Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2010 - 07:33pm PT
|
A thoughtful kind post. Thanks John.
In all seriousness, one of the problems Ca faces is caused by all these many, some very good otherwise, fees being voted in willy-nilly. Voter mandated expenditures in many ways have trapped the Calif. legislature. They all sounded like small, helpful things when voted in. In aggregate, wow!
BTW, the last national tax overhaul to fix all these issues wasn't that long ago. Caused more problems than it fixed and many of the architects of the overhaul were immediately and correctly voted out of office. Too many fingers in the pie during the process.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2010 - 07:48pm PT
|
thank you couchmaster..
I totally agree that one of our problems has been all these voted in expenditures handcuffing our legislature. I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I do see the problem this has created.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2010 - 10:24pm PT
|
I prefer a gate fee to another tax.
i'm quoting dingus but talking to al and then the lurkers--
gate fees don't come anywhere close to paying for the cost of state parks. that's partly because real gate fees would be way too much money, and partly because many state parks don't and/or can't charge gate fees.
anyone been to columbia? if you haven't, you should go soon, because it's going to go away. there's no possibility of charging gate fees at columbia, because of its location. once it's closed, the tweakers will move in, and at some point in the not too distant future, it'll burn to the ground.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=552
other places can't enforce even token gate fees-- for years, folks just skirted the gate at mailbu.
i'm not posting to urge folks to vote for the fee. like most folks who actual work in or with california policy issues, i'm not in favor of fee-based budgeting, mostly for the reasons set out in that chron editorial that qitnl linked.
this is an ugly proposition-- a set-aside for state parks based on the most regressive tax available. and the alternative is equally ugly.
we've painted ourselves into a corner. welcome to ballet box budgeting.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 06:48pm PT
|
I think the concept is a good idea.
However popular state parks with limited parking will fill up at 6am on busy days. A daily user fee gets people to carpool. So pay boxes should be used on busy weekends, without manning the booth.
Once you vote in a proposition it will be impossibe to fix details like this, and we will be stuck with it, just like the unforseen problems of prop 13.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
|
this is an ugly proposition-- a set-aside for state parks based on the most regressive tax available. and the alternative is equally ugly.
OK, good post. But what to do?
|
|
Argon
climber
North Bay, CA
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 07:30pm PT
|
Taxes are too damn high. Just say NO to any and all new taxes. If a good project needs to be funded, then find somewhere else to cut. Govt spending should never rise more than the rate of inflation times the increase in population. It should really increase way less than that. But in CA (and at the fed level and in virtually ever municipality), the annual rate of increase in govt spending has been many times that "justified" by increasing populations and inflation. Does anyone in their right mind really want more government? It has to stop somewhere. $18 here and $18 there - and pretty soon you have a $14 trillion hole. Take a look at our national debt and then add in unfunded obligations at the fed, state and local levels. Then add in trillions more in each of the next few years as these obligations grow. And then divide that total by the number of taxpayers in the US (you know, those who actually work and make $50K or more per year). The result is a really big number (approaching $1 million). That is the burden (we) taxpayers are carrying. How can any sane person want the size of government to continue to increase?
Taxes are too damn high.
|
|
Karen
Trad climber
So Cal urban sprawl Hell
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 07:56pm PT
|
Also voting NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
rurprider
Trad climber
Mt. Rubidoux
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 09:17pm PT
|
BTW...that's BS from the CA lottery that 34 cents of every $1 spent on lottery tickets goes to our schools. That $$ gets siphoned off by the governor and the general fund long before it sees our schools. Maybe the schools saw some of the $$ prior to the governor getting Prop. 98 suspended, but not now.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 10:05pm PT
|
I think Fatty just endorsed 19...
|
|
BMcC
Trad climber
Livermore
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2010 - 10:19pm PT
|
Less than the current cost of six gallons of gas to help keep some parks open and park staff employed?
I voted for it.
|
|
Charlie D.
