Schwarzenegger proposes new state tax on amusement parks

Posted Monday, January 26, 2009 7:13 PM | Contributed by Pagoda Gift Shop

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed additional state taxes in an effort to make up the $42 billion state deficit. These new taxes include amusement park operators, golf courses, and other leisure activities.

Read more from AP via Google.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:24 AM

Increased taxes from a GOP governer.....Tax cuts from a Democratic president. Lord, dost thou return draw near?

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:51 AM

So does this mean that six flags will call the new coaster "terminatortax the ride"?

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:18 AM

The whole problem is that California is taxing themselves out of existence. More and more people are leaving that state due to the taxes imposed by the governor whether it is new emission standards which are outrageously higher than other parts of the country, new taxes on everything and other things. The fact is that higher taxes will mean lower tax revenues.

Delan, if you think that Obama is going to cut taxes while spending over a trillion dollars on so-called stimulus package and also there is another 55 trillion that us coming due from the government taking funds out fo the Medicare, Medicaid, social security program and pensions? Think again. Obama can't handle this problem and taxes will be raised to the point where it will rivial or surpasses those in Europe. Obama's agenda is to create a socialist America by his spending plans.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:32 AM

So when the people of California decide to revolt against Arnold at the State House, will he yell: GET INTO DUH CHOPPAH!

;)

If california weren't sooooo into ecology, I'd say they should Boston Tea-Party something.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:45 AM

Majorcut said:
Obama's agenda is to create a socialist America by his spending plans.

I love it when people use words like "agenda" to create something that isn't there.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:02 AM

More and more people are leaving that state.

Not as fast as they are coming (or more are being born):

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

But, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. Please, continue.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:21 AM

But "agenda" sounds so nefarious! Ohhh, that evil Obama . . . and his agenda too!

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:31 PM

I'm sure quite a few folks in the midwest wouldn't mind stepping outside here in San Diego today like I'm about to. Here's the forecast. Downright chilly today (brr), but the weekend looks to be shaping up nicely. ;)

It's not that we are taxing ourselves out of existence, it's that our tax system is set up so that when times are good, we have plenty of money in the bank...but when they are bad, we're broke.

And the last time we had a nice wad of cash just itching to be spent, Bush's Texan energy traders helped themselves to all of it while he turned a blind eye. Thanks buddy! Hope you rot in....Dallas.

Anyway, speaking of taxes, I understand that RI has the lowest taxes in the country....and the worst infrastructure. Go figure. I guess even a dummy could realize that it might be a good idea to leave.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:52 PM

^Yeah because Bush was President during the Enron scandal.

All that you have on the midwest is weather and scenery though, its cheaper here, we are halfway to anwhere in the US, people are friendlier here (traveled the whole country,) and oh yeah we have more coasters then you :).

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:31 PM

What I tend to find hilarious is that, while under the iron fist of G.W.B (tongue in cheek, people...) the bailout was considered INGENIOUS by his followers.

Now that a black man, with a not-so-American sounding name appears, it's suddenly more socialist than it already was???

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:40 PM

I dont know about that, I hate the idea of bailouts. Its stupid, against every principal of capitalism but yet I do see the wisdom in trying to save some companies. I just not so sure where that line should be drawn. I also really question when we are going to have to pay for this massive spending spree. Its not going to be pretty when that day comes, and Im pretty sure that my generation is going to be the one holding the bag (and paying for Mom and Dad's health care when medicare and social secruity colapse.)

I also think that somehow, everyone who was involved in creating the mess needs to pay. That includes everyone from the CEO to the little guys who bought into this stupid model. Of course that is really easy for me to say, seeing as Im still to poor and young to own any stock.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:48 PM

I tend to blame the people who don't understand the basic risk of an ARM loan, both the consumers and the banks. Duh.

The thing about the bailout stuff is that economists strongly believe it's necessary, and that gives it some weight. But what I'd like to hear them explain is how extending the national debt to cover it isn't just as bad. At some point, we need to pay that off, and it can't be done with lower and lower taxes.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:53 PM

^Not to mention, this massive take on of debt is going to push up the Social Security and Medicare Judgment Day, when this country will wake up and realize that it can no longer afford to continue to go deeper into debt because of those two things and the only way to move on is to either massively hike taxes, ditch them all together, or severely restrict those programs (ie. make a maximum amount of money per person that the govt will spend.)

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:58 PM

As one of those economists that views the bailout as essential....IMO, it wouldn't have become so IF: 1) American industry had been more responsive to global trends (automobiles), and 2) there had been even a modicum of oversight (housing, banking and finance). Loaning exorbitant sums to people with no credible means of paying them back HAD to fail, eventually. But because of the bailouts, the lack of consequences means we just may get to go through this again...there can be no learning without *some* pain.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:01 PM

I agree. The one thing about our nation that most people don't seem to get is that the USA has been running on socialist principles for ages. One of them even uses the root word in its name: Social Security. There's also Medicare and Medicaid - I'm fairly certain none of the "Socialism is bad1!1" crowd is going to turn those down when they reach the age of 62 (provided there's still enough available, that is.)

It's just like the economic stimulus package, by definition it's 100% socialist, but when people get free money, they don't complain.

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:09 PM

Not only that, but if the old folks are all suddenly denied what they've been paying into all of their lives, the drag on the economy would be enormous, especially from the baby boomers.

I really don't endorse bailing out the auto industry. They've brought on decades of catastrophic failure on themselves by letting unions push insane wages and benefits and by complaining other countries produce cheaper cars. Yet today, the "foreign" cars are all made here, and people actually like the product, while "American" cars are all made in Canada and Mexico and appeal to no one. Duh. Why do reward that?

+0
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:18 PM

I completely agree about the auto industry, and for a bonus chuckle, I've finally found a picture of this bumper sticker I've been seeing so much lately:

http://i42.tinypic.com/jjy6jb.jpg

+0
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:09 AM

Even those guys are starting to fade. I live in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor where a Prius is standard equipment, but we're surrounded by southeast Michigan, and you see a lot less of that (and a lot more foreign nameplates) than you did even 10 years ago.

+0
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:35 AM

Jeff said:
Not only that, but if the old folks are all suddenly denied what they've been paying into all of their lives, the drag on the economy would be enormous, especially from the baby boomers.

I really don't endorse bailing out the auto industry. They've brought on decades of catastrophic failure on themselves by letting unions push insane wages and benefits and by complaining other countries produce cheaper cars. Yet today, the "foreign" cars are all made here, and people actually like the product, while "American" cars are all made in Canada and Mexico and appeal to no one. Duh. Why do reward that?

I couldn't agree more on the SSI part. For a large extent, SSI for many has gotten to be too easy to get. My oldest daughter (24 yrs old) has several friends who are drawing between 650 and 800 a month from SSI dissability (sp?) and NONE of them worked a day in their lives! You name the mental condition and they've got it, yet they can party all day and night and complain about how they aren't getting enough. It makes me sick. My dad worked in the steel industry for over 38 yers and he had to get a lawyer to get his SSI.

Yeah, the auto industry seriously brought it on themselves. They've been going down hill since the 80's and didn't realize then their people were grossly over-paid. The unions had a lot to do with that though. The more the workers got paid, the more they got paid.

What I found interesting was something I heard on the radio last week. None of the Auto Industry bailout went to the dealerships, which i found odd. If the dealerships fold, who will sell or service the cars by the manufactorer?

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...