Current Events > California budget SURPLUS expected to be 97 BILLION.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-13/california-budget-surplus-swells-to-97-billion-under-newsom-new-plan

but please, tell me again how California is a failing state. We keep most of those red states afloat.

There's already a topic on this with a similar insult

Im sure all the homeless are proud of this

@yemmy

pls whine

Are they going to get new chairs or a new copier?

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Im sure all the homeless are proud of this

I love how the detractors always bring up the homeless. Conservatives openly and actively dont want to do ANYTHING at all to help homeless. In fact in their states they often destroy their camps. Yet when it comes to attacking Liberals they suddenly pretend to care.

I have only seen headlines on this. What is the cause of such a large surplus?

#CaliPride

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Im sure all the homeless are proud of this

theyre too high off of heroin to even care.

Also btw, in his budget proposal there is some weird thing about giving every registered car owner $400. I have no idea why but as a car owner Im all for it. He also plans to expand access to abortion as well as rebate programs to help offset rising cost of groceries and whatnot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeimE8Wz6e4

whitelytning posted...

I have only seen headlines on this. What is the cause of such a large surplus?

Federal covid money, probably.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Federal covid money, probably.

Not necessarily.

New Mexico has a huge budget surplus (it's like $1.5 billion but come on we're fucking New Mexico) for the 2022 session because of Permian Basin oil.

We have a lot of goddamn oil right now.

TheVipaGTS posted...

I love how the detractors always bring up the homeless. Conservatives openly and actively dont want to do ANYTHING at all to help homeless. In fact in their states they often destroy their camps. Yet when it comes to attacking Liberals they suddenly pretend to care.

I ask this out of utter ignorance from the opposite coast: are conservatives hindering liberals in remedying homelessness? SF seems to have a reputation for prevalent homelessness, but idk what influence conservatives have there.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Also btw, in his budget proposal there is some weird thing about giving every registered car owner $400. I have no idea why but as a car owner Im all for it. He also plans to expand access to abortion as well as rebate programs to help offset rising cost of groceries and whatnot.

It's meant to combat the high gas prices. It was first brought up about a month ago. There's also talk of free public transportation for a few months with the surplus.

The comment section is interesting.

AloneIBreak posted...

I ask this out of utter ignorance from the opposite coast: are conservatives hindering liberals in remedying homelessness? SF seems to have a reputation for prevalent homelessness, but idk what influence conservatives have there.

Im just speaking in general. Im all for helping the homeless and completely agree we need to do more here. I just dont appreciate when that criticism comes from a disingenuous republicans who actively works to do nothing for the homeless.

What_ posted...

@yemmy

pls whine

Don't @ me for your Friday night dick size comparisons

yemmy posted...

Don't @ me for your Friday night dick size comparisons

This is about you not your mom

The surplus goes into paying politicians higher salaries

Hopefully they can find out a way to get water soon

ZannoL posted...

#CaliPride

As a former Californian, pride in what? Having some of the highest taxes in the country, the highest homeless populations/tent cities, seeing drug needles everywhere, and having some of the worst traffic, paying $2k per month for a studio apartment, and not even being allowed to defend yourself from criminals since you can't carry a gun?

Being a Californian is basically being an American but with almost none of the rights enjoyed in other states and getting bent over and paying out the ass in fees, taxes, permits, etc.

You can have California.

HroHybridCards posted...

As a former Californian, pride in what? Having some of the highest taxes in the country, the highest homeless populations/tent cities, seeing drug needles everywhere, and having some of the worst traffic, paying $2k per month for a studio apartment, and not even being allowed to defend yourself from criminals since you can't carry a gun?

Being a Californian is basically being an American but with almost none of the rights enjoyed in other states and getting bent over and paying out the ass in fees, taxes, permits, etc.

You can have California.

Yeah but we have In N Out.

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

Yeah but we have In N Out.

We do too here in Arizona, and I still go there maybe once every 3 months if that lol.

HroHybridCards posted...

