.1% of the population is "transgenedered." That is 1/1000 at best. But, kooky California has to make sure these f'ed up kids' rights trump
everyone else's rights. I'm sure teenage girls will love having some guy in their bathroom/locker-room that thinks he's really a girl.
[h=2]As 2014 is just a day away, new laws have been crafted for Californians to adhere to. Here are just a few blessed laws and regulations that will come into effect in 2014:[/h] Transgender Rights: We will all sleep a little better at night knowing that students in grades K-12 who identify as transgender will be able to use the school bathrooms of their choosing as long as it is “consistent with their gender identity,” even if it is different than their gender at birth. Students will also be able to select whether they want to be on the boys team or the girls team based on their “gender identity.”
everyone else's rights. I'm sure teenage girls will love having some guy in their bathroom/locker-room that thinks he's really a girl.
[h=2]As 2014 is just a day away, new laws have been crafted for Californians to adhere to. Here are just a few blessed laws and regulations that will come into effect in 2014:[/h] Transgender Rights: We will all sleep a little better at night knowing that students in grades K-12 who identify as transgender will be able to use the school bathrooms of their choosing as long as it is “consistent with their gender identity,” even if it is different than their gender at birth. Students will also be able to select whether they want to be on the boys team or the girls team based on their “gender identity.”
[ So... this guy is going to be sworn in as a lawyer, to uphold the law, constitution... etc - but he's a fucking illegal alien. This country is so fucked. If the law is wrong, change the law, don't capriciously decide to not enforce it. ]
[h=1]California grants law license to illegal immigrant[/h] Published January 02, 2014Associated Press
Facebook1120 Twitter372 LinkedIn1
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court granted a law license Thursday to a man who has lived in the U.S. illegally for two decades, a ruling that advocates hope will open the door to millions of immigrants seeking to enter other professions such as medicine, accounting and teaching.
The unanimous decision means Sergio Garcia, who attended law school and passed the state bar exam while working in a grocery store and on farms, can begin practicing law immediately.
It's the latest in a string of legal and legislative victories for people who are in the country without permission. Other successes include the creation of a path to citizenship for many young people and the granting of drivers licenses in some states.
"This is a bright new day in California history and bodes well for the future," the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said in a statement.
The court sided with state officials in the case, which pitted them against the White House over a 1996 federal law that bars people who are in the U.S. illegally from receiving professional licenses from government agencies or with the use of public money, unless state lawmakers vote otherwise.
Bill Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, said the court made clear the only reason it granted Garcia's request is that California recently approved a law that specifically authorizes the state to give law licenses to immigrants who are here illegally.
The new law, inspired by Garcia's situation, took effect Wednesday.
It was unclear how many people would qualify to practice law under the ruling and whether it would influence other states. Legislatures and governors in more conservative states such as Alabama and Arizona are likely to be less receptive to the idea.
Garcia, who plans to be a personal injury attorney in his hometown of Chico, said he hoped the decision would serve as a "beacon of hope" to others in the same situation.
He "can hang up a shingle and be his own company," said Hing, who represented the state bar association in the case. "Once he does that, a client can retain him as a lawyer."
But some questions remained unresolved, such as whether Garcia can appear in federal court or in other states. Federal law makes it illegal for law firms to hire him.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who wrote the opinion, said the new state law removed any barrier to Garcia's quest for a license. And no other federal statute "purports to preclude a state from granting a license to practice law to an undocumented immigrant," Cantil-Sakauye wrote.
Garcia, 36, arrived in the U.S. as a teenager to pick almonds with his father, who was a permanent legal resident. His father filed a petition in 1994 seeking an immigration visa for his son. It was accepted in 1995, but because of the backlog of visa applications from people from Mexico, Garcia has never received a visa number.
He applied for citizenship in 1994 and is still working toward that goal.
The U.S. Department of Justice argued that Garcia was barred from receiving his law license because the court's entire budget comes from the public treasury, a violation of the federal mandate that no public money be used to grant licenses to people who are in the country without permission.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Tenney, who argued the case, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Obama administration's position in the case came as a surprise to some, since the White House has shielded from deportation people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, provided they also graduated from high school, kept a clean criminal record and met other conditions.
At a hearing in September, a majority of the state Supreme Court justices appeared reluctant to grant Garcia the license under current state and federal law, saying they were prohibited from doing so unless the Legislature acted.
