you pay rent to the biggest landlord – government – in the form of property taxes. Either way, you run the risk of eviction if you fall behind on your rent. While it excludes residential property, this proposal would jack up the "rents" being paid by another vulnerable group – small businesses with fewer than 50 employees that rent commercial property.

  Typically, this self-serving proposal by the members of the governing class ignores the actual cause of their fiscal problems. It isn't that less tax money is being stolen – as property values have risen, they've been raking in more than ever. The problem is that government spending, particularly on pensions, has risen even faster, and those in power refuse to tighten their own belts:

"When public agencies spend more on pensions, they must cut services or raise taxes. Most are savvy enough to pitch the tax hikes as being for 'public safety' or 'transportation,' [or 'housing' –Starchild] rather admit they are needed to pay for pensions."

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/14/dont-let-unions-use-good-returns-to-defl

  As one major California newspaper writes about this measure,

"It is reckless to impose a massive tax increase on nearly all California businesses, simultaneously and repeatedly. If raising taxes was the solution to every problem, California would have no problems. The Golden State boasts the nation’s highest income tax rate and sales tax rate, and we’re within an eyelash of defeating Pennsylvania for the title of highest gas taxes."

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/01/proposition-13-isnt-the-problem-pensions-and-spending-are/

   If this attempt to grab more money from business owners succeeds, the costs will inevitably be passed on to the public at large in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and fewer jobs. The forces of #GovernmentGreed will have effectively "divided and conquered" the constituency for keeping a lid on property taxes, making it that much easier for them to come back and demand a raise in the "rents" collected by the State for residential "owners", increasing the risk for these de facto renters of losing their homes.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/01/proposition-13-isnt-the-problem-pensions-and-spending-are/

  Are existing government "rents" (property tax bills) often inequitable? Certainly. But the proper way to resolve this inequity is to cut out of control government spending and lower these "rents" for those paying the highest rates, not raise them on some of those not currently being robbed as much, which will end up hurting all of us as described above.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

2

Excellent Starchild. The canard that CA is having problems because Prop 13 needs "fixing" has been around forever. Like an evil and disgusting zombie, it won't die. The earliest property tax statistics I have were from 1980. And the last time I checked was in 2009. During that period property tax revenue Property tax revenue increased by 579 percent since Prop 13 was implemented. During that time, the population went from 24 million to 38 million-an increase of 58 percent.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office's budget database (THIS LINK IS DEAD) ( http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx ), in 1980-1981, total general AND special fund revenue for California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent. THAT MEANS PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WENT UP FASTER THAN ALL OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE!

See articles below about the real cause of CA's funding problem.

Also, some articles I wrote for the SF Business Times back in 2009 about the subject. It appears they are only visible now with a subscription but the original letter is below. And here's one from Richard Rider too.

Would someone please end it for Jack Kurzweil and the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club. This conversation is so OLD and DEAD.

Mike Denny
Libertarian Party of SF.

And one of my best pieces in the SF Biz Times....

http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/07/13/editorial3.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/07/06/story3.html

Here's the original letter (much better)....don't know why they didn't include the links I provided but here they are. My buddy Richard Rider from the San Diego Tax Fighters did all the work and let me take the credit.

Dear Editor,

Would someone please tell Jim Wunderman that property tax takings have been rising without a constitutional convention to revise Prop. 13. According to the Board of Equalization ( http://www.boe.ca.gov/annual/pdf/2007/table14_07.pdf ) total property taxes collected in 2006-07 were $43.16 billion. The oldest property tax stats at www.caltax.org<http://www.caltax.org> are for 1980-81. That year, property tax revenue was $6.36 billion. Property tax revenue increased by 579 percent since Prop 13 was implemented. During that time, the population went from 24 million to 38 million-an increase of 58 percent.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office's budget database ( http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx ), in 1980-1981, total general AND special fund revenue for California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent. THAT MEANS PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WENT UP FASTER THAN ALL OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE!

Our own Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco recently published an article ( http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-20.html#3 ) reporting that a dollar of government spending results in 70 cents of job-creating activity after two years. A dollar in tax cuts results in $1.30 to $3 of job-creating activity after two years. Does anyone out there get this? Government spending has a REVERSE "multiplier" effect on jobs. And there is no economic recovery without jobs.

Shouldn't that raise questions about the tax increase "reform" agenda of the Bay Area Council, a supposedly "business backed public policy group"? I suspect many Bay Area Council members are government project tax consumers with selfish intentions. Any business person supporting increased taxes and government spending is working against our economy and the jobs our community needs. Why would the Business Times give the Bay Area Council the time of day much less a whole series of articles covering their misconceived ideas?

California is broke because the "progressives" who run this state have voted for every spending program placed in front of them, and made the state a haven for tax consumers. Period!

Michael F. Denny

San Diego Tax Fighters

10969 Red Cedar Dr.

San Diego, CA 92131

Voice: (858) 530-3027 Fax: (858) 530-3030

E-mail: RRider@…<mailto:RRider@…>

17 February, 2005

Press Release -- For Immediate Release

Contact: Richard Rider, author

SAN DIEGO -- One of the bedrock canards that support huge public employee pensions is that government employees are underpaid. Bigger pensions supposedly are therefore necessary to help offset this disparity.

