Posted on 02/18/2007 9:48:16 AM PST by NormsRevenge
ARE Californians taxed too much, or not enough?
Taxes are the central question of how to fund Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's massive $12 billion expansion of government-run health care with its 4 percent payroll tax, 4 percent hospital tax and 2 percent doctor tax. Ironically, Schwarzenegger lambasted Phil Angelides during last year's gubernatorial campaign for wanting to raise taxes by $7 billion to create a new government health care entitlement. Angelides argued mightily that his proposal amounted to fees, not taxes. But the governor called Angelides' "fee" a "tax," so a "tax" it was. Now that Schwarzenegger is proposing a government health plan that is $5 billion larger than Angelides' proposal, Schwarzenegger has decided to call his three new taxes "fees."
The reason the difference between a "tax" and a "fee" matters has to do with the required vote thresholds in the Legislature. Tax increases need a two-thirds vote for approval, while fees only need a simple majority. Republican legislators believe that these fees are really tax hikes and that a two-thirds majority vote should be required to approve them.
If a majority-vote "fee" increase is rammed through the Legislature with the help of Democrats, lawsuits will be filed to block the tax hikes to defend the rights of taxpayers and the two-thirds constitutional requirement.
Adding further difficulty is a recent federal court ruling that struck down a Maryland law aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to provide its employees with health care benefits equal to 8 percent of its payroll costs. The court held that Maryland's so-called "Fair Share Health Care Fund Act" violated federal benefits law. This ruling means Schwarzenegger's proposed 4 percent jobs tax for health care may be illegal under federal law.
In 2003, amidst soaring workers' compensation rates and rising taxes, California's business-tax climate ranked a dismal 43 among the 50 states, according the Tax Foundation. California's ranking improved to 38 of 50 in 2004 after Schwarzenegger signed workers' compensation reforms and rolled back Gray Davis' tripled car tax. Then California fell back to No. 42 in 2006, and declined again this year to 45.
More importantly, our western neighbors offer powerful incentives for California businesses to expand out of state, with Nevada's business-tax climate ranking fourth best in the nation, Oregon 10th, Washington 11th and Arizona 28th.
So, it would appear that California is overtaxed, especially in comparison with its neighbors. Simple economics dictates that investment dollars will avoid California.
What is the solution?
California has about three times the health-insurance mandates of Idaho, about double the national average. If California were to allow true competition, including out-of-state plans, costs would go down and choice would go up.
Another way to keep health care costs in check without sacrificing quality or raising taxes can be found in consumer-directed health plans. Enrollment in health savings accounts paired with high-deductible health insurance tripled in 2006. Compared with managed care plans, consumer-directed health plans reduce the annual cost per employee by about $1,000 while preserving patient choice. Unfortunately, California is one of only four states that does not allow this freedom of choice.
And that's a shame. Because there are many ways to increase Californians' access to health care without illegally increasing taxes by calling them fees.
Wrong again, Roscoe.
It's not a tax, it's an oxygen usage fee.
Really? Why would Arnold acting like a socialist surprise you?
It's what you voted for.
You're a freak, Roscoe. I'm still not sorry your candidate, Filthy Angelides, didn't win. That's what you and all the ilk herd wanted.
His agenda did. Enacted by your action hero Arnold.
Next time vote for principles instead of with your hormones.
The more spittle you spew the more secure he is ... LMAO
Next time, Roscoe, I won't ask for your opinion, either.
Well... Until we can even educate ALL of our FReeper community to stop sliming CA by supportin and sliming nearly every thread with undying support for this screamin Liberal Governor they simply cannot stop swooning over... I'm sure glad SOMEBODY heard me!!!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"If California chose this system over spending money to put people in jail, it could probably balance its budget with just a dozen crimes turned into fines."
Great idea! Bring back the wehrgelt! And while we're at it, let's sell indulgences!
Look, fundamentally, I'm with you, we shouldn't be criminalizing this behavior. But the difference between us is that I prefer to decriminalize consensual 'crimes,' while your 'solution' is to give the wealthy a get-out-of-jail-free card for cash. You fail to see that in so doing you are creating a class of moneyed nobles above certain laws. Cash does not equate to virtue--but you will be saying it does, and that will be a very, very dangerous thing.
"Only the poor go to jail, dahlink, it's so plebeian..."
Thanks for your post.
I voted for Tom (McClinock).
Even though I'm a Libertarian.
Tom's great....
I know! You want the dumb SOB to rule over us like a Queer Demonicrat forever and ever!!! I can't understand where you get the unmitigated gaul to even show your grunt face on a conservative website homebased in Austrian ruled Cauleeforneeah! And then to get lippy on top of that!! Just shows you're oblivious to the obvious!!! (won't any of your friends tell this?)
I am not saying that the wealthy are above the law, just that they can pay back society in a better way than by society having to pay for their jail time.
I also noted that this applied to 1st time offenders only.
If they do it a 2nd time, off to jail they go.
And if you think about it, how many people would be willing to even go into debt to get up the $10,000 to $30,000 so that they would not have to go to jail for months? To go to jail would quite likely cost them their job, and make it hard for them to get another job.
No reason why anybody with a job can't afford such a fine. It could even be paid on the installment plan to the State. It doesn't matter if it takes four years to pay off.
The bottom line is a philosophy that if your actions endanger the public, then your punishment should be to help the public. $10,000 could go a long way for social services. And $10,000 paid by 30,000 people a year would be a great way to atone for their wrongs--assuming that nobody was harmed during their crime.
My, oh my, the stupid one is upset. An old fool, or just a fool, you decide ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.