California counties are throwing another wrinkle into the state's cash crisis as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders try to agree on a way to erase a $42 billion budget deficit.Several counties are considering some form of tax revolt -- either filing lawsuits or delaying tax payments to the state -- because the governor has proposed withholding payments to them for as long as seven months in a move to preserve cash.
Local governments already are missing out because the state has imposed a 30-day payment delay to counties. That was part of a move by the state controller to delay refunds to taxpayers, money for college tuition-assistance programs and payments to state vendors.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors authorized staff to file a lawsuit, while elected officials in Colusa County decided to impose a 30-day delay on sending any taxes and fees it collects to the state.
"We will have to shut the doors," said Kim Dolbow-Vann, a supervisor in Colusa County, north of the state capital. "We don't have the borrowing capacity" to backfill delayed payments.
Los Angeles County also is considering payment delays. County Supervisor Don Knabe said it's important to know whether the state's threat to withhold money is legal. Generally, the state pays counties to operate social service programs and public safety, as well as take the lead on road projects. Counties collect property taxes and other fees, while the state collects sales and income taxes.
"I just think we need to look at all our options," Knabe said about withholding taxes from the state. "When they say deferred payments, they don't say you can defer the services."
Read on.
6 comments:
Arnie just might be removed from Office if he keeps this up. Look for everyone who owes taxes to wait until April 15th. With the current and future lawsuits it's just more problems for the non english speaking Actor.
The Gropinator is going to have some real problems the next election.
All states are having problems finacially because Sales tax revenue is down because....sales are down. The only sales tax revenue coming in is on food which is a lower tax.
When the middle class quits buying it trickles up, and it is now going up way up to the top.
Many greedy CEOs made more and more money, some made more and more by getting cheap overseas labor, but anyway you look at it, the profits did not trickle down to the workers, when the price of everything goes up and the big CEOs get their big raises and bonuses and all the people working for them get very little if anything, they don't buy anything but essentials, thus less sales tax, thus many non-essentials going into bankruptcy and out of business, see the Circut City's, the Linen's & things, Sharper Image etc go to the wayside,
Unless you get the middle class back to work and buying TVs, clothes etc. the sales tax revenue will go down and down, the CEOs with all their big salaries and bonues need only so many cars, TVs, cell phones, clothes etc.
I look forb Linens N' Things, Circuit City, Sharper Image, and other retail stores tob still do business online. After all Montgomery Wards, a retail store that went out of business years ago, is online. But, it is just theb retail store, brick n' mortar stores, and mom and pops store that are suffering from the crisis. and yes, the middle class which makes the growth of the economy are hurtng. But, the poor are suffering too and never given a chance to be middle class or rich.
Rich [who make their money the honest way] suffer because of the charities that they created to help the poor. More importantly, the American dream of entrepreneurship and owning a home are shattered from these economic critics.
And I heard that other states will follow Arnold's way of delaying state tax refund to the taxpayers.
Rich the honest way was when there was profit sharing, if the company did well all profited, if employees did well they got merit raises.
Unlike the Macy's exec's who did a hefty layoff then gave themselves a hefty bonus. That is all wrong.
Or like United Airlines asked their front line employees to give up pay and benefits to help the company come out of bankruptcy, then the CEO got all the money and bonuses when they did, and the employees never even got back to the pay they had before they had to give it up. The least they could of done was get their pay back to where it was, but the CEO got millions upon millions. That was wrong as wrong can be.
I disagree with the definition of "rich", Chicago Native. When I mentioned from my comments about the rich, the rich is not the company that is well profited. Rich by defintion according to the book by Robert Kiyosaki, Rich Dad, Poor Dad and Cashflow Quadrant, is a person who has financial independence, passive portfolio, or residual income. People such as the owmers of Starbucks, Microsoft, Dell computer and so on are the ones that I am referring to. The CEOs that run a company are just employees that work for the shareholders unless that CEOs own the entire comppany.
Any company and owner of a company that has shareholders unless the owner of the company owns a majority or all of the shares in his or her company work for the interest of the shareholders.
In the case of the bailout banks, the policies and regulations changed under the Bush Administration where the employees actually work in the interest of the shareholders and the CEOs only benefitted from the profit and never shared the profits with the employees which didn't make the employees a part ownership of the company like the CEOs.
Again, when I mention the rich, I'm only referring to the rich that have passive income and they too were hit very bad and so were their charities that would have helped the poor. The media never touch on them but only the negative.
The CEOs in the TARP scandal were never rich but thieves that robbed main strett.
Any company and owner of a company that has shareholders unless the owner of the company owns a majority or all of the shares in his or her company work for the interest of the shareholders.
In the case of the bailout banks, the policies and regulations changed under the Bush Administration where the employees actually work in the interest of the shareholders and the CEOs only benefitted from the profit and never shared the profits with the employees which didn't make the employees a part ownership of the company like the CEOs.
Well by not sharing the profits with the employees, you had less people out there able to spend their money, pay taxes as in sales taxes, well since they weren't spending money and now you have contributed greatly to the mess, not having enough consumers in the market (consumers meaning all these workers that did not share the profits, as the cost of living went up) trickled up. Now cities, counties and states have less sales tax revenue they are in trouble, the consumers aren't able to afford to consume there fore profits/shares of stock go down.
Post a Comment