California

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts) Mon Jun 15, 2015, 02:43 AM Jun 2015

State Controller Betty Yee wants tax reform that relies less on the top 1%

State Controller Betty Yee wants tax reform that relies less on the top 1%
LA Times - June 10, 2015, 8:30 PM
More: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-taxes-20150611-column.html

New state Controller Betty Yee is not your typical politician. She's boldly sticking her neck out on a continuous issue bound to cause grief.

The issue is tax reform, a taboo subject for most elected officials. At least, the comprehensive reform — not merely cutting taxes and creating loopholes — she's talking about. She wants to broaden the tax base, collecting from more people and relying less on the top 1%.

"It's not because I don't want to tax the rich," the Democrat says. "It's just that I don't think it's sustainable" to perpetually bank on the wealthy as cash cows for the state treasury.
Betty Yee

<snip>

Especially dicey are incomes of the rich, which fluctuate wildly based on whether their investments — their capital gains — soar or sour.

Yep, those poor, rich people have to pay too much in taxes when their capital gains soar so we need to cut their taxes and stop counting on them so much so it won't affect us so much when they don't make as much. Or some such nonsense.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State Controller Betty Yee wants tax reform that relies less on the top 1% (Original Post) Live and Learn Jun 2015 OP

She says it's not sustainable? Didn't we already have tax reform with Prop 13? mackerel Jun 2015 #1

Well, cry me a river for those poor, poor wealthy. SoapBox Jun 2015 #2

Exactly. It is not like our jobs and wages are consistent enough to Live and Learn Jun 2015 #3

Big Developers and Real Estate Investors daredtowork Jun 2015 #4

Relying too heavily on such a narrow segment for your tax base isn't prudent. Throd Jun 2015 #5

Then they certainly shouldn't rely on the quickly shrinking middle class either. Live and Learn Jun 2015 #6

I wouldn't suggest that. Throd Jun 2015 #7

mackerel

(4,412 posts)

1. She says it's not sustainable? Didn't we already have tax reform with Prop 13?

Reply to Live and Learn (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:02 PM

Jun 2015

Look where that got us.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)

2. Well, cry me a river for those poor, poor wealthy.

Reply to Live and Learn (Original post)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 12:55 AM

Jun 2015

Oh...how sad...soar or sour...

So because I made my little "per hour" wage, you think it's consistent enough to tax me more.

Fuck that.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)

3. Exactly. It is not like our jobs and wages are consistent enough to

Reply to SoapBox (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 05:10 AM

Jun 2015

sustain the budget either. And I don't see the rich leaving California in droves. Capital gains aren't derived through work and deserve to be taxed higher. Betting she has a lot invested.

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)

4. Big Developers and Real Estate Investors

Reply to Live and Learn (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 07:00 PM

Jun 2015

have been going hog wild on practically zero interest loans. They are selling and reselling big projects in "desirable" locales, driving rents up along with the base per unit price.

On top of the binge on market conditions, private developers also get to loot tax payer money from HUD because they are considered more efficient and effective. But the trick is they disempower the poor by attaching them to "project based" instead of "portable" section 8 apartments. Once there, tenants are intimidated into not complaining for repairs: they lose section 8 all together if evicted. The developer, however, can get reimbursed at market rate even if the unit is vacant. IMHO, Federal policy is made of fail here. Project based section 8 should convert to portable if the landlord moves to evict in retaliation or if the landlord neglects to make repairs.

What local communities should be doing is aggressively recapturing and redistributing the windfall profits currently being made through property speculation - and this might serve put some brakes on such speculation and inordinate "income properties". Some people have proposed taxing windfall profit on inflated rents to fund affordable housing projects. I've also heard people argue that we need a real system of nonprofit developers directly funded by a combination of Federal grants and local taxes, without interference or siphoning by local elected politicians who will be influenced by campaign contributions. Right now we have govt by the Mega-developers, of the Mega-developers, for the Mega-developers. But only the Mega-developers can afford the housing they build.

Throd

(7,208 posts)

5. Relying too heavily on such a narrow segment for your tax base isn't prudent.

Reply to Live and Learn (Original post)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 02:50 PM

Jun 2015

Even Jerry Brown warns against it.

Now flame away....

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)

6. Then they certainly shouldn't rely on the quickly shrinking middle class either.

Reply to Throd (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 24, 2015, 03:39 AM

Jun 2015

Since the fastest growing class are the poor, I guess we should start taxing them heavily to be prudent.

Throd

(7,208 posts)

7. I wouldn't suggest that.

Reply to Live and Learn (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 24, 2015, 11:55 AM

Jun 2015

Much of the wealth of the 1% is dictated by swings in the market. A problem is when the state government creates long term projects during a boom cycle that then get shorted during the inevitable down turns.

Reply to this discussion