Golfers are teed off at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 10 percent tax proposal on their favorite game. Tony Lauria, director of sales and marketing at Coyote Creek Golf Club of Morgan Hill, CA, sobbed recently, "It's unfair to hit an industry that's struggling, and doing its best to keep our jobs." Boo freaking hoo! Call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance!
It's only fair to disclose here that I have little sympathy for this complaint. I have no use for golf whatsoever, and the entire "sport" is only a way for wealthy overweight executives to pretend that they are athletes and champions. I agree with Mark Twain, who described golf as "a good walk, spoiled." I think that all golf courses are a huge and selfish waste of natural resources. I also believe public golf courses are the biggest waste of public money, and should be sold or converted for more general public use. At the moment, selling them would be more beneficial to the state.
But let's set aside the interrupted trivial pursuit of a small group of vocal people with more dollars than sense for a larger issue, which is the pending collapse of California's already low municipal bond rating. Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters reports is "now tied with Louisiana for worst in the nation". As of Sunday, February 1, 2009, if there is no state budget announcement, California's bond rating is expected to drop even further, making California the highest risk of the 50 states. Is this any way to run the world's seventh largest economy?
Der Governator has failed the people of California by neglecting to lead this state away from the economic pitfalls which caused his predecessor Gray Davis to be recalled. He could have used the massive public recognition which put him in power much sooner than he did in mid-December to twist the arms of the Legislature to find an agreement. (This particular action did result in the Herculean feat of a budget proposal being passed by both houses, but Arnold vetoed it.)
As a result of Arnold's misfeasance and incompetence as an elected official, Californians now face being slammed between the rock of higher taxes to pay for the hard place of reduced governmental services to which they have been condemned. Despite all Californians being in this condition, the expectation is that the little people with the least to give will provide the most relief. Arnold's proposals include an increase in the sales tax and a reduction in the dependent income tax deduction while billionaires like Warren Buffet question why they pay so little in property taxes on their mansions. Such moves will only reduce the state's $42 billion deficit by about $1.4 billion while imposing new financial obligations on those least able to bear them.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy D
Dave,
Can you answer a question for me? Realist's article reminds me that when I lived in CA in 1978/79 I was able (as a teenager) to afford a one-bedroom apartment for $200/month incl. utilities (I even had a window a/c). Minimum wage was $2.65/hr. (I never made more than that.) My apartment incl. everything would be about $1.20/hr of work @ 40 hours. I also had Medi-Cal (public health insurance). I had a car (paid auto insurance--some didn't). Life was good.
Tell me why again a family with a single grown-up wage earner can't afford an apartment and health care now?
2 - Roger Nowosielski
Same here, Cindy.
Arrived in CA in 1978 with $20.00 in my pocket and a broken down WV. Within a month (after sleeping in the car with a hitchhiker I picked up along the way), I found a job distributing circulars door-to-door; within another month, another part-time job as a soda jerk in the Chocolate Factory in Ghirardelli Square; then a studio apartment in the Tenderloin district, SF, for $150.00 a month (we'd split the rent). Within another month or so, a beautiful, sunny one bedroom apartment in the Panhandle - $200.00 a month. My net income (at first) couldn't have been more than $700.00 a month, but it was plenty. Food was cheap and life was great. Today, that same little apartment wouldn't go for under $1700.00, I bet.
Have the wages kept up with these rental increases? You'd need close to $4,000.00 a month nowadays to enjoy a comparable lifestyle in the Bay Area.
3 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, they CAN afford those things. Your scenario from when you were in CA in the 70s has you spending far more on housing than HUD recommends. Now at about that same time I was earning considerably more than minimum wage and I didn't even consider health insurance. Plus my rent was a lot more in a less expensive part of the country. Are you sure you were paying only $200 a month?
Well, that's beside the point. I've done these budgets before. Let me do it again.
Let's assume someone is earning $9 an hour, which is pretty close to the market set minimum wage in most of the country. That's $1440 a month (ironically what I earned in my first job when I got out of college in 1981).