As a former Californian, pride in what? Having some of the highest taxes in the country, the highest homeless populations/tent cities, seeing drug needles everywhere, and having some of the worst traffic, paying $2k per month for a studio apartment, and not even being allowed to defend yourself from criminals since you can't carry a gun?

Being a Californian is basically being an American but with almost none of the rights enjoyed in other states and getting bent over and paying out the ass in fees, taxes, permits, etc.

You can have California.

glad you left. we didn't want you here.

AloneIBreak posted...

I ask this out of utter ignorance from the opposite coast: are conservatives hindering liberals in remedying homelessness? SF seems to have a reputation for prevalent homelessness, but idk what influence conservatives have there.

west coast homelessness is complicated. From intentional drifter, young kids who choose to live on the street and people who suffer from mental illness refusing assistance, its a hard issue to tackle.

When i first moved to Portland, OR from Boston, i was blown away just how prevalent the problem is. The weather also makes is much easier to survive long term homeless. Back east, a lot of these people would've frozen to death.

AloneIBreak posted...

I ask this out of utter ignorance from the opposite coast: are conservatives hindering liberals in remedying homelessness? SF seems to have a reputation for prevalent homelessness, but idk what influence conservatives have there.

Many republican cities and towns have programs for free Greyhound tickets to anywhere 50+ miles away for the homeless. Guess where they like to go.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Im sure all the homeless are proud of this

How many billions would it take to solve this problem?

How much overtaxation occurred to build such a surplus?

This isn't exactly something to be proud of and definitely not something to bash other states with.

SuperShake666 posted...

Many republican cities and towns have programs for free Greyhound tickets to anywhere 50+ miles away for the homeless. Guess where they like to go.

Literally a South Park plot

whitelytning posted...

I have only seen headlines on this. What is the cause of such a large surplus?

It's a combination of things, but the short version seems to be capital gains taxing combined with being really vague on what some programs are actually going to cost.

A key paragraph from the article highlights that the government is making some dangerous assumptions around how much revenue they're going to bring in, to the point that it's almost guaranteed that they're not going to actually raise enough money to fund their programs:

Newsoms budget overview did not explicitly lay out the chances of a sharp reversal of fortunes in the coming years even though the financial warning signs have been visible for months. In the spring, the independent Legislative Analysts Office reported that a simulation of 10,000 possible state revenue scenarios resulted in shortfalls 95% of the time.

s0nicfan posted...

It's a combination of things, but the short version seems to be capital gains taxing combined with being really vague on what some programs are actually going to cost.

A key paragraph from the article highlights that the government is making some dangerous assumptions around how much revenue they're going to bring in, to the point that it's almost guaranteed that they're not going to actually raise enough money to fund their programs:

that's not indicating a vagueness in cost. its indicating a vagueness in how effective these programs will end up being to help people.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

you chose the one post that directly responded to someone and had context to bringing up conservatives to complain about this?

TheVipaGTS posted...

that's not indicating a vagueness in cost. its indicating a vagueness in how effective these programs will end up being to help people.

No, I mean elsewhere in the article it specifically highlights that how much some things are going to cost isn't laid out in the proposal. So the article is claiming there's a budget surplus while also pointing out that the cost for certain programs in the budget is unknown, and it's built on a tax scheme that has a 95% chance of not collecting what they need, and it also required cutting certain programs from the budget and finding different ways to fund them to circumvent a law in the California Constitution around spending limits.

For example:

Not all spending decisions envisioned by Newsoms budget are fully fleshed out.

The revised plan includes scant details on how much it will cost to fully implement the governors sweeping proposal to provide court-ordered treatment for homeless individuals with severe mental illness and behavioral health needs. The so-called Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Court would create a new civil justice treatment program for some 7,000 to 12,000 Californians experiencing psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, and who need treatment and shelter to stabilize.

Edit: here's the section on bypassing the spending limit by not counting programs in the budget:

Keely Martin Bosler, the governors finance director, said that three new, large spending proposals the inflation relief package, additional spending on infrastructure and more funding for COVID-19 and drought response efforts are excluded from calculations of the spending limit.

