Author Topic: so.. it apears that the governator taxed the redskins... (Read 1410 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** June 25, 2004, 10:02:24 AM »

I am told that many people have dreams about me.

todd... not sure what you are trying to say. I look at it as a step towards equality tho. gives everyone the same chances and perspective. If you pay no taxes your view of taxes and their benifiet/detrement will be distorted. If you are excluded from one part of the community why is is such a large step to exclude you from others?

lazs

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #61 on:** June 25, 2004, 10:11:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
todd... not sure what you are trying to say. I look at it as a step towards equality tho. gives everyone the same chances and perspective.

What I mean is that this move likely wasn't made to equalize the tax burden in California. It was probably made because the legislature and the governor could not realistically raise taxes any more on everyone else without seriously and negatively impacting the state economy. Taxing Indian casinos and raising taxes on other vices were probably the last, best alternatives.

Even then, that's hardly enough to make a major dent in California's budget deficit. From what I've read, the yearly budget deficit runs anywhere between 20 and 30 billion dollars and equates to roughly 40% of California's GSP. That's just insane. There's no way California can simply tax its way out of that kind of hole, though finding new tax revenue streams is a good start. California is going to have to make some serious and deep cuts in its entitlement spending before its bond rating plummets to the point where it has no choice but to cut those programs.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Sixpence · « **Reply #62 on:** June 25, 2004, 11:09:54 AM »

What Todd is saying if the indians have not been paying taxes, then the tax on them should be a tax reduction for everyone else. But the guvahnator needs tax revenue, so the people didn't get that cut. So, in reality, the people got their taxes raised, because if the tax were to spread taxes out evenly, everyone else should have got a tax cut. So in a way, you are right, there is some equality here, everyone got their taxes raised.

In the end, I think they will pass it on to the consumer, like any other business. So not only did the people not get the tax cut they should have got, they will pay more out of pocket at the casino.

A tax is never good.

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** June 28, 2004, 09:14:09 AM »

the consumer? the consumer is the guy who gambles. You can easily avoid any impact on yourself by not gambling. If the indians don't get taxed then card houses and such shouldn't be taxed on their income.

it is really simple. everyone should play by the same rules. I don't care if it increases or decreases the tax base or what it does... if taxes on vice are bad then get rid of all of em.. if they are ok for some then they are ok for all. if anyone can figure out a way to avoid em within the tax code then more power to em but...

simply being exempt is wrong if you are not a non profit organization..

lazs