| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2007/2/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45643 Activity:moderate |
2/2 http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=289 Link that talks about how CA spends $3200 per capita now versus $1240 (inflation adjusted) in the 1960s. \_ Thanks for the link. Do you know where he got those statistics? I am actually most interested in what local+state taxes collected have looked like over time, both inflation adjusted and as a percentage of income. I know there was a big shift from local to state when Prop 13 passed, so this is going to kind of distort the number that McClintock reports here. to state when Prop 13 passed, so this is going to distort the number that McClintock reports here. \_ I assumed that he meant *ALL* taxes in CA (local+state), but I really don't know. Obviously, if State doubled and local fell in proportion then it's just cooking the books. I think we are both interested in *TOTAL* spending and re-reading what McClintock wrote it seems like he might be referring only to State spending. You might want to read the following, though: http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/Jun98/jun98-4.htm It reports that total spending is higher now than it was, although not so much higher. Look at the chart on this page: http://www.caltax.org/research/taxspend.htm \_ Yeah, I also would like to know if McClintock measured from "peak to peak" or "trough to peak" as these kinds of factors make a huge difference. The first caltax article measures spending as a percentage of GDP, which is probably a better measure than inflation adjusted anyway, since the things that government spends money on (health care, education, bridges and roads) has on (health care, education, bridges and roads) have increased in price faster than inflation. This is \_ Government always over-pays for everything. This is not a surprising finding. probably not a conincidence. The second caltax article \_ We are in agreement here. probably not a coincidence. The second caltax article measures overall tax burden, which is mostly because the federal government overtaxes Californians compared to the rest of the country, because of the relatively high wages here. \_ So what have our reps done to correct this imbalance? I haven't checked but my bet is on "nothing". \_ You are surprised that after 12 years of GOP dominated Congress that pork tends to flow from blue states to red states? What could the (Democratic) California caucus have done about that? Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi will even things out a bit. \_ Oh please, what did they do in the previous 50 years of Dem control? The same nothing. This has nothing to do with the evuuul GOP and everything to do with tax'n'spend. Nancy isn't going to even anything out. If Hillary was elected in 08 and the Dems had both houses, there would still be no cost/location based federal tax system that accounted for living in higher price/wage states. It isn't even on anyone's radar. \_ We used to get a larger percentage of our taxes dollars back. I don't think that the Democrats are going to lower my taxes. I do think they will start diverting tax money from Republican favored states (wars, defence contractors, etc) to Democratic favored states (mass transit, public health care, etc). \_ I don't want a larger portion of federal tax dollars coming back to the state. I want them to take into account that I live in a more expensive area with higher wages and thus need more money to maintain the same standard of living as someone making half as much in some other states and lower my tax bracket. I agree that the Dems won't lower anyone's taxes, but you're off base in claiming that "Republican States" are the "War States" and "Democratic States" are the peace loving, we take care of our people states. CA is chock full of military bases, defense contractors, etc. I used to live with in get-nuked range of a nuclear sub base and related defense contractors in CT. They are in every state. I also don't see the Dems unporking the budget since they invented the concept, although the last Repub. government honed that skill to a fine point. They're the same, we're all hosed either way. \_ You are full of it. CA lost most of its military bases in the 80s. \_ You are wrong about spending. CA lost most of its military bases in the 90s. Maybe you are too young to remember. In any case, most of the defence contractors are heavily Republican. Whatever you want to call it, the pork should start flowing our way. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html Shows overall state and local tax burden as exactly the same today as in 1970. And this is from an anti-tax site (!) This site also shows a drop from 1978 to 1995, so at this point it is almost a case of dueling experts: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_998MSRB.pdf \_ My expert can beat up your expert. \_ I think the key point to take away here is that there's at least as much money now as ever. So why is the infrastructure falling apart? \_ That is a really good question and I do not have the answer for it. A small part is that we spend more on prisons, but that can't be the whole answer. \_ While tax revenue increases linearly, waste and corruption increase quadratically. \_ Exactly and most of it is not in the prison system. It is in the k-12 education system. Which is not to say the prisons aren't a big scam, too, just a smaller scam than the k-12 system. |
| 5/25 |
|
| republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=289 Print Version To know what California can be, it's important to remember what it once was. A generation ago, California's highways were the envy of the world. We had one of the finest school systems in the country and one of the finest university systems in the world. Electricity was so cheap that there was serious discussion of abandoning electricity meters. The state water project promised abundant water supplies to complete the greening of California. California was indeed the Golden State - a land of opportunity and plenty far surpassing every other state in the nation. Today's liberals tell us that those were the days when Californians were willing to "invest" in their future - unlike these miserly times when we've "starved" our schools, our infrastructure and our government. To provide that high level of public services 40 years ago, California state government spent $200 for every man, woman and child in the state - or $1,240 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars. Today, California government consumes $3,200 for every person in the state - two and a half times more in population-adjusted, inflation-adjusted terms. That's the biggest chunk out of your earnings in California's history. Californians pay the fourth heaviest taxes per gallon of gasoline in the country - and yet California ranks dead last in per capita spending on its roads. Californians back every classroom with nearly $300,000 and yet only a fraction of these funds reach the classroom. Californians pay among the highest sales and income tax rates in the country and yet California's credit rating is the lowest in the nation. Question: is this the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes or is it the fault of near-criminal mismanagement of California's ample resources? The Golden State that we remember from a generation ago - that land of dreams - that place where families could make a fresh start - that state of great highway projects and great water projects and abundant housing and electricity and jobs - is still right here. In 1974, a radical and retrograde ideology was introduced into California government during the administration of Gov. He called it his "era of limits," but really it amounted to the naive notion that infrastructure encouraged population growth. Brown cancelled the state highway program, literally abandoning projects in mid-construction. He blocked the construction of new power plants and radically constricted the construction of new housing. Managerially, he unionized the teaching profession and centralized the public schools. In the intervening decades, the legislature has maintained these policies, and the result has been devastating. Bureaucratic costs have soared, local governments have been usurped, and the quality of public services has plummeted. The task of this generation is to restore to our children the land of opportunity that our parents gave to us. To do so, we must decentralize our service delivery systems - starting by restoring control of our schools to parents and school boards and restoring their management to principals and teachers. Highway taxes must again be earmarked exclusively for our highways. We must roll back the excessive regulations that obstruct our commerce, our housing, our energy and our water supplies. We must dramatically downsize the state's bureaucracies by eliminating overlapping jurisdictions and by abolishing agencies that duplicate local or federal functions. There is no reason why we can't have balanced budgets, lower taxes and a renewed commitment to public works - because that's what we had just a generation ago. But doing so requires a dramatic change in the most liberal legislature in the United States and that, in turn, requires political action. The census data tells us that for the first time in our history, California is watching a net out-migration of citizens. Many of them are finding a better life for their families in the middle of the Arizona and Nevada deserts than they could find in California. No act of God could wreak such devastation upon our state. Acts of government are within our power as citizens to change. Senator McClintock represents the 19th district in the California Legislature. |
| www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/Jun98/jun98-4.htm Proposition 13 Did Not Strangle Local Budgets By Steven B Frates, PhD The all-too-common perception that governments in California have been financially strangled by Proposition 13 is incorrect. Measuring state and local government expenditures as a percentage of total personal income is a useful way of analyzing the relative size of government for many reasons, but especially so for three main reasons. First the total personal income of all Californians represents the ability of Californians to buy food, clothing, shelter and other necessities, and to save for education and retirement, as well as to pay for government. Second, the amount of government spending as a percentage of total personal income in one year can readily be compared to another year. This sort of comparison gives a clear, unambiguous picture of the relative size of government in any two (or more) years. Third, and perhaps most important, examining the size of state and local government expenditures gives a true and complete measure of the size of such government activity. Some taxes might increase rapidly, or not so rapidly, "fees," "charges," and "assessments" might proliferate, "service charges" can be siphoned off