Thread

1. gustavus · 1789857797 · focus · HN ↗

   Is this the same California that has spent $30 billion on a high speed rail without laying a track and is expected to finish at a total of $213 billion 31 years after it was approved?

   Or the one that spent $24 billion dollars fighting homelessness only to have overall homelessness numbers increase? My point being California could do a lot more to fix their financial situation but cutting their expenses than trying to claw more money from people.

   There's a discussion to be had about taxation in this country but I predict no matter how much revenue they make from this "one time 5% tax", they'll blow the whole thing within 3 years for no gain and then start proposing another "1 time tax" again to try and fix their coffers.

   After all it doesn't matter how much money you make if you're spending more than you earn, and nothings more permanent than a temporary fix.

   1. SubmarineClub · 1789871373 · focus · HN ↗

      Yup, time and time again Democrats have shown that there is no such thing as ‘enough.’ As soon as more money comes in they find new things to spend it on.

      Hence, I oppose ALL tax increases.

      The income tax when originally introduced only hit the ‘ultra wealthy’ too, and now look where we are. Why on earth would I ever believe that a wealth tax, once instituted, wouldn’t end up impacting me in a decade or so?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.