CA: It's a fee. No wait, it's a tax. Actually ...

Stockton Record ^ | Jan 23, 2006 | Hank Shaw

[BackInBlack]

"the imposition of a capacity charge would not constitute the imposition of a tax, ... because the amount and nature of the capacity charge has a fair and reasonable relationship to the needs of this state and its residents."

Does that mean they're admitting that actual taxes don't serve the needs of the state and its residents?

[detsaoT]

The flood-control legislation begins with a declaration that "the imposition of a capacity charge would not constitute the imposition of a tax, ... because the amount and nature of the capacity charge has a fair and reasonable relationship to the needs of this state and its residents."

But lawmakers and legislative staffers alike say that declaration is meaningless.

No one in the Legislature really knows for certain if Schwarzenegger's fee is really a tax - and privately, they say they don't really want to know, either.

I can't wait until Mexico re-conquers California, so we never have to hear this garbage again.

To clarify, let me get this straight: This "fee" is called as such by legislation, which -by supposition- was passed by a "legislature."

Arnold, the Governor, in executing this legislation, obeyed its wording and referred to the $3 charge as a "fee," not as a "tax," even though the reality of the situation implies it is the latter.

Ok, up to this part, I think I get it. But then, California goes native on me:

"lawmakers and legislative staffers alike say that declaration is meaningless."

Oh? Is that so? Then why was this "meaningless" phrase inserted into the "legislation," which was passed by the "legislature," pray tell?

And then, the article so eloquently states, "No one in the Legislature really knows for certain if Schwarzenegger's fee is really a tax - and privately, they say they don't really want to know, either."

If it's a "tax," created by the "legislature," but called a "fee" by the same, how is it that this becomes "Schwarzenegger's fee?"

California belongs in Mexico, the Eternal Home of Communists. Would the last American out please close the border behind them?

[MillerCreek]

I'm going to be quite irreverant (?) here and pose this possibility:

Would it have been LESS EXPENSIVE TO CA to keep Gray Davis for his second/last term in office, to allow his "car tax" thing to stand, and NOT have Schwarzenegger's additional fees, taxes and whatnots?

Just wondering. I'm trying to figure out at this point just what all this special electing has been for and about, when perhaps another "normal" Gubernatorial election might of been more fiscally responsible and downright practical.

Can't undo the past. But can we at least do better in the future? Starting, say, now? What, exactly, does Schwarzenegger actually MEAN when he said he was going to "clean house"?

It's starting to seem as if he mighta' meant, you know, "clean house" as in, "put all the money in the bag, ma'am, before I head out the door." THAT kinda' "clean house" thing.

[TXBSAFH]

Anytime you pay the government it is a tax.

Garbage fee = garbage tax
hunting license = hunting tax
building permit fee = building tax
and so on

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

At least you can write off a tax on your federal taxes...but you get no write off with "fees". I am seeing that politicians are scum regardless of the party the represent.

[NormsRevenge]

maybe they could call it a 'special user charge' .. a SUC fee. :-)

[FOG724]

Can't undo the past. But can we at least do better in the future?

Not with the current party leadership.

[Amerigomag]

Hank Shaw is the capitol bureau chief for the Stockton Record in California.

Assume this is the same Hank and the same source?

[MillerCreek]

O.K. Never hurts to ~ask~, to dream a little, might get a lucky break.

~;-]

[FOG724]

This is true.

[Amerigomag]

Can't undo the past. But can we at least do better in the future

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it Santayana; 1908. Allow Republican voters to decide for themselves whether a "Better than Angelides" re-election campaign is good enough for them. Schnur; 2006

[calcowgirl]

My apologies for the very sloppy posting job!

Stockton Record
http://www.stocktonrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060123/NEWS01/601230314/1001

(I asked the mods to add the link and source).

[Alia]

Righteous analysis of yours. The article is indeed about liberal democrat CA speak. And spin.

[detsaoT]

Righteous analysis of yours. The article is indeed about liberal democrat CA speak. And spin.

Thank you kindly!

(Doing my best Keanu: "Those bogus Democrats in the Assembly, they thought they were all boss and stuff. Like, little did they know they were just a bunch of most non-triumphant posers." Or something like that. You're gonna force me to break out my well-used copy of Bill and Ted's again, aren't ya? :) )

[heleny]

"There is no effort to proportion the amount of the levy to any benefits conferred to fee payers," Coupal wrote in a recent online column. "The 'fee' is not voluntary, imposed only when taxpayers choose to engage in an activity triggering a fee: If you own property, you get hit."

An initiative petition a few years ago (at least one by McClintock) tried to set definitions for "tax" and "fee," but it failed to gather enough signatures. The reason was the the legislature could raise fees with 50% but required 2/3 to raise taxes, so lately the legislature simply instituted all sorts of "fees."

The failed petition would have limited fees to money that directly paid for a related program (such as a camping fee that pays for things such as maintenance of the campsite), and categorized everything else as taxes.

If the state government raises "fees" much more, perhaps someone will bring back another version of the petition to define taxes/fees.

[calcowgirl]

There's a good column by John Coupal published today on taxes and fees:

http://www.flashreport.org/special-reports0b.php?faID=2006012401372080

(snip)

However, ever since 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13, the distinction between “fees” and “taxes” has had a significant legal consequence. Certain vote requirements – either in the California Legislature for state taxes or public votes at the local level – are triggered by “taxes” and are rarely triggered by fees. The most important of these requirements at the state level is that a tax increase requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, meaning that Republicans can effectively block them. A “fee” increase, however, requires only a simple majority vote meaning that the majority party can impose such revenue increases and fiscal conservatives must rely on a gubernatorial veto.

But now the debate has transcended both the academic and legal arenas and is squarely in the California political arena. Governor Schwarzenegger has repeatedly stated that he will not raise taxes. However, his ambitious spending plan also contains a number of proposed “fee” increases. If these “fees” are viewed as merely taxes in disguise, then the Governor’s shaky credibility with the taxpayer community will take another hit. Fiscally conservative Republicans, already distressed about the huge amount of debt and spending the Governor is seeking, will abandon him in droves if he raises taxes.

So, is the Governor proposing tax increases?

(snip)

That this so-called “fee” is nothing more than a tax is beyond debate. ...

[RogerWilko]

In Sacramento County, they make us pay almost $6 a month for a drainage management fee. About 1997, after some heavy-duty rain caused a lot of the drains to get clogged, some genius(es) decided it would be a good idea to collect money for this RARE occurrence!!

It IS a RARE occurrence too! I've lived in the same neighborhood for almost 18 years and the drain down by the corner has gotten clogged TWO or THREE times the WHOLE TIME I've been there! Not too mention, it drained without any help from maintenance crews!

I think the WHOLE thing's a FARCE! Now they basically collect $70 or so a year from EVERY household in Sacto. County to keep the drains clear!

RIGHT... I'll just BET that's where all that money's going!

[calcowgirl]

But doncha feel better that you aren't taxed? ;-)
(I agree--it's out of control)

[Wolfstar]

Would it have been LESS EXPENSIVE TO CA to keep Gray Davis for his second/last term in office, to allow his "car tax" thing to stand, and NOT have Schwarzenegger's additional fees, taxes and whatnots?

Not that it matters anymore, but I was strongly against the recall. Couldn't convince anyone here on FR that it was a bad idea, though. Almost everyone thought it was going to be a big turnaround for the state. I think it's been a disaster.