to support bureaucratic staff rather than provide a particular service, "enterprise funds" can be established; in short, there are many ways to take money from the taxpaying public. Measuring state and local government expenditures captures the total net size of these governments in California. Steven B Frates is a fellow of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA. His doctorate is in public administration, specializing in local government finance. He has taught at the University of Southern California and the University of Colorado, and has written a number of studies on local government finance. They include "State and Local Government Expenditures in California - A Comparison of Fiscal Year 1977-78 and Fiscal Year 1994-95 Expenditures," co-authored by Eric S Norby and published in April by the Rose Institute. While total state and local government expenditures as a percentage of total personal income increased from 1978 to 1995, the composition of these expenditures varied. Net state government spending increased from 36 percent to 37 percent of total personal income. Total county expenditures (there are 58 counties in California) increased from 39 percent to 45 percent of total personal income. Total city expenditures (there are close to 500 cities in California) increased from 36 percent to 39 percent of total personal income. Total Special District expenditures (there are over 4,500 special districts in California) increased from 15 percent to 23 percent of total personal income. Public school (K-12) district spending (there are over 900 K-12 public school districts) decreased from 42 percent to 38 percent of total personal income. One last area that warrants attention is the growth in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Annual revenues of CalPERS have grown from 25 percent of total personal income in 1980 to about 41 percent in 1995. In sum, state and local government has grown, in both absolute and relative terms, since Proposition 13 was approved by the voters. In sum, state and local government has grown, in both absolute and relative terms, since Proposition 13 was approved by the voters. |
| www.caltax.org/research/taxspend.htm Cal-Tax Research Bulletin October 1994 California Taxing and Spending Introduction Each year, Cal-Tax produces Taxing and Spending , a report that cites federal data to show how California compares to all other states in major revenues and spending categories. This year's report is published later in the year than usual, because the federal government was late releasing the data. Because of the time it takes for the Bureau of the Census to compile data for all the states, these reports always lag a few years - this report compares finances in fiscal year 1991-92. The report was prepared by Cal-Tax Research Director Stephen Kroes. Total Government Spending Tax Increases Had Mixed Effects The 1991-92 state budget included major increases in sales and personal income taxes. At the time, those increases were expected to add $7 billion in revenue for the state. Because the recession continued to worsen that year, causing further declines in state revenues, the revenue from those tax increases did not greatly increase total tax collections. Relative to other states, California's rank in per capita taxes, fees and assessments actually slipped a few notches, moving from ninth in 1990-91 to 11th, at $2,896 per capita. The dollar amount is an increase, but other states increased more during that year. Per worker collections fell to 6th highest, from 5th in 1990-91. Again, the dollar amount ($5,931 per worker) increased, but less than other states. The dichotomy between falling per capita and per worker burdens versus an increasing burden per $1,000 of personal income is not surprising. Personal income growth slowed sharply during the recent recession, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and other economic activities that generate state and local revenues. Absent any state action, state tax revenues would have actually declined significantly. But increases in tax rates drew a larger proportion of personal income, even though the stalled economy caused actual collections to barely increase. Table 2, western states that have drawn many jobs out of California during the past several years have significantly lower tax burdens per worker. California's taxes and fees are largely driven by spending demands. Figure 2 shows that total state and local spending as a percent of personal income continues expanding to a new all-time high in California. By measuring spending against personal income, the figure is automatically adjusted for growth in the economy, inflation, and population. While some observers continue to claim that California government was at its zenith in the 1970s, these figures show that combined state and local spending, as a percent of personal income, has exceeded pre-Proposition 13 levels for several years now. In other words, state and local government is now a larger share of the state economy than at any other time. The long-term effects of Proposition 13 have mostly led to a change in the composition of revenues, not an ongoing reduction in revenues or spending. Figure 1 that a significant percentage of state and local revenues come from fees and assessments, which comprise 21% of the total tax and fee burden. Fees and assessments provide almost as much revenue as the property tax and more than any other tax, including the personal income tax or combined state and local sales taxes. Before