LAist: In 2 Months, California Could be Broke

jrb

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:04:42 -0800

"Merry xmas! Now you can attack me for not being politically correct!!!!LOL." Sure troj. I attack everyone who wishes me a Merry Christmas. It's in the "How to be a Socialist" handbook. I think you listen to Rush and Co. too much. The reason I say Happy Holidays is to be inclusive. By saying it that way I've included Jews, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and anyone else who celebrates a Holiday this time of year. I'm not offended by anyone saying "Merry Christmas". You and your ilk seem to be the ones offended by someone saying "Happy Holidays" instead.

jrb

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:32:46 -0800

Well trojie I think maybe you don't fully know what Mixed Economy Socialism is. There is a pretty accurate definition is available on Wikipedia if you're really interested. Suffice it to say that Mixed Economy Socialism is practiced in Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, and many other countries that have robust Capitalist economies, and show no signs of becoming Communist. The Mixed Economy part means that Socialism is dependent on the Capitalism and vice versa. "Other income includes subsidies, royalties etc..." Yea trojie, believe it or not I do my own taxes every year, so I'm kind of familiar with how that works. I also know that taxes are enforced on the honor system basis unless a company or individual gets audited. Also, "Other Income" doesn't account for, creative accounting, royalty rollbacks, or favors received from kickbacks and bribery. You may remember that the agency that was supposed to be regulating oil companies was recently exposed as being rife with corruption from oil company executives. Oh and Happy Holidays. I sa

trojan2002

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:24:08 -0800

JRB, since you're an admitted socialist tool, I will respond to you because you do nothing on this site but disparage the American Capitalist that has given you all the comforts of your life. The taxes companies pay, be it an oil company or a mom and pop company, is derived from calculating every source of INCOME (Revenue) and deducting the expenses. If your read the link that was given to you, you will see another area that speaks of other income. Other income includes subsidies, royalties etc. Now, you take all of that, substract expenses you get NET INCOME, which gets TAXED. Which is where the 42 and 46% comes from. Obviously you don't understand math, economics, business practices, or what we like to GAAP. So you'll ignore everything that is true, an continue to spout all of your BS. Have fun JRB... and if I don't get back to you before...(I doubt I won't) Merry xmas! Now you can attack me for not being politically correct!!!!LOL.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:34 -0800

Well geeze troj, itmnd, while we're on the subject of these poor tax abused oil companies I found an interesting report... from the link http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2008/07/big-giveaways-to-big-oil-exposed.html "The new report (pdf) reveals that oil companies are given “at least $23.2 billion from tax loopholes, $3.8 billion in royalty rollbacks, $1.6 billion in direct subsidies for research and development, and $4.3 billion through accounting gimmicks.”" You can follow the link (pdf) they give for all the actual figures. So yea, I'm real broken up about all the taxes Chevron allegedly pays. (you sure you wan to stick to that 46% figure guys?)

wiyum

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:41:05 -0800

ouch.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:48:00 -0800

Well just jump right in there itmnd. Since you'd like to be part of the debate, I hope you deducted the $2.38bn that Chevron recieved in subsidies. source... http://www.pppra-nigeria.org/briefonpsf2007.pdf What does that make their percentage now, (since you're so fond of math).

itmnd

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:22:18 -0800

try this link: http://www.chevron.com/annualreport/2007/financials/consolidatedfinancialstatements/consolidatedstatementincome.aspx 2007: 42% of profit to taxes 2006: 46% of profit to taxes let me know if you want me to show the math for you, too.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:15:14 -0800

"JRB, go look up the Chevron's annual report. In 2006 they paid closer to 45% in taxes." No, no, you made the claim, you provide the link.

trojan2002

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:56:59 -0800

solomon, I agree with you. The Governor is the hammer to the nails provided by the legislature for the coffin that holds California's remains. California should just stop paying on the bonds they've taken out, go bankrupt, reorganize and start from scratch. Davis screwed up but he had the brains to steer this ship. Arnold has no brains. JRB, go look up the Chevron's annual report. In 2006 they paid closer to 45% in taxes.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:11 -0800

"California is a failed enterprise. It shouldn't be bailed out; it should go bankrupt, start over, renegotiate everything." I disagree. I think renegotiating the state's accumulated debt would be bad for California, bad for any other state that relies on credit, and bad for the US economy as a whole. Whasssup troj? Can't find a link to that 41.5% figure? If so I'm going to call bullshit.

_solomon_

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:02:40 -0800

Quoting a Schwarzenegger spokesperson is always asking for trouble. Republicans were not elected to increase taxes and Democrats were not elected to reduce spending. One man was elected to fix the budget's structural problems … that was Schwarzenegger … and five years later, he's created a bigger mess than Gray Davis was ever capable of. California is a failed enterprise. It shouldn't be bailed out; it should go bankrupt, start over, renegotiate everything.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:53:40 -0800

"Who has more weight? The Corp with limits on donation and small work force..." From the link; https://caclean.org/problem/sacbee_2008-10-06.php Special-Interest Spending Takes Off By Shane Goldmacher The deluge of independent spending by special interest groups keen on swaying the makeup of the Legislature has begun, as well-heeled groups have showered nearly $1 million in the last week on their favored legislative candidates. And that is only the beginning. "Independent expenditure" campaigns are outside the control of the Democrats and Republicans running for state Assembly and Senate. They are an outgrowth of voter-approved caps on direct contributions that those same interests can make to the candidates themselves. Unable to give as much as they want directly, Sacramento's wealthiest interests have set up independent committees for political campaigns.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:42:11 -0800

I'd like to see a link to that 41.5% figure. But if you want to compare the amount of money contributed to politicians of both parties by various corporate interests vs various union interests, the corporate money dwarfs the union money.

trojan2002

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:32:00 -0800

Largest employer in the state of ca is the STATE OF CA. Most state employees are UNION employees. Who has more weight? The Corp with limits on donation and small work force, or the unions with NO limits on donations, and a larger base to provide grass roots (i.e. strong arm voters) support to politicians? Unions are demagogic... if you don't vote our way people, the bad people will ruin your lives? Really, so what bad people ruined the state of CA the last 12 years? Must not be the people who have been in charge, or the people who contributed the most amount of money, or the people who pushed for bond initiatives that REQUIRE union employees! No, lets blame Chevron who paid $13.5 BILLION (41.5% of their profit) in taxes last year.

jrb

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:09:50 -0800

I had a feeling you'd chime in on this one troj. "Unions push the legislators to do things that don't work." But corporate entities like oil companies, energy companies, communications companies, etc. don't?

trojan2002

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:58:29 -0800

They are both to blame... Republicans and Democrats, but mostly Democrats and the Governor. The Democrats have had power in Sacramento for over a decade, the Governor is a fraud and has been wreck less. I blame the union organizations in this state, and all the voters that vote YES on the bond initiatives. Those two are really to blame for CA problems. Unions push the legislators to do things that don't work. And the people vote for bonds without a clue as to how bonds work, and what financial effects they have. Of course, all this comes as no surprise in the leading foreclosure and bankruptcy state. Of course the voters will vote yes for ideals and not to think of the bottom line. Sadly, what no one wants to admit to, dealing with the budget is more complex than just cutting and taxing. That won't be enough, and that won't work.