Garcia worked in the fields and at a grocery store before attending community college. He then became a paralegal, went to law school and passed the bar exam on his first try. His effort to get licensed was supported by state bar officials and California's attorney general, who argued that citizenship is not a requirement to receive a California law license.
Two other similar cases are pending in Florida and New York, and the Obama administration has made it clear it will oppose bar entry to immigrants unless each state passes its own laws allowing the practice, Hing said.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris supported Garcia's petition and applauded the ruling.
Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for Harris, said California's success "has hinged on the hard work and self-sufficiency of immigrants like Sergio."
Thursday's decision is the latest example of changes in immigration policy happening at the state level while an effort to achieve a broad federal overhaul stalls in the House.
California and nine other states last year agreed to grant drivers licenses to people in the country illegally, bringing the total to 13 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nevada and Maryland began taking applications this week.
Four states -- Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and New Jersey -- last year offered in-state college tuition to residents who are here illegally, joining California and 10 others.
[h=1]California grants law license to illegal immigrant[/h] Published January 02, 2014Associated Press
Facebook1120 Twitter372 LinkedIn1
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court granted a law license Thursday to a man who has lived in the U.S. illegally for two decades, a ruling that advocates hope will open the door to millions of immigrants seeking to enter other professions such as medicine, accounting and teaching.
The unanimous decision means Sergio Garcia, who attended law school and passed the state bar exam while working in a grocery store and on farms, can begin practicing law immediately.
It's the latest in a string of legal and legislative victories for people who are in the country without permission. Other successes include the creation of a path to citizenship for many young people and the granting of drivers licenses in some states.
"This is a bright new day in California history and bodes well for the future," the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said in a statement.
The court sided with state officials in the case, which pitted them against the White House over a 1996 federal law that bars people who are in the U.S. illegally from receiving professional licenses from government agencies or with the use of public money, unless state lawmakers vote otherwise.
Bill Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, said the court made clear the only reason it granted Garcia's request is that California recently approved a law that specifically authorizes the state to give law licenses to immigrants who are here illegally.
The new law, inspired by Garcia's situation, took effect Wednesday.
It was unclear how many people would qualify to practice law under the ruling and whether it would influence other states. Legislatures and governors in more conservative states such as Alabama and Arizona are likely to be less receptive to the idea.
Garcia, who plans to be a personal injury attorney in his hometown of Chico, said he hoped the decision would serve as a "beacon of hope" to others in the same situation.
He "can hang up a shingle and be his own company," said Hing, who represented the state bar association in the case. "Once he does that, a client can retain him as a lawyer."
But some questions remained unresolved, such as whether Garcia can appear in federal court or in other states. Federal law makes it illegal for law firms to hire him.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who wrote the opinion, said the new state law removed any barrier to Garcia's quest for a license. And no other federal statute "purports to preclude a state from granting a license to practice law to an undocumented immigrant," Cantil-Sakauye wrote.
Garcia, 36, arrived in the U.S. as a teenager to pick almonds with his father, who was a permanent legal resident. His father filed a petition in 1994 seeking an immigration visa for his son. It was accepted in 1995, but because of the backlog of visa applications from people from Mexico, Garcia has never received a visa number.
He applied for citizenship in 1994 and is still working toward that goal.
The U.S. Department of Justice argued that Garcia was barred from receiving his law license because the court's entire budget comes from the public treasury, a violation of the federal mandate that no public money be used to grant licenses to people who are in the country without permission.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Tenney, who argued the case, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Obama administration's position in the case came as a surprise to some, since the White House has shielded from deportation people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, provided they also graduated from high school, kept a clean criminal record and met other conditions.
At a hearing in September, a majority of the state Supreme Court justices appeared reluctant to grant Garcia the license under current state and federal law, saying they were prohibited from doing so unless the Legislature acted.
Garcia worked in the fields and at a grocery store before attending community college. He then became a paralegal, went to law school and passed the bar exam on his first try. His effort to get licensed was supported by state bar officials and California's attorney general, who argued that citizenship is not a requirement to receive a California law license.
Two other similar cases are pending in Florida and New York, and the Obama administration has made it clear it will oppose bar entry to immigrants unless each state passes its own laws allowing the practice, Hing said.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris supported Garcia's petition and applauded the ruling.
Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for Harris, said California's success "has hinged on the hard work and self-sufficiency of immigrants like Sergio."
Thursday's decision is the latest example of changes in immigration policy happening at the state level while an effort to achieve a broad federal overhaul stalls in the House.