IMO there's no way someone earning that little money can afford health insurance, but they can afford housing, food and transportation. But they do qualify for medicaid at that income, because they're well below the poverty cutoff. However, that's an introductory wage or a part-time wage or a wage aimed at teenagers. Adult workers should not be earning a wage that low as their primary source of income.
According to the BLS 98% of low-wage workers are under the age of 25, so when talking about an adult with a family supported on a single income, we're looking at higher wages. The median weekly income for workers in the 25-34 year old range is around $2800/month after paying SS, which translates to the equivalent of $17/hour. I imagine you can see how this might be a sufficient income. That's $1000/month for rent and utilities, $1200/month for food, clothes, transportatiion and entertainment and $600/month for health insurance. If you check the rates on esurance.com, you can get a decent family plan (I priced 2 adults with 2 kids) with 0 copay and a $1000 deductible at right around $600 a month. At that age I would have probably opted for a higher copay and lower monthly costs, though
Now, note that this is well below the national median income for a single wage earner, which is now at about $3300 a month. But it is clearly possible to support a family at a wage like this, which comes down to about $33,000 a year and still get insurance.
However, I think that in such a scenario you would only stay at that low wage for a limited period of time. Once the kids hit school age you'd put the wife to work, adding at least another $24K to the family's income, and at $57K someone who could control themselves well enough to live on $33K a year can likely afford a house an additional vehicle, a bit more entertainment, etc.
But, you say, not all young married people can get jobs earning $17 an hour. True. However, I think it's not unreasonable for people who had kids in their early 20s to live with parents or find other ways to reduce their expenses, or even have both parents working and put the kids in daycare. If you're going to have kids before you can really afford them you're going to have to make some lifestyle compromises.
If two parents are working and earning $12 and $10 an hour respectively - and those are wages which are easy to find with nothing but a high school diploma - that's a total of $200 a week more which can go to daycare. That's an additional $800 a month over my earlier scenario, which is about what daycare for 2 kids will cost you. So that small lifestyle compromise of putting the kids in daycare and both parents getting a job solves the problem of lower wages.
But, you say, what of the 22 year old single mom with 7 kids who can only get a job at WalMart for $10 an hour? She's fucked. Literally and figuratively. The economy can't be designed for such an extreme worst case scenario. That's when it's time to be cold hearted. She needs to sell her kids, get sterilized and/or become dependent on the state. There is no budget or plan which will solve her problems, but the truth is that people in that situation are actually pretty rare, and they are why foodstamps and welfare exist.
Dave
4 - Cindy D
Dave,
People in the county where I live now earn minimum wage for hard work at a factory. A lot of immigrants and non-drivers take those jobs. They're adults, not teens. You have to commute at least 25-30 miles or more to get a job here.
Yeah, my apartment was $200, it was in a warehouse neighborhood. Safe, but not desirable. But a nice place. I realized though, I only lived there two months in 1978. (Two months was a long time then.)
It seems my money went a longer way (though I didn't really buy much). I think a tank of gas was about $3.50.
Dave, we're the same age. You're a year or two older looks like.
5 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, I've forgotten, where do you live now? I assume it's in the most depressed part of the country, because nationwide the average hourly wage for factory workers is $17.51 as of December.
Dave
6 - Cindy D
The good old days Roger.
7 - Roger Nowosielski
Cindy/Dave:
I was talking about decent life, not just surviving. People survive regardless - under the bridge, in the cubbyholes, wherever. And it's relatively easier in CA because of the weather. That's why so many come there. But the good old days are gone. We have not made much progress in terms of improving the living standard. The wages certainly have not kept up with the skyrocketing increases in rentals. It is, admit, somewhat skewed because CA, and the Bay Area in particular, is special. But it's almost impossible these days to live there in a relative comfort and a modicum of life's conveniences unless you're a professional, or share a flat with others in similar circumstances, or live with your family.
