Anecdotal evidence: that’s the best kind!

So the 80s & 2000s sucked because we had LOWER taxes. And it was not people’s creativitity and innovation that fueled the internet (and internet companies) growth, but higher taxes?

Wow, you sure have a simplistic view of the world.

dueto non payment of emi by the customers. by march 2009 few more thousand flats will come

for resale. prices are down by 30%- 40% . it is the right time to by a flat in hyderabad.
Hyderabad Real estate

Reality check: http://bit.ly/5eec

Read it. Good words. Thanks again.

“Nathan, the “where it will end” question is a fair one, but it has a simple answer: there are potent checks and balances in the system; if California were truly the rapacious tax-monster Thomas portrays, the legislators would get thrown out of office pretty fast. ”

At the same time, this assumes that persons will respect the democratic process. I guess it comes down to trust. I think people who are on the other side (libertarians, social conservatives, military conservatives, etc) get nervous when they see so much happening so fast at the federal level – seemingly in a less than transparent manner, and they get nervous. It looks like a massive power grab with little concern for very legitimate concerns. This does little to reassure persons.

See, for example:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/02/16/daily40.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482908053095381.html

I know you weren’t talking about federal stuff, but I think it all ties in in people’s minds. Thanks for putting up with me. I’d love to get more of your thoughts but realize you’ve likely got much else to do.

Thanks again,
Nathan

I saw you answered my question. Will read soon.

Thanks!

-Nathana

(1) “One of the most heavily taxed states in the nation”: We also provide more and better services to a bigger population that constitutes an economy larger than most foreign nations. People, including most definitely myself, still find it appealing to live here. The tax increases proposed for the state budget are matched by roughly equal budget cuts. This is a crisis. You can raise taxes a bit, or you can watch the state’s economy and services disintegrate. I know what I’d choose and so, I think, do the vast majority of the state’s population.

(2)”The role of government is not to take care of every person”: Right. Who’s proposing that?

(3) “It is the people’s money, not the government’s”: George W. Bush used this same line to take the hard-won budget surplus he inherited from Clinton — money that was supposed to pay our Social Security in the future — and hand it back to “the people” in lopsided tax cuts that favored the wealthy. This is an infantile argument. The point is: the people have constituted a government to take care of certain collective needs. Then they tax themselves to pay for it. Most of us don’t want to see the current crisis wreck the institutions we’ve built. A small minority of Republicans don’t seem to care.

(4) “It is our right to keep our money…not to have it taken from us at gunpoint…”: This is the radical libertarian view, I guess. Those who don’t believe in taxing themselves to provide for basic services are happy to advocate their tax-free paradise, but when they find themselves losing their own goods “at gunpoint” because they’ve defunded the police, the “war of all against all” stops looking so peachy.

(5) “Schools and Fire Stations… the last refuge of tax-thieving scoundrels”: I guess Thomas is (a) not a parent (or uncle or godfather) and (b) not a homeowner who expects help from the local firefighters during the next wildfire season.

(6) “How about the billions of dollars going to illegal immigrants each year? How about the billions going to unions?” You could redline every dollar in the state budget going to illegal immigrants and unions and still have tens of billions of dollars of deficit to deal with. Thomas, your leaders and the media people you listen to are waving these red flags in your face to distract you from what’s actually happening here.

(7) “How about the fact that if we change our laws to require only a majority to pass tax increases this state will become completely unlivable to any person who is not a tax user?” It seems to work OK in dozens of other states. And it would mean that the next time you’re able to elect a Republican majority they could enact the policies that their voters support, too.

(8) “These are desperate times for our great state and if these brave men and women of the legislature (it pains me to think of any legislator as brave) didn’t stand up for what was right it would mean that our rendezvous with destiny had met an untimely demise.” All this heroic rhetoric to resist a one percent sales tax increase, a small annual vehicle tax increase and an income tax surcharge!

In any case, as of this morning it appears that the rendezvous with destiny has indeed met its untimely demise: the Democrats finally got their third GOP vote and we have a budget. This debate isn’t over, though.

Nathan, the “where it will end” question is a fair one, but it has a simple answer: there are potent checks and balances in the system; if California were truly the rapacious tax-monster Thomas portrays, the legislators would get thrown out of office pretty fast. They’re not just raising taxes; they’re cutting billions from education and other services. I don’t love this budget, but I’m glad to see the state come to grips with reality.

I hope you respond to Thomas. Yes he seems rather emotional. But what about his arguments – what if he had made them in a seemingly more calm, reasonable, and light-hearted fashion?

I really am curious to know how you would answere him.

Is he right in asking where it will end?

And I doubt cutting education and fire stations is at the top of his list, huh?

-Nathan