California and nine other states last year agreed to grant drivers licenses to people in the country illegally, bringing the total to 13 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nevada and Maryland began taking applications this week.
Four states -- Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and New Jersey -- last year offered in-state college tuition to residents who are here illegally, joining California and 10 others.
There is no rule of law at the moment.
Once the crooks have been kicked out America can march forward again as the Founding Fathers intended.
But how is that going to happen?
How Widespread is Voter Fraud? | 2012 Facts & Figures
http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
[h=1]Record-High 60% of Californians Say They Pay Too Much Tax[/h]
407
10
549
4
Email Article Print article Send a Tip
by Joel B. Pollak 13 Apr 2014 1765 post a comment
[h=2]Ahead of the April 15 tax deadline, a record-high 60% of Californians say that they pay "much more" or "somewhat more" in taxes than they should, according to a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (and noted by John Seiler of Calwatchdog.org and Stephen Frank of CApoliticalnews.com).[/h] However, as PPIC Mark Baldassare notes at Fox&Hounds, Californians still believe that the answer is to tax wealthy earners or corporations more--not to reform and broaden the current tax system.
The PPIC survey, which was conducted in March among 1,702 adults, notes:
Other findings in the survey include increasing concern about water, which is named as the state's second-most important issue after jobs and the economy; a record-high level of support for immigrants, with 65% saying that they are a benefit to the state; and near record-low levels of support for President Barack Obama, albeit still just above 50%.
The state also remains staunchly liberal on a variety of social issues, from abortion to gun control.
407
10
549
4
Email Article Print article Send a Tip
by Joel B. Pollak 13 Apr 2014 1765 post a comment
[h=2]Ahead of the April 15 tax deadline, a record-high 60% of Californians say that they pay "much more" or "somewhat more" in taxes than they should, according to a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (and noted by John Seiler of Calwatchdog.org and Stephen Frank of CApoliticalnews.com).[/h] However, as PPIC Mark Baldassare notes at Fox&Hounds, Californians still believe that the answer is to tax wealthy earners or corporations more--not to reform and broaden the current tax system.
The PPIC survey, which was conducted in March among 1,702 adults, notes:
While about half of Californians view the state and local tax system as fair, a record-high 60 percent of adults say they pay much more (30%) or somewhat more (30%) than they feel they should in state and local taxes; 35 percent think they pay about the right amount and 3 percent say they pay less than they should. Opinions of likely voters are similar.
However, as Baldassare notes, that view of the tax system remains tied to a view that the wealthy do not pay enough, and that the state should restore and extend funding for state services. That makes the prospects for fiscal reform rather dim: "If tax reform proponents ask voters to raise taxes or to make changes to the state and local tax system any time soon, they will need to be mindful of voters’ current views on these issues," he writes.
Other findings in the survey include increasing concern about water, which is named as the state's second-most important issue after jobs and the economy; a record-high level of support for immigrants, with 65% saying that they are a benefit to the state; and near record-low levels of support for President Barack Obama, albeit still just above 50%.
The state also remains staunchly liberal on a variety of social issues, from abortion to gun control.
The WSJ article I have linked below is from a couple years ago, but not much has changed.
Absolutely agree with Kotkin.
It's "a very scary political dynamic," he says. "One day somebody's going to put on the ballot, let's take every penny over $100,000 a year, and you'll get it through because there's no real restraint. What you've done by exempting people from paying taxes is that they feel no responsibility. That's certainly a big part of it.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966
Absolutely agree with Kotkin.
It's "a very scary political dynamic," he says. "One day somebody's going to put on the ballot, let's take every penny over $100,000 a year, and you'll get it through because there's no real restraint. What you've done by exempting people from paying taxes is that they feel no responsibility. That's certainly a big part of it.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966
In case anyone forgot.
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.
Next...
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.
Next...
[ Toyota leaving the socialist liberal cesspool known as California. and taking 5,000 jobs with it. Welcome to the great state of Texas ]
[h=1]BREAKING: Sources say Toyota fleeing CA, taking 5,000 jobs to more business-friendly Texas[/h]
By Michael Carney
On April 27, 2014
California’s inhospitable tax policies may have struck again, this time costing Los Angeles one of its largest employers. According to multiple sources close to the situation, Toyota will be relocating its US headquarters from the LA suburb of Torrance to Plano, Texas.