The prosperity which along was believed to trickle down to the working class, once the trademark of America, has definitely failed to materialize. There has been a decline, and I don't see how any sentient being with a sense of the past could argue otherwise.
8 - Brunelleschi
How much public land is tied up in public golf courses in California and what is it worth?
Who is benefitting from using the land this way and what do they do there?
Isn't it amazing that there always seems to be room for a golf course...?
I drive past a military base every day and right now they are putting in a golf course. Stimulus, I guess!
9 - Dan(Miller)
I drive past a military base every day and right now they are putting in a golf course. Stimulus, I guess! Not at all. It is all part of a secret Code Pink conspiracy to give the bloodthirsty people in the military a harmless outlet for their aggressive tendencies.
Dan(Miller)
10 - Dave Nalle
Golf courses make money. The question should be whether that land could be used more profitably for something else. Given that golf courses are attractive, are carbon sinks, and make money, I find it hard to argue against them. I'd sure rather have a golf course move in behind my house than a development with 100 cookie-cutter houses on it.
Roger, as for just getting by vs. living a decent life, the dividind line is fine. If you're working 40 hours a week as in the scenarios I described at a low but sufficient wage and getting by with all the necessities, including health insurance, then work 10 hours of overtime or get a part time job and all of a sudden you've got maybe as much as $1000 a month of extra disposable income, and that can make all the difference in the world. That's a nice IRA contribution plus a European vacation once a year.
It's all about managing your money. I'll admit to not always managing my money as well as I should, but I have gone through periods where I had little choice, and it's amazing what you can do with some fiscal self-discipline.
Dave
11 - Brunelleschi
Dan-
They are closet environmentalists and want to make "carbon sinks."
I'm sure that's what it is!
12 - Cindy D
I live in Sussex County NJ. Some areas are still rural.
13 - Doug Hunter
Affordable housing is something I am familiar with. I don't live in California but I can assure you that the government has played a major role in driving up the cost of a basic house/apartment in all areas. This problem is greatly exacerbated in the face of fierce demand.
1) Out of control planning and zoning that limits the markets ability to meet demand. The old conservative notion that it's your property to enjoy as you choose has been eroded to the point of not being recognizable. People accept government intervention in everything from what paint colors to use to how many cars can be in your driveway. Most of these laws take the not-in-my-backyard approch to affordable housingor multifamily properties.
2) Larger charges for hooking up utilities. Impact fees in the $10,000+ range per housing unit. These fees are just another hidden tax. Communities that don't have them get by just fine as they always have.
3) More intrusive inspections. Inspections add costly delays to projects as work must basically stop and wait for the inspector to approve before progress can be made. Additionally, the codes themselves have changed to force you to buy this safety gadget or that efficiency device (lining the pocket of the manufacturer while often providing very little end value) driving up the cost several additional thousand dollars.
4) Increasing the amount of government regulated services required. In various amounts they force you by law to use the services of government approved engineers, architects, real estate agents, lawyers, electricians, builders, mechanical contractors, plumbers, building inspectors, energy inspectors, zoning inspectors, and code enforcement services. Each of these adds a little bit of cost to the project.
I'm certainly not suggesting you don't need reasonable zoning laws, cost offsets for utilities, inspection of buildings, or professionals to carry out the work it's just that these areas have grown, as all of government power has, to include a larger and larger share of the housing budget.
14 - Cindy D
I looked at salary.com for janitor and security guard. They say the $20Ks. But, that isn't starting salary. It's average. And I talk to people, I know what the places around here start at because there aren't many places to begin with.
15 - Brunelleschi
How did humans make it this far in evolution, and all of a sudden just getting the basics requires a degree in financial planning or two jobs?
It looks like we have really gone downhill since the days of log cabins.
Why is that anyway?
16 - Dave Nalle
There's a reason why we need mexican immigrants, Cindy.
Dave
17 - Roger Nowosielski
That's progress for you, Bruno!
