What happens if they cannot pay us back?

[Shivetya]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2028140.story

Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

Technically, it's not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers' annual tax bills won't change.

We already have seen where they issued IOUs to people because they didn't have te money. So, what happens if at April they don't have the money to issue refunds they are legally required to do?

Actually WSJ asked that question too http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...279377100.html

[Eraserhead]

This pretty much highlights the problem with direct democracy in the US.

The Swiss only pull it off because noone will bail them out if they screw up, so they are forced to make adult/sensible decisions.

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

This pretty much highlights the problem with direct democracy in the US.

The Swiss only pull it off because noone will bail them out if they screw up, so they are forced to make adult/sensible decisions.

I don't think you can judge direct democracy in the U.S. until it's tried, that pretty much goes for Switzerland too in spite of their early attempts at direct democracy.

[iBlue]

From a single taxpayer earning $51,000 a year with no dependents, the state will be grabbing an extra $17.59 each month, according to state tax officials. A married person earning $90,000 with two dependents would receive $24.87 less in monthly pay.

Though still relevant and a squeeze for many, it's not THAT bad. Are they applying this to every single tax payer? I think it's a little cruel to levy this upon the lowest earners.

also:

Savvy taxpayers can get around the state's maneuver by increasing the number of personal withholding allowances they claim on their employer tax forms, said Brenda Voet, a spokeswoman for the state's Franchise Tax Board.

"People can get out of this," she said, noting that most people would have to change their allowances through their employers. California's budget leaders are banking on the hope that most won't.

Hoping some of the people who need their pittance the most will realize this.



Shivetya, not that you ever seem to reply to your own crap-stirring threads but what is this "us"? You're not a California resident, are you?

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by Shivetya

So, what happens if at April they don't have the money to issue refunds they are legally required to do?

Ask the governor. He seems like such a nice chap.







http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/us/29arnold.html

[Shivetya]

Originally Posted by iBlue

Though still relevant and a squeeze for many, it's not THAT bad. Are they applying this to every single tax payer? I think it's a little cruel to levy this upon the lowest earners.

also:


Hoping some of the people who need their pittance the most will realize this.



Shivetya, not that you ever seem to reply to your own crap-stirring threads but what is this "us"? You're not a California resident, are you?

My aunt is, she put me on to this article. The issue is, how long before other states jump on the bandwagon, let alone the Federal government?

Crap stirring is an appropriate description considering the contents of some people's heads here :P

[yg17]

Well, that's what happens when you elect a washed up actor with no political experience to run your state

Too bad they didn't elect Gary Coleman or the porn star. At least press conferences announcing that the state is broke would've been entertaining. Ahhnold is boring.

[iBlue]

Holy hell, you replied! Hey, you've got some other threads too.

Originally Posted by Shivetya

My aunt is, she put me on to this article. The issue is, how long before other states jump on the bandwagon, let alone the Federal government? ...

I don't know but the US is in some big debt (as are a lot of countries thanks to a bogus war, greedy financial institutions and other such bollocks) and that money is going to need to come from somewhere.

I have a lot of family in California, I'm sure they're none too pleased but I bet their not outraged either.

[Zombie Acorn]

That shouldn't even be possible.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by Shivetya

Crap stirring is an appropriate description considering the contents of some people's heads here :P

Any reason you haven't returned to your "let him out in 15 years" thread?

Anyway, all I can say is california ****ed up big time.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

That shouldn't even be possible.

Why not? Anyone can adjust their withholding if they desire. Seems a reasonable solution to raise cash fast without imposing new taxes or fees.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Why not? Anyone can adjust their withholding if they desire. Seems a reasonable solution to raise cash fast without imposing new taxes or fees.

Exactly, it shouldn't be the governments choice how you pay your taxes. If I want to pay a lump sum at the end of the year I should be able to.

[nbs2]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Why not? Anyone can adjust their withholding if they desire. Seems a reasonable solution to raise cash fast without imposing new taxes or fees.

I am curious to see if there will be "penalties" and interest paid back by the state. Here, the state is intentionally increasing withholdings above the effective tax rate for individual paychecks. This is being done with the specific intention of increasing fund that the state has access to at this time while depriving individuals of their "legal entitlement" to those same funds.

