Balance Kaleeforneeya's Budget

[csb]

Disneyland probably gets the same Proposition 13 tax breaks that everybody else in California does. I still believe they probably pay their fair share, although I'm not sure what that fair share is. So you're for stickin it to 'em Capn'? I'm not for this new tax - I think it would be counterproductive.


Edit - actually I found this article -

http://www.shorenstein.com/media/clip_063003_3.htm

Apparently they pay only around $28 million, but I don't see why they deserve to get stuck any more than any other business or residence. Plus, they bring A LOT of business to Orange County, which in turn generates revenue. Most property owners can't claim that.

When I buy something from the store, I pay sales tax. The store also pays property tax. I don't see where a ticket tax would really penalize Disney or the others.

That being said, California has got to trim some programs. Significant program cuts along with probably tax increases might save them. I'm getting tired of bailing out entities "too big to fail" and wonder where this stops.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Disneyland probably gets the same Proposition 13 tax breaks that everybody else in California does. I still believe they probably pay their fair share, although I'm not sure what that fair share is. So you're for stickin it to 'em Capn'? I'm not for this new tax - I think it would be counterproductive.

I was actually thinking about Disneyworld in Orlando. I get 'em mixed up all the time.

I'm on the fence about corporate property taxes. Frequently, new businesses get tax breaks and infrastructure paid for as well as other incentives to build in an area. Sure, this creates jobs and propsperity for the area, but too frequently, they up and leave when the bennies run out.

 

[benbo]

When I buy something from the store, I pay sales tax. The store also pays property tax. I don't see where a ticket tax would really penalize Disney or the others.
That being said, California has got to trim some programs. Significant program cuts along with probably tax increases might save them. I'm getting tired of bailing out entities "too big to fail" and wonder where this stops.

If you buy a product at a store in Disneyland, you pay sales tax (at least I think so). But in California, most services are not generally taxed directly. If somebody gives you a haircut, you don't pay taxes on it, which probably allows barbers and hairdressers to get higher tips. Up until now, entering an amusement park was considered a service.

 

[benbo]

I was actually thinking about Disneyworld in Orlando. I get 'em mixed up all the time.
I'm on the fence about corporate property taxes. Frequently, new businesses get tax breaks and infrastructure paid for as well as other incentives to build in an area. Sure, this creates jobs and propsperity for the area, but too frequently, they up and leave when the bennies run out.

I would have figured you for a pro business guy.

Well, it's different if the government is actually building their infrastructure, or giving some special benefit as a direct payment. I don't think that's the case with Disneyland. And they are not likely to leave.

 

[Chucktown PE]

Uh, what's wrong with this statement? It is merely factual. He is talking about private amusement parks like Disneyland, not public state parks. I'm certain that Disneyland pays a lot of property tax. I don't know what point he was making that you disagree with. In fact, I would think you would agree fully because he is trying to say that the private amusement parks already pay a huge amount of taxes and should not be burdened with further taxes on their tickets. That seems right up your alley. I think Disneyland already pays enough taxes, maybe you think they should pay more.
Unless of course you didn't bother to read the original post.

No, I read it. Just got confused. There was a line item for public parks in the interactive budget thing. I didn't realize that is what he was talking about. Post deleted, comment retracted. I apologize.

 

[benbo]

No, I read it. Just got confused. There was a line item for public parks in the interactive budget thing. I didn't realize that is what he was talking about. Post deleted, comment retracted. I apologize.

Confession - I thought the same thing until I read more carefully, so I shouldn't be such a big smartypants.