18 - Brunelleschi
#16 Dave-
And when they get sick or in an accident, look who screams that they don't have insurance and blames it on them!
19 - Cindy D
There's a reason why we need mexican immigrants...
Yeah, the regular slaves have gotten too uppity.
20 - Clavos
Yeah, the regular slaves have gotten too uppity.
From your POV they may be slaves, but it can be helpful to look at their status from theirs.
At home in Chihuahua or Sonora, they're likely to be unemployed. If they have a job at all, it rarely pays more than $5-10 a day. They come here, they make enough money to send money home to family left behind, and they do so to such a degree that their money collectively is the third largest source for foreign income (after oil and tourism) for the entire country.
You see them as "slaves." They see themselves as workers doing far better than they would at home, and they're glad to be here and to be working.
Which is why they keep coming.
21 - Cindy D
Yeah when you privatize more than half the land people use to live on and then you send in megacorps to undercut their agricultural prices, what else would they have to do but come here?
Problem is they can't just come here. They have to pay dearly to even get here. Then they're "illegal".
Wonder how many end up in the fast growing sex slavery industry?
22 - Dave Nalle
Aha, I have answers for all your quibbles, Cindy.
Yeah when you privatize more than half the land people use to live on and then you send in megacorps to undercut their agricultural prices, what else would they have to do but come here?
Take the relatively high paying jobs those megacorps create in Mexico?
Problem is they can't just come here. They have to pay dearly to even get here. Then they're "illegal".
Then perhaps it's time to have a REAL guest worker program for them.
Wonder how many end up in the fast growing sex slavery industry?
Not a problem if we legalize prostitution and license prostitutes.
Oh yeah, and what do I call people who risk their lives to come here and work hard and live frugally and send money home? I call them the kind of people who built this country.
Dave
23 - Clavos
Yeah when you privatize more than half the land people use to live on and then you send in megacorps to undercut their agricultural prices, what else would they have to do but come here?
Their poverty and lack of work date back to the Revolution started by Madero in 1910 (in fact, it really all dates back to the Conquista); it has little to nothing to do with recent legislation.
24 - Dave Nalle
Ah, the glorious life of a 19th century Mexican peon. They sure had it made.
Dave
25 - bliffle
As an occasional golfer, I'm somewhat in favor of retaining golf courses, but I think it's fair to levy some tax on their use. Most golf courses exist because of local municipal support and land contributions. Often, city golf courses become the only recreation and sport available to town kids. Also, they provide welcome breathing spaces in the cityscape.
Private golf courses and courses out in the country shouldn't be subsidized and it's fair to levy taxes on them.
Of course golf links could be sold off for "higher economic use" but that is quite stupid since it not only removes a recreational facility it also produces another drain on municipal funds since the additional tax revenue is far outweighed by additional municipal costs, such as traffic, services, etc. Even the tax revenue is mitigated by the bribes offered to Box Stores to locate in a community.
As for CA state finances, Arnold has failed to solve our problems. After great fanfare to get elected, the only solution he had for the then deficit was to borrow money, which was the Grey Davis solution anyhow, and it has now come back to haunt us as our payments have soared and our rating has sunk.
But a big menace behind the scenes is Grover Norquist who has twisted the arms of EVERY republican legislator and cajoled them into signing STATEMENTs that they will never vote for a new tax or a tax increase. And they obediently sign, thus displaying their abject slavery to a demagogue and lack of independence. And Norquist doesn't even live in CA!
So the hurt will fall on the people least able to defend themselves: the poor, the lame, the handicapped, the disorganized. Even the middleclass is victimized because they are disorganized.
Many fortunes have been made in CA in the many years I have lived here, and yet services have persistently gone downhill, while the rich people I know have gotten even richer, until their riches are beyond anything I ever imagined. And yet they are parsimonious and fight vigorously against contributing back in to a society that uniquely has given them these opportunities.
It's truly class warfare, and it has been pursued by the people at the top, not people at the bottom. It's disgraceful.