Works for big business, not so well for homeowners,
who
bear an increasing share of the tax burden as a result.
Submitted by Lionel Emde
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I didn't know that >50% ownership was needed in a corporate transaction to trigger a reassessment. I always figured corporations were getting around the reassessments by configuring the deals as some sort of merger/acquisition.
Again Lionel, if Disney's tax burden is increased by re-assessing their property, more money goes to the state. Since revenues have nearly tripled in the last 20 years, please explain how this solves the problems facing California.
And how does Disney compensate for the increase in taxes? Cutting jobs, increasing prices, and making this tax increase "regressive" towards the consumers and workers who can least afford it.
But let's take it a step further . . . how much does Disney contribute to the tax base right now? Dig back a few articles and read what I've already posted about Disney's overall contribution to the economy, both locally and to the state.
Its a false argument that doesn't take into account the overall contribution these businesses already make to state revenues through employment and sales tax, or what negative affect raising taxes on Disney will ultimately have on the state's economy.
A 2008 Government Accountability Office study estimated that "about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the U.S. paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005." (Reuters, 8/12/08)
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, tofixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
4 comments:
I didn't know that >50% ownership was needed in a corporate transaction to trigger a reassessment. I always figured corporations were getting around the reassessments by configuring the deals as some sort of merger/acquisition.
Very interesting.
Again Lionel, if Disney's tax burden is increased by re-assessing their property, more money goes to the state. Since revenues have nearly tripled in the last 20 years, please explain how this solves the problems facing California.
And how does Disney compensate for the increase in taxes? Cutting jobs, increasing prices, and making this tax increase "regressive" towards the consumers and workers who can least afford it.
But let's take it a step further . . . how much does Disney contribute to the tax base right now? Dig back a few articles and read what I've already posted about Disney's overall contribution to the economy, both locally and to the state.
Its a false argument that doesn't take into account the overall contribution these businesses already make to state revenues through employment and sales tax, or what negative affect raising taxes on Disney will ultimately have on the state's economy.
A 2008 Government Accountability Office study estimated that "about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the U.S. paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005." (Reuters, 8/12/08)
So, who's paying da taxes, sucka?
According to a recent Sacramento Bee article, its the rich
"Residents earning north of $200,000 control 39 percent of the state's income, but pay 66 percent of its income taxes."
Post a Comment