 

[Chucktown PE]

benbo, for the record I am pro business but I don't believe in "tax incentives" or "business incentives" or whatever the hell else our politicians call them. In SC we have a system where by a manufacturer will express interest in relocating here as well as a couple of other states in the southeast (this has been most prominent with automakers). They basically ask the state to put a package of gimmes together for the business whether that is tax breaks, infrastructure, new schools, etc. and this is ususally to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. My opinion is that this is illegal and if a business would like to locate here the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

 

[benbo]

benbo, for the record I am pro business but I don't believe in "tax incentives" or "business incentives" or whatever the hell else our politicians call them. In SC we have a system where by a manufacturer will express interest in relocating here as well as a couple of other states in the southeast (this has been most prominent with automakers). They basically ask the state to put a package of gimmes together for the business whether that is tax breaks, infrastructure, new schools, etc. and this is ususally to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. My opinion is that this is illegal and if a business would like to locate here the taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

I wouldn't be for that either. But that is not the case with Disneyland, as I understand it. What they are talking about is adding an "extra" tax on certain services, which Disneyland will just turn around and add to the ticket prices, thereby passing another tax onto the consumers. When I pay sales tax, it is me paying the tax, not the vendor. Same thing here. It is a tax increase, and I'm not for it.

 

[Chucktown PE]

I wouldn't be for that either. But that is not the case with Disneyland, as I understand it. What they are talking about is adding an "extra" tax on certain services, which Disneyland will just turn around and add to the ticket prices, thereby passing another tax onto the consumers. It is a tax increase, and I'm not for it.

agreed, but a lot of politicians use that "aren't you for business" ******** line and try to say your anti-business if you don't want to give these businesses the proverbial rub and tug.

 

[csb]

No, I read it. Just got confused. There was a line item for public parks in the interactive budget thing. I didn't realize that is what he was talking about. Post deleted, comment retracted. I apologize.

:wub:

I love it when couples make up

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I would have figured you for a pro business guy.

benbo, for the record I am pro business but I don't believe in "tax incentives" or "business incentives" or whatever the hell else our politicians call them. In SC we have a system where by a manufacturer will express interest in relocating here as well as a couple of other states in the southeast (this has been most prominent with automakers). They basically ask the state to put a package of gimmes together for the business whether that is tax breaks, infrastructure, new schools, etc. and this is ususally to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. My opinion is that this is illegal and if a business would like to locate here the taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

What chuck said. Except for the last sentence, and that may be because I don't understand it, or chuck misstated, but I think a business ought to be prepared to pay for property taxes and infrastructure it requires, not the taxpayers.

The latest scheme here is impact fees for developers. basically, they pay for water and sewer and other things required for the subdivisions. I support this. needless to say, the builders feel the opposite. Guess who has a lobby that throws money at the state legislators?

 

[Chucktown PE]

What chuck said. Except for the last sentence, and that may be because I don't understand it, or chuck misstated, but I think a business ought to be prepared to pay for property taxes and infrastructure it requires, not the taxpayers.
The latest scheme here is impact fees for developers. basically, they pay for water and sewer and other things required for the subdivisions. I support this. needless to say, the builders feel the opposite. Guess who has a lobby that throws money at the state legislators?

I edited it to say shouldn't. I'm feeling a little under the weather today.

 

[Guest]

csb- state worker who will not receive health or dental benefits from current state of employment

That's part of why I left state govt work ... realized I was pricing myself out of any realistic expectation for retirement.

retirees in IL get health and dental too, if they had 20 yrs of service they get it for free else it is at some reduced rate I believe.

A number of agencies have a subsidy system in place; however, a number of states are revisiting that subsidy since it is a benefit that seems to be snowballing since you are increasing the ranks of those retiring and they are living longer.

The only thing that has kept those subsidies in place is the fact that most legislators don't want to cut themselves out of that benefit.

It is the same situation that Obama is trying to create nationwide, and I think that Cali goes to prove that adding a bunch of government ran social programs, and expanding the role of government services DOES NOT work out in the long run.

I probably agree with your statement on it's face.

The question becomes: WHO is responsible where govt leaves off?

:wub:
I love it when couples make up

Wait .. I thought the make-up line came from ...

rub and tug.

:huh:

JR