Proposition 13, in 1977-78 fees and assessments were 13% of the total tax and fee burden. State and local fees have been the predominant focus of revenue increases in the wake of Proposition 13. Some prefer per capita figures because it is easy to extrapolate the figure to represent an average household. For example, if an average household consists of four individuals, the per capita figure can be multiplied by four to represent that household. But per capita measurements have some serious flaws, such as counting children and others who generally do not pay taxes. Last year, Cal-Tax introduced the per worker measurement of tax burden, because it is more directly related to the burden facing taxpaying individuals. Although the per worker measurement is not perfect, because some taxpayers do not work, such as retirees, it is a clearer measure than per capita measurements. One reason for this is that the demographics of a state like California lead to an artificially lower per capita tax burden compared against most states. This is because California's population base includes more children than many other states. The per worker measure corrects for the downward bias in the per capita figure by dividing tax collections by those who are working or trying to work in the state. Some analysts prefer to measure taxes and spending per $1,000 of personal income, because incomes vary from state to state and those who make more money can afford to pay more in taxes. Per capita or per worker figures do not show how taxes relate to income. One very important caution should be noted when comparing tax burden per $1,000 of personal income: this measure assumes that a dollar of income earned in California is worth as much as a dollar earned in any other state, which is a misleading assumption. Because of the high cost of living in California, higher incomes do not necessarily reflect an ability to pay greater taxes. In fact, the measurement of taxes and fees per $1,000 of personal income actually skews the rankings to place low-income states higher in the rankings, many of which are not considered high-tax states. Indeed, states generally accepted as high-tax rank well below California by this measure - Massachusetts is 37th, Illinois is 45th, and New Jersey is 27th. One way to correct for the distortion in rankings per $1,000 of personal income would be to adjust income for cost of living. Cal-Tax is examining available data to see if this type of analysis can be done in the near future. New Data on Local Collections This year's report includes local data for sales taxes and personal income taxes. Past years' reports included only state collections for those two taxes. In some states, significant sales and income taxes are levied at the local level, so this change makes the data more complete. Because of the inclusion of California's local sales taxes, this report's figure for sales tax collections is not directly comparable to past years' reports. Local taxes have always been included in the table on total taxes and total taxes, fees and assessments, so this change does not alter those tables. Data Sources Revenue and spending figures were obtained from Government Finances: 1991-92 (Preliminary Report), except corporate income taxes, which were obtained from State Government Tax Collections: 1991. Both documents are published by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. July 1, 1992 population figures for calculating per capita amounts were obtained from the Census Bureau. Some of the above-cited data were provided in electronic form by the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, whose assistance is greatly appreciated. Per worker figures were calculated using 1992 annual average labor force from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Personal income figures differ from prior reports in using fiscal year personal income as the basis for calculations. Prior reports used calendar year income, which did not match most state and local fiscal years, which run from July to June. Fiscal year personal incomes were calculated from data supplied by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. As in last year's report, Taxing and Spending does not include the District of Columbia in the tables or rankings. |
| www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html Local taxes are excluded, such as property taxes and local sales taxes. This exclusion allows Census to report up-to-date 2004 state-level collections, which would be impossible if required to wait for the time-consuming tally of tax collections by thousands of local governments. However, some states accomplish at the local level what other states accomplish at the state level, so a degree of comparability is lost as a result. For example, New York's state sales tax rate is 4 percent, and its counties have local sales tax rates that range from 3 percent to 575 percent. Connecticut, on the other had, has a 6 percent state-level sales tax with no local add-ons. In a ranking that includes only state-level taxes, New York appears less taxed than it actually is, and Connecticut appears more taxed. This is closer to the Tax Foundation rankings, which take the additional steps of projecting collections into the current year, counting out-of-state tax payments in the state of residence instead of the state of collection, and dividing total tax payments by total income to calculate the "burden." Note: To zoom in, print, select text or search the following document, please use the grey toolbar below. |