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 ...
” It has nothing to do with how much you owe when you file taxes.”
It’s a 5% sur tax if you owe money when you file your tax return.
Combined with a reduction in the deduction allowed for dependents (reduced from $300 to $100) so that you're more likely to owe money that can then have the surtax applied to it.
California is an experiment replacing legal citizens with illegal ones.
No. It's a 5% surcharge on your TOTAL state income tax liability. Your liability is covered through withholding, quarterly estimated tax payments or a check you send in with your Form540 on April 15th.
Of course it’s on the total but if you don’t owe anything at the end of the year it doesn’t apply, only if you owe.
For Californians and those interested in what’s going on in Sacramento join the ‘Head On A Stick’ Tax Revolt here:
http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandkenshow/
Listen, or stream the show, live coverage of the Budget mess monday through friday this coming week at 3pm pacific.
If it passes with the tax increases, the campaign will be continued!
In what way? Bustemante was the only democrat I've ever voted for in my life. I wasn't really voting 'for' him; but it works out the same in the end. Schwarzenegger has been nothing but a disaster, I would have done anything to get rid of him.
I’m sorry, sir... but you are wrong.
Let’s say you made $50,000 last year and your state income tax liability was $2,000.
Over the course of the year your employer withheld $1,900 from your paycheck for California State Income tax withholding - and you owe $100 when you file your taxes.
The surcharge would be 5% of $2,000 ($100), NOT 5% of $100 ($5)
The Senate’s back at it, the Assembly meets at 1pm.
That’s exactly what I said!
iF YOU HAVE PAID ENOUGH DURRING THE YEAR THAT YOU DON’T OWE ANYTHING WITH YOUR RETURN THERE IS NO 5% PENALTY.
If you owe one cent there is a 5% surcharge on the entire tax amount.
BTW, go straight to hell!
“Arnold IS better than Bustemante would have been.”
You are so right. Bustemante was another Villagroso!!!
You owe the 5% surcharge whether you underwithheld, overwithheld, or withheld exactly enough money to cover your state income tax liability for the year. When you calculate your total income tax liability from the tax tables - you add another 5% to that total.
Let's change the example I provided in Post 48:
Let’s say you made $50,000 last year and your state income tax liability was $2,000.I'll expect an apology from Dalereed after he does his homework.Over the course of the year your employer withheld $2,500 from your paycheck for California State Income tax withholding - and you would ordinarily get a refund of $500 when you file your taxes.
The surcharge would still be 5% of $2,000 ($100), so your new tax bill is $2,100 (and your refund would only be $400) - you would not have avoided the tax as Dalereed professes.
I heard on John and Ken’s radio show that 56 BILLION dollars is spent on welfare in California. Welfare abuse in this state is rampant with at least 50% being fraudulent. I was at the GYM the other day and ran into an old neighbor who was proud to tell me he was on full disability.
Four ways to get California in the black:
-Stop paying for social services to illegals
-Cut pensions for state employees in half
-Go after wefare fraud
-In lawsuit cases plaintiffs and their lawyers are liable for damages up to 50% of what they were asking for if they lose their case
The current formula is 3.0 at age 50. Maximum 90%
Here's how I would change the formula for cops and fire fighters. 2.5 at age 57. 2.7 at age 62. Maximum 75%.
Regular employees 2.0 at age 60 and 2.5 at age 67.During the crunch I would do the following. Reduce everyone's pay over 3,000 a month by 5%. Over 5,000 7%, over 8,000 10% until the state is out of bankruptcy.
The first 2.2 should be 2.0%
Andrew Jackson: “One man in the right makes a majority.”
What is amazing is that CA, the most liberal of places, managed to hold off on this bill in order to examine it more thoroughly while the US Congress ramrodded its plan through without debate.
If Arnold really was/is better than Bustamante (which I am not convinced) then one has to ask: how can it possibly be worse??
That state is going down the tubes with the GOP at the helm. Big mistake.
I was sucked in by Arnold’s celebrity in 2003. I now regret it (in fact long ago). The man has been an epic failure and been so since at least his failed 2005 special election.
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.