The company has yet to notify its employees of the news, but is expected to do so Monday, followed by a public announcement. While it’s unlikely that Toyota, which is ranked 8th on Fortune’s Global 500, will directly cite taxes as the reason for its relocation, it should come as little surprise that the financial burden of operating in California – both on the corporation and its employees personally – played a major role.
A number of early stage entrepreneurs, including Pando contributor Bryan Goldberg, have discussed publicly their decisions to start companies outside of California. Now, it appears that frustration has moved its way up the economic food chain.
It wouldn’t be the first time. Nissan made a similar exodus in 2006, finding a more welcoming home for its US headquarters in Tennessee, where local and state governments rolled out the tax incentive red carpet. Honda too has shifted its headquarters from Carson, CA to Marysville, Ohio, but retains a dwindling LA operation. Persistent rumors, however, suggest that it may eventually shutter its California presence entirely.
Toyota employed 4,900 workers as of 2011, when the last available data was released, placing it in the top 40 among area employers at the time. The company has also been exceptionally active in terms of supporting the surrounding communities, regularly sponsoring and hosting prominent events. For all these reasons, the loss of Toyota is one that will cut deep locally. It’s unclear whether the move will mean the elimination of all LA-based positions, but it’s clear that the move is more than a symbolic one and that the company will no longer be a tentpole corporation in the area.
But despite the sting, this move should come as little surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. California hasn’t had a balanced budget, yet alone an economic surplus, seemingly since the last dinosaurs went extinct. As a result, the state has continued to raise taxes, while at the same time failing to deliver quality services to its citizens.
Sure we may have the weather and the beaches, but there’s a compelling argument to be made that there’s a higher quality of life (relative to the cost) available elsewhere. Valley boosters would argue the talent and the ecosystem make running a tech company elsewhere unthinkable. But Toyota’s near-5,000 employees will soon be testing whether the Texas grass really is greener.
[h=1]BREAKING: Sources say Toyota fleeing CA, taking 5,000 jobs to more business-friendly Texas[/h]
On April 27, 2014
California’s inhospitable tax policies may have struck again, this time costing Los Angeles one of its largest employers. According to multiple sources close to the situation, Toyota will be relocating its US headquarters from the LA suburb of Torrance to Plano, Texas.
The company has yet to notify its employees of the news, but is expected to do so Monday, followed by a public announcement. While it’s unlikely that Toyota, which is ranked 8th on Fortune’s Global 500, will directly cite taxes as the reason for its relocation, it should come as little surprise that the financial burden of operating in California – both on the corporation and its employees personally – played a major role.
A number of early stage entrepreneurs, including Pando contributor Bryan Goldberg, have discussed publicly their decisions to start companies outside of California. Now, it appears that frustration has moved its way up the economic food chain.
It wouldn’t be the first time. Nissan made a similar exodus in 2006, finding a more welcoming home for its US headquarters in Tennessee, where local and state governments rolled out the tax incentive red carpet. Honda too has shifted its headquarters from Carson, CA to Marysville, Ohio, but retains a dwindling LA operation. Persistent rumors, however, suggest that it may eventually shutter its California presence entirely.
Toyota employed 4,900 workers as of 2011, when the last available data was released, placing it in the top 40 among area employers at the time. The company has also been exceptionally active in terms of supporting the surrounding communities, regularly sponsoring and hosting prominent events. For all these reasons, the loss of Toyota is one that will cut deep locally. It’s unclear whether the move will mean the elimination of all LA-based positions, but it’s clear that the move is more than a symbolic one and that the company will no longer be a tentpole corporation in the area.
But despite the sting, this move should come as little surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. California hasn’t had a balanced budget, yet alone an economic surplus, seemingly since the last dinosaurs went extinct. As a result, the state has continued to raise taxes, while at the same time failing to deliver quality services to its citizens.
Sure we may have the weather and the beaches, but there’s a compelling argument to be made that there’s a higher quality of life (relative to the cost) available elsewhere. Valley boosters would argue the talent and the ecosystem make running a tech company elsewhere unthinkable. But Toyota’s near-5,000 employees will soon be testing whether the Texas grass really is greener.
I moved out here some time ago to take a job. Wasn't excited about it, but for my line of work, it had to be done. Recently though, I've been looking aggressively in places like Texas and Florida for something else.
Isn't it funny that the states with the highest tax rates always seem to be in the worst shape and provide the crappiest service? I don't feel any sympathy for the braindead idiots out here who keep voting the same dimocrap tools into office over and over and over and over again.