Trad climber
Western Slope, Tahoe Sierra
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 12:14am PT
|
Here's an idea, reduce the public employee benefits first and then come ask the people to pay more. I'd gladly pay if all of us were on a level playing field, unfortunately we aren't so the folks who are the stewards of our great public resources continue to reduce service then to sacrifice their own entitlement. It is fundamentally unfair to ask those who are paying for public service to pay more if their own benefits that secure their future are less then the futures they are funding.
|
|
HighTraverse
Social climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
|
Amid all the shouting I'll inject a couple of very local facts.
State Park budget is so low that they seriously considered closing a large number of parks including Castle Rock State Park 2 years ago. A large number of us who live nearby protested (begged) and they kept it open. It's one of the most heavily used State Parks in the Bay area (probably 2d after Mt Tam)
The State Parks budget was so low they could keep open only those State Parks that collected a significant amount of User Fees. e.g. popular state beaches, mostly on the southern coast. CRSP can't come close to collecting its cost in user fees. Only partly because everyone who can, parks on the road.
There are really nice campgrounds in Portola Redwoods State Park. They used to be open year round. Now they're closed for the winter season due to lack of funds (the park is still open for day use).
Paying for public "services" with user fees is Reaganomics at its best (worst).
===
A non-partisan summary of Prop 21
The measure is a proposal to increase vehicle license fees in the state by $18 a year in order to raise about $500 million a year in a dedicated fund for the state's 278 parks. The new fee would apply to about 28 million vehicles.
There would be a new $18 tax/registration fee for most vehicle registrations.
Mobile homes, permanent trailers, and vehicles registered under the Commercial Vehicle Registration Act would be excluded from the surcharge.
Most California vehicles would get free admission and parking at state parks and beaches.
85% of the money raised from the new fee would be spent directly on maintaining and operating state parks.
The $130 million that the State of California currently spends on state parks would go into the state's general fund.
Get informed
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2010_ballot_propositions
===
Now for my hook
Vote yes on 21
$18
5 double lattes
2 1/3 six packs of good beer
3 drinks in a bar (OK, 5 in a dive)
One evening in the Mountain Room Bar and you'll still be sober
1/2 of a dinner out in a downtown restaurant (with drink, coffee and dessert)
1 dinner at TPR or Priest Station (coffee and dessert)
2 movie tickets (without popcorn or sodas)
2 fatties (or so I'm told)
6 gallons of 87 octane gas (which won't get you from the Bay area to Tuolumne unless you have a Prius)
1 oil and filter change IF you do it yourself.
A lot of $$ for a poor family. Diddly squat for most of us.
|
|
Argon
climber
North Bay, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 03:46pm PT
|
"A lot of $$ for a poor family. Diddly squat for most of us."
$18 may be diddly squat - but this is an incremental $18 on top of a huge pile of other taxes and fees. It's the last 18 grams in a 300lb haul bag - it's adding to an already intolerable load. In California, we have the highest sales tax in the country (9 - 9.75% depending on city), one of the very highest state income tax rates (9.3% for most taxpayers), the highest gasoline tax ($.466 per gallon), basically the highest business taxes in the country (CA ranked #49 by Tax Foundation - only NY is lower), and the list goes on and on. If you are in San Francisco, there is a payroll tax of 1.5% (also one of the very highest - most places thankfully don't have such a penalty for working) and a host of other sky-high taxes and fees. (Of course a few Friends of Gavin like the biotech industry and billionaires like George Lucas who are in Pelosi's playground, the Presidio, are exempt from the payroll tax.)
The point is that all of us who work are overtaxed (except for some well-connected billionaires and some Wall Street and hedge fund crooks who enjoy scams like the carried interest exemption and other loopholes). I'm not up for paying an additional $18 - let them find an offset somewhere else. Or go ahead and cut something that the public really wants - maybe it will help illuminate the wasteful spending that remains.
|
|
HighTraverse
Social climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 03:59pm PT
|
except for some well-connected billionaires and some Wall Street and hedge fund crooks who enjoy scams like the carried interest exemption and other loopholes
Right. I'm all for them paying for State Parks. Since they appear to be reluctant to do so, the rest of us will have to do it for them.
Besides, they don't go to State Parks, they go to Hilton Head or Monaco or Hawaii for the weekend. So why should they pay for them?
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 05:16pm PT
|
^^^^ +1 ^^^^
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!