Tax-Free Yachts.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Deliberately dense as can be as always. The $26 million is the republican take on just yachts. Not surprising she was deliberately deceptive and didn't talk about RVs and airplanes. Lastly, she working over time trying to insure a special interest continues to receive a tax loop hole so her numbers are about as trust worthy as Bush's budget numbers.

Just been lied to to many times to ever trust them.

Are you even remotely literate? I linked to the actual bill, which outlines what it would cover and yet another source which outlines what the savings are if the bill went through. Nowhere in any of the stuff was any Republican quoted about the dollar figure. I'd love to see one source which even begins to back up your ridiculous claims that the $26 million only covers yachts, or even the slightest shred of logic that would suggest why everyone only cares about the $26 million you claim only comes from yachts but not the other $1.9 billion plus you think California is missing out on from the other stuff.

[Kontiki]

More lies from dirty Republicans:

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/failure_to_repe.html

The California Senate passed a repeal of a loophole that allows the multimillionaire purchasers of yachts and private planes from paying a sales or use tax. It passed 28 to 10—by just one vote above the minimum 27 votes—two-thirds of the 40 member body needed—with some Republican support. It failed in the Assembly, and will be coming up for a vote again next week.

This issue involves only $5 million of revenues for the current fiscal year—because it is nearly over. And it will help the state to collect $21 million in the 2008-09 year

About the author:

The California Progress Report was created and is published by Frank D. Russo, an Oakland attorney who has been active in California politics for 40 years and has served as Chair of the Alameda County Democratic Party.

In the 1970’s and 80’s, he worked in the Capitol for Democratic legislators in prominent positions including serving as Legal Counsel to the Speaker of the Assembly.

[DinoDoc]

Kontiki

[Patroklos]

A few months ago, hundreds of copiers were replaced by newer, more expensive models which work nowhere near as good as the copiers they replaced.

I just had a meeting with Xerox to have all the copiers at work replaced with a whiz bang new model

But rest assured Polytubbies, even if we have to suffer through bugs I did it in the name of saving your tax dollars

[Kuciwalker]

In the other direction, if you are from a state and buy an item in a different state, you are subject to 'use tax' in the state you reside in, that is generally equal to the sales tax you would have paid in-state minus any you did pay in the other state (i'm not sure how prevalent that double-tax rebate is). This varies by state on the amount it's on, I believe (say, any purchase >$100), but generally doesn't vary by item, except in that some items are exempted for reasons like this one - economic.

Only for certain classes of items.

[Krill]

Such as...?

[Kuciwalker]

Generally, things the state government can actually enforce the tax on.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Generally, things the state government can actually enforce the tax on.

..such as cars and other big-ticket items. They aren't going to waste their time if you bring in an out-of-state tube of toothpaste.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Was that supposed to have a point Oerdin?

Oh my a Youtube video! That totally makes your thread not an exaggeration of veiled lie, like totally.

It's Zkribbler's thread numbnuts. He's made a great point too.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Did you even read ZK's article?????????????????????

She is ARGUING FOR CUTTING THE LOOPHOLE OUT (along with a bunch of other loopholes/breaks), against the GOP's inclination.

OK, if she's arguing about cutting the loophole out then I was mistaken.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kontiki

Are you even remotely literate? I linked to the actual bill, which outlines what it would cover and yet another source which outlines what the savings are if the bill went through. Nowhere in any of the stuff was any Republican quoted about the dollar figure. I'd love to see one source which even begins to back up your ridiculous claims that the $26 million only covers yachts, or even the slightest shred of logic that would suggest why everyone only cares about the $26 million you claim only comes from yachts but not the other $1.9 billion plus you think California is missing out on from the other stuff.

Normally I'd just ignore you for being a dumb ass but lets look at some broad numbers since none of us has specifics.

A small light plane like a Cessna 172 costs around $250,000

A business jet costs $2million to $20million depending on size etc.

A single Boeing 717 built in Long Beach costs $37.5million.

It seems like the roads are clogged with RVs in the summer time and each RV costs between $50k-$100k

All of that adds up to a lot more then $26million as any honest person would admit.

[DinoDoc]

Would you please provide one reputable source to back up your assertion that closing the loophole would relieve the budget crisi or admit you are a liar? Because so far all sources seem to point toward the fact we're talking about 26 million.

[Kontiki]

So no one from any newspaper or blog is an honest person? I guess your magic, pulled from your ass numbers are the only reliable source of info in California.

Think about this, if you can. What percentage of all those yachts, RVs and airplanes are sold each year and done so out of state and are held outside using the 90 day exemption? Do you think everyone buys all their toys out of state, keeps them there for at least 90 days and replaces them each year?

Again, let me link the actual bill which outlines what the changes are:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx3_8_bill_20080213_amended_sen_v98.html

The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on the gross receipts from the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property. Under existing law, there is a presumption that a vehicle shipped or brought into this state within 90 days from the date of its purchase was purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state, under specified circumstances.

This bill would expand this presumption to a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft brought into California within 12 months from the date of its purchase, if that vehicle, vessel, or aircraft is (1) purchased by a California resident, (2) subject to California's registration or
property tax laws during the first 12 months of ownership, or (3)used or stored in this state more than 1/2 of the time during the first 12 months of ownership. This bill would provide that the presumption may be controverted by documentary evidence, as specified. This bill would also provide that the presumption does not apply to aircraft or vessels brought into this state, on or after the effective date of this act, for the purpose of repair, retrofit, or modification.

[Dinner]

"vehicle, vessel, or aircraft"

Does that mean we're also talking about cars bought out of state so as to avoid California emissions laws?

[Kontiki]

I'm sure all those provisions are laid out in the bill. Perhaps you should attempt to read and understand it.