freeman3 wrote:Whatever will fly in the courts. I don't care. California and New York are getting screwed in the tax plan. Our rich are playing high state taxes so it makes sense that the State Legislature would try to lessen their tax burden. Good on them for trying to help Californians from the effects of an unfair tax plan. Before you argue that low income tax states are subsidizing California and New York that's bs because we are already subsidizing them.
By creating a questionable loophole that only benefits the rich?
Let's see . . . California won't build dams or reservoirs, has a burgeoning homeless population, is spending billions on a high-speed train very few want, but has the money to help out the rich?
Yeah, okay, priorities of the Left!
The federal government should not be getting a share of a person's income because it has already been paid out in taxes. That's completely not right.
Wait. When did we start arguing about the estate tax?
Now, if a state does not want to invest in infrastructure and have no state income taxes, great, but at that point their citizens have more income that is subject to taxation. Those states are getting subsidized by rich states with higher state income taxes, so they got nothing to complain about.
Or, some states could help their population by . . . stopping idiotic spending and reducing idiotic regulation.
Here's an example: California has a grocery bag fee. Who does it impact disparately and who does the money go to?
Why the heck would we encourage states to not invest in their people by not having state income tax?
Considering Californians only lose out if they earn more than $140K, no one is suggesting CA cannot have an income tax. California has some of the highest taxes in the nation, including its regressive sales tax.
It is a disincentive for a state to invest in things like education and other infrastructure by having a state income tax because now its residents are being double taxed on their income. Who the heck ever thought this was fair or a good idea? Do we all want to be like ...Mississippi?
Nope, we should never strive to be congenial like the good folks of Mississippi. Instead, we ought to value the rude, rich, entitled class of California.
Here's to the "efficiencies" of California. http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html
alifornia’s bullet train could cost taxpayers 50% more than estimated — as much as $3.6 billion more. And that’s just for the first 118 miles through the Central Valley, which was supposed to be the easiest part of the route between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
A confidential Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis, obtained by The Times, projects that building bridges, viaducts, trenches and track from Merced to Shafter, just north of Bakersfield, could cost $9.5 billion to $10 billion, compared with the original budget of $6.4 billion.
The federal document outlines far-reaching management problems: significant delays in environmental planning, lags in processing invoices for federal grants and continuing failures to acquire needed property.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority originally anticipated completing the Central Valley track by this year, but the federal risk analysis estimates that that won’t happen until 2024, placing the project seven years behind schedule.
The report, the most critical official assessment of the project to surface so far, is labeled a “confidential-draft deliberative document for internal use only” and was presented by senior Federal Railroad Administration executives to California rail authority board Chairman Dan Richard and Chief Executive Jeff Morales on Dec. 1 in Washington.
This analysis puts the state on notice that it could face bigger cost overruns than anticipated and much longer delays than have been made public, a troubling critique by an agency that has been a stalwart supporter and longtime financier of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.
California, heal thyself!