HroHybridCards posted...

As a former Californian, pride in what? Having some of the highest taxes in the country, the highest homeless populations/tent cities, seeing drug needles everywhere, and having some of the worst traffic, paying $2k per month for a studio apartment, and not even being allowed to defend yourself from criminals since you can't carry a gun?

Being a Californian is basically being an American but with almost none of the rights enjoyed in other states and getting bent over and paying out the ass in fees, taxes, permits, etc.

You can have California.

You see most of that in literally every large city, regardless of state.

s0nicfan posted...

A key paragraph from the article highlights that the government is making some dangerous assumptions around how much revenue they're going to bring in, to the point that it's almost guaranteed that they're not going to actually raise enough money to fund their programs:

So, the rough equivalent of someone who doesn't quite understand that Amazon doesn't take the money out of his account immediately, and ends up spending it twice.

Questionmarktarius posted...

So, the rough equivalent of someone who doesn't quite understand that Amazon doesn't take the money out of his account immediately, and ends up spending it twice.

Basically. It also basically hinges on the country not going into a recession, since the last time this sort of taxation approach was used according to the article was right before the dot com bubble burst and California ended up in a decade of deficit because of it:

The new budget, a revision to the plan Newsom offered in January, points to the outsized role that taxes paid on capital gains have on the states finances. Those dollars now make up a higher percentage of personal income taxes collected than at any point since 1999 which Newsom pointed out occurred just before the collapse of the states dot-com industry, an implosion that helped trigger massive state budget deficits for much of the decade that followed.

For those that are concerned about that, they are right to be concerned about that. We are deeply mindful of that, Newsom said in offering what he insisted is a cautious plan focused on short-term spending proposals.

s0nicfan posted...

Basically. It also basically hinges on the country not going into a recession, since the last time this sort of taxation approach was used according to the article was right before the dot com bubble burst and California ended up in a decade of deficit because of it:

The other part of that is lack of fiscal responsibility on the other end.
Every damn time the math suggests that money a government expects to bring in will exceed what it expects to pay out, all that ever happens is smorgasbord of more spending before those expectations are even close to realized.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The other part of that is lack of fiscal responsibility on the other end.
Every damn time the math suggests that money a government expects to bring in will exceed what it expects to pay out, all that ever happens is smorgasbord of more spending before those expectations are even close to realized.

I also would like to see the math on how newsom's personal estimates so grossly exceed prior ones:

Californias government surplus is expected to balloon to $97.5-billion by next summer under the budget plan unveiled Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, an estimate that vastly exceeds previous projections and comes amid concerns that rising inflation and arcane spending rules could throw the states finances into disarray in the near future.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Well it was also the inspiration for making this topic, judging by post #1 lol

Also, Vipa you should probably know that California hasn't been a donor state for a couple of years now, meaning they're not keeping other states afloat:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-longer-pays-more-to-Washington-than-15243861.php

s0nicfan posted...

Also, Vipa you should probably know that California hasn't been a donor state for a couple of years now, meaning they're not keeping other states afloat:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-longer-pays-more-to-Washington-than-15243861.php

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states

It's a donor state. It is just not the #1 donor state now.

AmishDoinks420 posted...

You see most of that in literally every large city, regardless of state.

Considering Florida is now considered the state with the most expensive metro areas to live in, this is 100% true.

Blue, Red, or Purple, the more you get into a major city, the more expensive it is.

Krojen posted...

Well it was also the inspiration for making this topic, judging by post #1 lol

yea that's why i was surprised he chose the one post with context to complain...you know, like i already said lol.

Government finances at all levels should be implemented like counties.
Figure out what you want to spend, add any debt from last year, then apportion the taxes to bring in that amount.

"Two billion for underwater trains, to be paid for by a 2% tax on cigarettes", or similar fiscal prestidigitation, is the problem. We're being taxed at rates made up for political purposes, nominally to cover a budget made up for political purposes, so that politicians can complain about it.

97 billion but they cant house the homeless or provide affordable homes with that cuz its to costly