When an individual has too many withholdings, they can be subject to penalties and interest. These penalties discourage individuals from declaring themselves Exempt or end-arounding with a significant number of withholdings. The trigger will vary from state to state, but the intention is to keep individuals from increasing funds that the individual has access to while depriving the state of its "legal entitlement" to those same funds.

Besides, aren't the folks most affected by this going to be the folks that are least likely to understand the withholding process?

[Rodimus Prime]

Here is food for though. This is what the future of the US government will be doing.

At some point something has to give and California is an example of what happens when debt gets out of hand. What will happen when it comes time for the Government to pay back all the money they borrowed.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Here is food for though. This is what the future of the US government will be doing.

At some point something has to give and California is an example of what happens when debt gets out of hand. What will happen when it comes time for the Government to pay back all the money they borrowed.

We'll have to pay it, won't we? But until we start talking about tax policy that will help us do that, we'll continue to slide downhill.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by leekohler

We'll have to pay it, won't we? But until we start talking about tax policy that will help us do that, we'll continue to slide downhill.

What do you mean lee, surely tax cuts can get us out of our debt right?

[erickkoch]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Here is food for though. This is what the future of the US government will be doing.

Scary thought. I guess there's no point in leaving CA for another state if the problems of massive govt. debt just follow you wherever you go. Guess I'm screwed.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by erickkoch

Scary thought. I guess there's no point in leaving CA for another state if the problems of massive govt. debt just follow you wherever you go. Guess I'm screwed.

Move to texas.

Originally Posted by leekohler

We'll have to pay it, won't we? But until we start talking about tax policy that will help us do that, we'll continue to slide downhill.

Theres no reason we should cover it, the people of California are seeing the "benefit" of their spending, if they want to have lower taxes they have one choice, lower spending.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by NT1440

What do you mean lee, surely tax cuts can get us out of our debt right?

Of course!

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Theres no reason we should cover it, the people of California are seeing the "benefit" of their spending, if they want to have lower taxes they have one choice, lower spending.

I was referring to Rodimus' comment on the US in general.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by NT1440

What do you mean lee, surely tax cuts can get us out of our debt right?

Exactly, Spending our way out of debt is where its at.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by obeygiant

Exactly, Spending our way out of debt is where its at.

I know when I max my credit cards that next one is a lifesaver.

[abijnk]

This won't help anything. Sure, they'll have the cash for now, and then when next tax season rolls around they'll be issuing more IOUs. We need a fundamental change in the spending in this state. Until then, I guess I'll be missing my $20 a month. Sure, that doesn't sound like much, but when you consider that $20 is enough to get me to and from work for a week it really sucks.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by obeygiant

Exactly, Spending our way out of debt is where its at.

Yea, cuz I said that we should spend spend spend instead.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by erickkoch

Scary thought. I guess there's no point in leaving CA for another state if the problems of massive govt. debt just follow you wherever you go. Guess I'm screwed.

CA tends to lead in examples of what the future is to hold.

CA massive spending and not collecting enough taxes is what got them into this mess. And now they have to pay for it and low and behold. They cann't

Originally Posted by leekohler

We'll have to pay it, won't we? But until we start talking about tax policy that will help us do that, we'll continue to slide downhill.

Well there seems to be no sign at all of the endless massive downward spending the the US government. When ask how things are going to be paid for people tend to get all defense and say we need *blank* health care being the big one right now but still it needs to be paid for.

Cash for clunkers the more I look at it the more of an epic fail it was. There was an article in from the AP I read today that people who turn in a truck were 17 time more likely to buy a new truck. So of the people who turn in an Old F150 they were mostly like to buy a NEW F150. Talk about a fail in getting clunkers off the road. It gave no incentive to really buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Just buy well another gas guzzler with marginally better gas mileage.

My worry right now is with the massive debt being built up this year (and safe to bet again next year) how is it going to be paid for. CA seems to be a good example of the US future. Get ready to stop making any money as every cent we make has to go back in Taxes

[iBlue]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

...if they want to have lower taxes they have one choice, lower spending.

What government ever lowers their spending? They just want (and take) more and more and more. :-/