Posted on 02/15/2009 8:35:48 AM PST by SmithL
California's massive $40 billion-plus budget plan stalled in the Legislature early Sunday morning as Senate Republicans balked at a massive proposal containing $14.3 billion in new taxes.
After legislative leaders negotiated a tentative deal last week, the Senate wound up one vote shy of passing the budget plan, surprising those who believed Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill had locked up enough votes in his caucus.
Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, was widely believed to be the 27th Senate vote to pass the budget, but he stated early Sunday, "I'm not a prospect for voting for this budget." That sent Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger scrambling to negotiate with other Senate Republicans in search of one final vote.
Both legislative houses were pondering 27 hastily drafted bills that cover state budgets for two fiscal years: the current one that ends June 30 and the next one that begins July 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
“Taxpayers would calculate the surcharge by increasing their final post-credit tax liability by 5 percent”
That’s the tax before deducting any payments that have been made durring the year!
<<Thats the tax before deducting any payments that have been made durring the year!
Yep. That’s what I was sayin’. Are we in agreement?
That’s what I’ve said since my first post you dimb s**t!
That is what I said to which you posted “I totally disagree.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2186156/posts?page=95#95
What did you disagree with that I posted?
Very simple, if your tax is $1,000 and durring the year you have paid in $999.99 and you owe 1 cent, your sur tax is $50!
Okay. I agree with that.
Now, alternative scenario. Do you agree with this?
>> If your tax is $1,000 and during the year you have paid in $1,001.00 and you are due a refund of 1 cent, your sur tax is $50.
Correction...
...you have paid in $1,000.01 and you are due a refund of 1 cent...
Hell no!!!!
I don't mean to argue, I just believe this new tax is much more egregious than you believe it to be.
I came to my interpretation based on several things
1) the math, as I mentioned.Am I missing something?2) The fact that it is a called a surtax, not a penalty. (They could easily have just upped the underpayment tax penalties to accomplish something like your description).
3) Look at the PDF link I gave you again and read the last part under "Rationale". It says:
"In addition, since most taxpayers overpay their taxes each year through withholding, the surcharge would reduce taxpayer refunds (rather than require a larger final tax payment) in April, when final tax returns are due."They apply the surcharge whether your taxes were paid in full, or not.
BILL NUMBER: ABX3 3 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 14, 2009 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 7, 2009 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Evans (snip) SEC. 13. Section 17044 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read: 17044. (a) For each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and before January 1, 2013, in addition to any other taxes imposed by this part, an additional tax shall be imposed at the rate of 5 percent on the total tax for the taxable year. (b) (1) For purposes of this section, "total tax" means the tax imposed by this part, less any credit allowed under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 17041), other than the Child and Dependent Care Credit allowed under Section 17052.6. (2) For purposes of applying Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) of Division 2, the tax imposed under this section shall be treated as if imposed under Section 17041. (c) The tax imposed under this section shall not be further reduced by any credits otherwise allowable under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 17041), other than the Child and Dependent Care Credit allowed under Section 17052.6. (d) This section shall cease to be operative on December 1, 2011, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2011, unless the Director of the Department of Finance makes the notification pursuant to Section 99040 of the Government Code, in which case this section shall cease to be operative on December 1, 2013. (e) This section shall become operative only if the Director of Finance does not provide notification to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on or before April 1, 2009, pursuant to Section 99030 of the Government Code.
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.