Repeal the prohibition on cannabis
Not only would this seriously help us in sales tax collections, but Louisiana is the prison capital of the world and this would certainly help alleviate that problem.
Printable View
Repeal the prohibition on cannabis
Not only would this seriously help us in sales tax collections, but Louisiana is the prison capital of the world and this would certainly help alleviate that problem.
link above does not work...
Yeah, I'm turning 27 this year. So I would definitely be the youngest in the legislation if it pans out.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Especially running with the Libertarian Party, traditionally they've been shut out of debates here in Louisiana.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Odd... Here is the link with the most recent 3: http://revenue.louisiana.gov/NewsAnd...s/PublicationsQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Cali is the worst state in the union! Im so fed up with the high taxes, nothing getting repaired or upgraded with that tax money and massive overcrowding and traffic that hopefully one day I can move out of state
Oh, it somehow hyperlinked the end parenthesis: http://revenue.louisiana.gov/Publications/AR(15-16).pdf
The combined tax rate for Sacramento County is 7.75%, whereas the combined tax rate for my parish is 10.75%. Plus, they're wanting to increase our state tax (which is 5%) up one point bringing our new combined tax rate to 11.75%.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Check Los Angeles county tax rates with district tax rates for the suburbs which is where most people live. Pico rivera sales tax rate is 10.25% same as Compton and other citiesQuote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Speaking of which, I guess I should finish my 1st quarter sales tax filing as its almost 2 months late lol
I also recently did the math on how much legislators are paid. In Louisiana, legislators have a flat salary of $16,800 per year plus an additional $6,000 expense allowance. On its face, that doesn't seem like much, but where legislators essentially double their money is on the per diem allowance of $156 per day. This per diem adds an additional $13,260 for 85 day sessions and $10,140 on 60 day sessions.
Assuming no special sessions (and this year there has already been 17 days of special sessions), this means that a Louisiana legislature would earn up to $36,060 for a part-time job. Consider for a moment that the average per capita income in Louisiana according to the 2010 census is $20,367. I would advocate for one: replacing the hybrid salary/per deim mix with just a flat salary and two: have a flat salary properly reflect the average per capita income of a part-time job in Louisiana.
#dday is trending on twitter
lol, I'd hope so.
We have no local taxes, so state taxes are THE taxes. I think the income tax is 10% and sales tax is 6%, but that sales tax is on everything, including groceries, which most states exempt. Of course, then there's property tax, and I have no idea what rate I pay there.
My mother was a state legislator in NH. There are LOADS of representatives in that tiny state. They got paid somewhere around $100 per year, but got a per diem that added about $1,000 once mileage was added in (I think my mother got $0.25 per mile, and something for meals and lodging). Basically, they were working for free. So, why serve? Some did it for civic pride, some had other reasons. My mother had been doing research for her doctoral dissertation, but got into it a bit too much, dropped the degree and ran for office at both state and local levels (county doesn't mean much in NH, but towns mean a whole lot).
I think the point is that the system will manage. If the legislators make enough that they don't do anything else, then they might not do anything else. If they make almost nothing, you'll still get folks to serve, you just have to understand why.
As for your first plank. How do state employees get any different tax consideration down there? Up here, we pay the same taxes, and are mandated by law to be paid roughly equivalent to the private sector. During the recession, the legislature didn't want to do that, so they disbanded the working group that checked the private sector. Basically, they were using the excuse that they didn't know, so the law couldn't apply. Since then, the group got back together. They point out that we get paid less than the private sector jobs in the same area, but nothing changes.
I think their wrong. We still have decent health insurance, and we have a retirement system that isn't desperately underfunded as it is in most states. Those factors count for something. I'll actually be able to retire...except that health insurance will end on that day, and I won't be able to afford to buy any, so I guess I'll have to get a job. That's a ways off, though, and a whole lot could change between now and then.
I just got off the phone with one of my clients - they need me to help them do an analysis of retirees and health care costs (they are a municipality).
They have come to realize that pension payments are tied nicely to years of service. Someone with 15 years in gets a smaller monthly pension amount. Someone with 30 years of service gets a bigger pension payment.
What they have also come to realize is that those same two retirees are getting the EXACT same level of health insurance coverage paid for by the town.
They want to change this - the 15 year person gets only 50% coverage compared to the 30 year person getting 100% coverage, for example.
That sucks!
Corporation tax is probably the one policy there that i dont understand. Generally it seems clear to me that Companies particularly big business make huge profits and have many ways of avoiding tax to they already pay far less than they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Maybe you could argue some small business pay to much tax, i could certainly see a policy that shifted some of the tax burden away form smaller business being popular, removing corporation tax completely would probably just blow a huge hole in the state budget.
Trouble with that idea is that you'll probably find small businesses are the only ones paying the taxes in the first place. The big boys'll already be avoiding them by siting their head office out of state and citing the siting. So you shift the tax on toto the big boys and end up collecting nothing.
The same phenomenon is true of income taxes. Folks who've got high incomes can afford the tricks required to avoid paying the taxes.
The only reliably unavoidable taxes are taxes on consumption, ie VAT, sales tax etc. Of course, if you drop income based taxes and whack up consumption taxes you end up hitting the poor diss-proportionately because our basic necessities for life tend to remain the same regardless of how much we earn.
So then you end up only taxing luxuries which would be a ridiculously small base.
I don't have answers to any of it. All I know is it pays to be wealthy.
(page 26 of the annual report linked before)Quote:
Trouble with that idea is that you'll probably find small businesses are the only ones paying the taxes in the first place. The big boys'll already be avoiding them by siting their head office out of state and citing the siting. So you shift the tax on toto the big boys and end up collecting nothing.
Of the 12,447 businesses, 92 businesses are responsible for 58.19% of the tax liability. These 92 businesses are those who have taxable income of $10m or more. All in all, there are 8 brackets that pay corporate taxes, the bottom 6 who have a taxable income of $1m or less make up only 17.37% of the tax liability. To your point, the top two tax brackets make up more than 4/5ths of the entire corporate income tax revenue.
Yeah, do that and they'll bless the rains down in Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
That can be pretty misleading, though. If you were to have a single tax bracket, people making five times as much will pay five times as much tax. So, the top end will always pay a bigger portion of the tax simply because they make a bigger portion of the profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9