Losing Toyota is huge. It's not like the whole entertainment sector is packing up and leaving (although a good number of those companies are starting to do just that)...but as you saw in the article, plenty of jobs will be leaving the state. And I'm sure the majority of morons who live out here will have no clue why.
Isn't it funny that the states with the highest tax rates always seem to be in the worst shape and provide the crappiest service? I don't feel any sympathy for the braindead idiots out here who keep voting the same dimocrap tools into office over and over and over and over again.
Losing Toyota is huge. It's not like the whole entertainment sector is packing up and leaving (although a good number of those companies are starting to do just that)...but as you saw in the article, plenty of jobs will be leaving the state. And I'm sure the majority of morons who live out here will have no clue why.
This Insane Bill Could End The State Of California As We Know It
Will this break the back of California's economy?
JAMES V LACY — APRIL 25, 2014
PAGES: 1 2
California’s liberal Democrats in control of state government just can’t do enough to help boot-out corporations and high-wage earners from the state. Now they are pushing to change the state tax code to tax corporations not on their profits, but on their level of “high income disparity” between top executives and the average worker in the business.
In 2012, liberal Democrats supported and passed an initiative that raised the state income tax to the highest levels in the nation and made it retroactive on millionaires.
Coupled with an additional 1% “millionaires” tax imposed during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reign as Governor, the top marginal income tax rate in California is now a whopping 13.3% of income, more than New York State’s and New York City’s top marginal income tax rates combined. When added to federal tax rates in the top marginal tier, California’s most successful wage earners paid a 52.9% income tax rate in Federal and state taxes last April 15. At least the top wage earners who actually still live in California paid 52.9%.
In the last year, real estate transactions in lovely Incline Village, a not too far away play-land for Silicon Valley executives just across the Nevada border, have sky-rocketed. Sales of estates are hitting record levels, and Incline Village has advanced to one of Coldwell Banker’s top 20 real estate markets in the nation. And the reason isn’t just for the skiing or great views of Lake Tahoe. The real estate boom in northern Nevada has everything to do with the fact that Nevada doesn’t have an income tax.
California doesn’t just have the highest state income tax in the nation. It leads the rest of the country in almost every category of taxation: the highest state sales tax, the highest taxes on gasoline at the pump, and the highest corporate tax west of the Mississippi. And the taxes aren’t doing much for the people of the state, rich or poor. For the first time in history, the Census Bureau reports that California is also the poorest state in the nation, with 23.8% of the population living in poverty, in large part because of California’s high cost of living (which is not helped by all the sky-high consumption taxes the Democrats have enacted and the poor must pay to survive.)
CEO Magazine has proclaimed that California is the worst state to do business in, because of its pervasive regulations, for each of the last nine years. But California’s liberal Democrats who run things in Sacramento don’t seem content with having already enacted policies that encourage top wage earners to leave the state for one of the many lower tax states in the nation. Now they are intent on enacting further disincentives to business investment in the state, and to actually encourage wholesale export of business corporations and the jobs they create, by radically changing the way the state taxes businesses in order to address “high wage disparity,” otherwise known as “income inequality.”
The new legislation, known as “Senate Bill 1372,” would raise state corporation taxes not on profits. If passed, California’s already high current corporate tax of just less than 9% would shift to a new formula in 2015 based on the corporation’s median compensation of employees as compared to the highest employee, rather than to simply tax profits.
According to the Sacramento Business Journal, if the corporation’s top paid executive made 100 times the median worker salary in the company, the company’s tax rate would rise 9%. Companies paying the top earner 400 times the average salary would pay a 13 percent tax rate. But if the chief executive made just 25 times more than the average wage earner, the corporate tax would be just 7%.
California’s newly proposed corporate tax system turns the whole purpose of taxation – which is to fund government services – upside down. Instead, the purpose of the corporate tax would not be to fund government; rather, it would be to force income distribution outcomes dictated by the government and not market forces. The result? Punishing ailing California companies just coming out of the recession, like San Francisco-based Wells Fargo. California based companies already stressing over a persistently poor business and regulatory climate would not be able to afford the best talent to manage their businesses. Combined with high levels of taxation, Senate Bill 1372 is simply an open invitation to the nation’s most successful corporations to simply pick-up stakes and take their high wage earners (as well as all their jobs) out of state. It is more-or-less a “last straw.” At a time and in a state where unemployment remains 20% to 25% higher than in the rest of the country, where the poor are getting poorer, and where the top 5% of wage wage-earners pay 62% of all state income tax, this new “high wage disparity” threatens California’s economic future; and the bill is sheer insanity.
