

California to withhold a bigger chunk of paychecks - absconditus
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-state-tax31-2009oct31,0,2028140.story

======
antonovka
This is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be adjusting our withholding allowances
to account for the change.

California needs to _spend less_ , not quietly raid my bank account.

~~~
thaumaturgy
The "10% extra" figure sounds like a lot -- and from one standpoint it is --
but later in the article it mentions that this amounts to an extra $20/month
for a $50K/yr earner.

So while I'm not a fan of "quiet" tax levies like this, and while I'm not
under the illusion that taxes, once raised, are ever really substantially
lowered, and while I'm skeptical enough not to trust that we can expect it to
be promptly or fully refunded come April ... I also don't see it as a
tremendous disaster.

California is one of the most progressive states in the union. That
progressiveness -- including some of the top public school districts in the
country -- comes at a price: higher taxes.

Also, it's California's own taxpayers that have driven the various ballot
measures that have left California struggling. Seems somehow wrong to turn
around and place all of the blame for the state's budget woes on elected
officials; even if they are mostly self-serving and fairly useless, they
weren't the ones that passed the requests for lots more money without thinking
about how to pay for it.

~~~
anamax
> California is one of the most progressive states in the union. That
> progressiveness -- including some of the top public school districts in the
> country -- comes at a price: higher taxes.

The assumption that the cost is providing benefits may not be true.

[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
voegli1-2009nov01,...](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story)

~~~
camccann
For comparison purposes:

<http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default> \-- Note that Vermont and
New Hampshire both do very well overall.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels> \-- Note that VT and NH are at
opposite extremes of state tax revenue per capita.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that tax rates have little to do with
education quality.

------
fnid
_Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra
withholding in April._

Yeah, sure. They are already paying their debts with IOU's. They didn't pay
people's refunds last year, was it? This seems pretty wrong to me.

Are they going to repay it with another loan? Who is going to loan them money?
The only way out of the debt spiral is to stop spending, not taking on more
debt.

~~~
bwhite
+1

Tax filings start in a couple months, the deadline is just about 5 months
away. At best this is just a very temporary stopgap. If they can't cut the
budget now and can't float a bond issue now what makes them think they'll be
able to do so then?

"Forced, interest-free loan" is Orwellian. It's theft. Setting aside any moral
considerations surrounding taxes, these words are the semantic equivalent of
CA saying "We're taking your money now, like it or not, and hopefully we'll
repay it in a few months." It's not a tax, it's not a fee, it's stealing and
it's easy because of the whole notion of withholding. To stand against it
would require that both employer and employee perform simultaneous
disobedience that is sure to bring the wrath of the IRS.

If we really want to see rage against taxation we'd eliminate withholding and
all taxes would be rolled into a single lump sum that the taxed would have to
pay the week before election day.

~~~
thwarted
How long before the state IRS auditors need to start, and then stop, accepting
IOUs as payment for their work?

------
Sam_Odio
I don't understand how one of the largest states, which can supposedly benefit
best from economies of scale, with one of the highest tax rates, can have such
serious liquidity problems.

~~~
camccann
Because in California budgetary politics, one party insists on raising taxes
to meet expenditures while the other party insists on cutting expenses to meet
revenues, and in the true spirit of compromise the only thing they can agree
on is doing _neither_ , which ends up being the worst possible choice.

At this point they should probably be doing _both_.

~~~
uuilly
While I agree with your sentiment on the ineptitude of our politicians, what
actually happened was somewhat different. We as voters passed a bunch of
propositions that increased spending while limiting the government's ability
to tax. If our politicians are to be blamed, it is for not howling loudly that
we have tied their hands.

Most of the blame falls on us citizens who went along with a system that
doesn't work. Direct democracy is a cute thought, but in practice it spreads
the responsibility too thin and fatally hampers a leader's ability to maneuver
or veto obviously contradictory measures.

Perhaps now would be a good time to unwind this mess.

~~~
miked
Direct democracy works exceptionally well in Switzerland, and the citizens
vote four times a year there.

Time to state the obvious: the Dems have controlled both houses of the state
legislature for decades, and they shovel money to the state employee unions in
exchange for block voting. And it works.

Then there are all the regulations they pass that make CA the worst rated
place in the US to do business, driving businesses and their tax money from
the state.

------
camccann
As ridiculous as the whole idea is, it's almost as absurd to imagine this
being some terrible hardship. The article makes it sound like it'll be a big
deal to a lot of people but it's, what, maybe $30/month for someone with a
pretty comfortable income? If that's a serious concern, then it's not just the
state government with a budgeting problem...

Then again, maybe the purpose is just to get Californians upset to distract
them from noticing that _noone's actually solving the problem_.

~~~
algorias
Yes, it's just a fraction of a percent. The ratio goes up if you count
disposable income only, but I can't imagine it being such a big deal.

------
electromagnetic
This just sounds like an employer with a gambling problem, he's taking cuts
off his workers paychecks and claiming they'll get paid out. Well one
question; what happens when he hits rock bottom and loses the business?

------
philk
Given how heavily the Californian budget process is constrained I'm not sure
they had any better options.

Hopefully this can serve as an added impetus to finally reforming the broken
budgeting system there.

------
noelchurchill
Damnit.