But according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), state and local government employees make MORE than people working in the private sector. A LOT more.

The latest BLS comparison, based on the June, 2004 figures, can be found at:

There is quite a bit of valuable detail in the 26 page survey, but the summary facts that jump out to grab you are the following:

Nationwide, state and local government employees earn an average of $23.52 per hour. Private sector employees earn only $16.71. Counting the total compensation costs (pensions, health care, etc.), state and local government workers average $34.13, while private sector employees receive only $23.41.

Hence, on average, nationwide, state and local government employees receive 45.6% higher compensation than private sector employees. The salaries alone are 40.1% higher for government employees than private employees.

But wait -- these are nationwide stats. For California, it gets worse. We California taxpayers provide our government employees with far more lucrative pay and fringe benefit packages than are found for almost all state and local governments around the nation.

For a number of rogue California jurisdictions (including but not limited to the city and county of San Diego, plus Orange County), it gets even worse. These public employee heavens have compensation levels beyond anything even imagined in the other 49 states, or even at the California state level.

Actually, it gets "worser and worser"! The official figures of the compensation costs of government employees consistent understate and defer the true cost of the opulent lifetime medical and pension benefits received. Hence a significant portion of these costs are not in the official figures -- they lurk quietly in the background, waiting to pounce on us in the coming years.

Further proof of these disparities in public vs. private compensation can be seen in the massive number of applicants for each government job, and the low quit rate of those that have them.

In short, the "public servants" in California are NOT government employees. The REAL public servants are the hard working California people in the private sector who pay excessive taxes to provide our public employees with FAR more compensation than the free market says they deserve.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB124804047828063059-lMyQjAxMDI5NDI4MDAyNDAwWj.html

3

And this on top of that....these people are insatiable. And CRAZY.

Mike

New CA bill to almost DOUBLE the state corporate income tax rate<https://riderrants.blogspot.com/2018/01/new-ca-bill-to-almost-double-state.html>
Two prominent California State Assembly Democrats have put a state constitutional amendment in the legislative hopper to tack on a new 7% corporate income tax increase for any company making more than a million dollars in profit. If it passes both state legislatures, it will go to the voters for passage with a simple majority vote. It will almost double the state's corporate state income tax rate.

The "thinking" is to grab about half of the corporate income taxes saved by the federal income tax reform. With the Democrats' patented static analysis, the measure is projected to magically produce $15 to $17 billion in additional tax revenue annually for Sacramento. It's assumed that zero corporations will leave the state, and zero jobs will be lost.

Of course, the bill's proponents claim that the money is for "education, college affordability initiatives, child care and preschool slots, taxpayer rebates and an expansion of California's Earned Income Tax Credit" -- everything but what the bulk of the additional revenue is REALLY for -- increased pay and funding the pensions of public employees. Especially for the pensions.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434569.html

To give you some sense of the magnitude of this corporate tax increase, consider these facts gleaned from my wildly acclaimed "Breaking Bad -- California vs. the Other States<http://www.tinyurl.com/CA-vs-other-states>" fact sheet:

The current California corporate income tax rate (8.84%) is the highest west of Iowa except for Alaska (our economic competitors). Overall CA has the 8th highest corporate tax rate in nation. https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170320110931/TF-Facts-Figures-2017-3-20-2017.pdf Table #15

This constitutional amendment would raise the CA state corporate income tax for any successful business to almost 16%, by far the highest in the nation -- 32.3% higher than the second highest state (Iowa).

Most U.S. corporations are reluctant to leave the country, but they WILL leave a STATE. California sunshine is not an asset on a corporate balance sheet. Indeed, any board of directors of a public corporation doing national business that does NOT decide to leave the Golden State if this measure becomes law arguably is guilty of corporate malfeasance.

Hopefully the measure won't become law. Indeed, being an inveterate optimist, I can confidently state that the measure will fail. It MUST fail.

There aren't enough (quite) idiots in both houses to pass this suicidal measure with the required 2/3 majority vote. If perchance it DOES pass, Governor Brown will veto it (after Brown departs, the next progressive Democrat governor would be more prone to sign such a bill). If his veto is overridden (an unlikely event) and it goes on the ballot, the California electorate will reject this madness with the required majority vote (let's ignore than Hillary won in CA by a huge margin).

But here's the thing: Even if (I predict WHEN) this measure fails, any sane CEO has got to view this bill as a serious attempt by California to gouge businesses big-time. Only a fool would move his or her business to California, and a wise California business person will get the message -- it's time to seriously consider moving their Golden State business to a friendlier climate (and I'm not talking about the weather).

Is this huge proposed corporate tax increase considered a legitimate threat by business? The California Business Roundtable certainly thinks so. Here's their press release<http://cbrtcfj.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/j/B22FF300F0771D972540EF23F30FEDED/086B663FC1FA12FAE89F0E32AAFB68BF> sounding the alarm:
Web Version<http://cbrtcfj.createsend1.com/t/j-e-ouijkhd-oodlxtd-r/> | Update Preferences<http://cbrtcfj.updatemyprofile.com/j-ouijkhd-6CB2ACB0-oodlxtd-y>

[California Business Roundtable]

[https://i6.createsend1.com/ti/j/7E/9F1/41F/025918/all/header-right.gif]

Press Release