This post originally appeared on California Political Review and is re-posted with permission.
James V. Lacy’s first book, Taxifornia, is available at Amazon.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ca...isparity-bill-insanity/2/#MKe1Tjip8bFAVZ2K.99
Will this break the back of California's economy?
PAGES: 1 2
California’s liberal Democrats in control of state government just can’t do enough to help boot-out corporations and high-wage earners from the state. Now they are pushing to change the state tax code to tax corporations not on their profits, but on their level of “high income disparity” between top executives and the average worker in the business.
In 2012, liberal Democrats supported and passed an initiative that raised the state income tax to the highest levels in the nation and made it retroactive on millionaires.
Coupled with an additional 1% “millionaires” tax imposed during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reign as Governor, the top marginal income tax rate in California is now a whopping 13.3% of income, more than New York State’s and New York City’s top marginal income tax rates combined. When added to federal tax rates in the top marginal tier, California’s most successful wage earners paid a 52.9% income tax rate in Federal and state taxes last April 15. At least the top wage earners who actually still live in California paid 52.9%.
In the last year, real estate transactions in lovely Incline Village, a not too far away play-land for Silicon Valley executives just across the Nevada border, have sky-rocketed. Sales of estates are hitting record levels, and Incline Village has advanced to one of Coldwell Banker’s top 20 real estate markets in the nation. And the reason isn’t just for the skiing or great views of Lake Tahoe. The real estate boom in northern Nevada has everything to do with the fact that Nevada doesn’t have an income tax.
California doesn’t just have the highest state income tax in the nation. It leads the rest of the country in almost every category of taxation: the highest state sales tax, the highest taxes on gasoline at the pump, and the highest corporate tax west of the Mississippi. And the taxes aren’t doing much for the people of the state, rich or poor. For the first time in history, the Census Bureau reports that California is also the poorest state in the nation, with 23.8% of the population living in poverty, in large part because of California’s high cost of living (which is not helped by all the sky-high consumption taxes the Democrats have enacted and the poor must pay to survive.)
CEO Magazine has proclaimed that California is the worst state to do business in, because of its pervasive regulations, for each of the last nine years. But California’s liberal Democrats who run things in Sacramento don’t seem content with having already enacted policies that encourage top wage earners to leave the state for one of the many lower tax states in the nation. Now they are intent on enacting further disincentives to business investment in the state, and to actually encourage wholesale export of business corporations and the jobs they create, by radically changing the way the state taxes businesses in order to address “high wage disparity,” otherwise known as “income inequality.”
The new legislation, known as “Senate Bill 1372,” would raise state corporation taxes not on profits. If passed, California’s already high current corporate tax of just less than 9% would shift to a new formula in 2015 based on the corporation’s median compensation of employees as compared to the highest employee, rather than to simply tax profits.
According to the Sacramento Business Journal, if the corporation’s top paid executive made 100 times the median worker salary in the company, the company’s tax rate would rise 9%. Companies paying the top earner 400 times the average salary would pay a 13 percent tax rate. But if the chief executive made just 25 times more than the average wage earner, the corporate tax would be just 7%.
California’s newly proposed corporate tax system turns the whole purpose of taxation – which is to fund government services – upside down. Instead, the purpose of the corporate tax would not be to fund government; rather, it would be to force income distribution outcomes dictated by the government and not market forces. The result? Punishing ailing California companies just coming out of the recession, like San Francisco-based Wells Fargo. California based companies already stressing over a persistently poor business and regulatory climate would not be able to afford the best talent to manage their businesses. Combined with high levels of taxation, Senate Bill 1372 is simply an open invitation to the nation’s most successful corporations to simply pick-up stakes and take their high wage earners (as well as all their jobs) out of state. It is more-or-less a “last straw.” At a time and in a state where unemployment remains 20% to 25% higher than in the rest of the country, where the poor are getting poorer, and where the top 5% of wage wage-earners pay 62% of all state income tax, this new “high wage disparity” threatens California’s economic future; and the bill is sheer insanity.
This post originally appeared on California Political Review and is re-posted with permission.
James V. Lacy’s first book, Taxifornia, is available at Amazon.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ca...isparity-bill-insanity/2/#MKe1Tjip8bFAVZ2K.99
