California Republicans Protect Yacht Owners from Sales Taxes
Posted by Matt Ortega on February 21, 2008 at 03:03 PM
California Republicans successfully thwarted an attempt to close the tax loophole for yacht owners. (It was described in the Sacramento Bee as "a loophole that allows purchasers of boats, motor homes and airplanes to take possession outside the state's boundaries and avoid California sales taxes if they leave it out of state for a specified period.")
Assembly Republicans defeated a bill that would close the so-called "sloop hole" that allows owners of yachts and private planes to dodge a use-tax by parking the vehicles out of state for the first three months after purchase.
California loses an estimated $26 million a year because of the current law...
Currently, the state is facing a $14 billion budget deficit. To give you a sense of the misplaced priorities, while California Republicans were protecting yacht owners, hundreds of disabled and seniors rallied at the State Capitol to protest 18 percent cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS).
Local activists have bombarded the state GOP with calls. When they turned off their phones, they found other ways to voice their displeasure.
Comments - 7 »
Comments - 7 «
The Republicans will do anything they can to float the boats of rich contributors.
Remember, we are dealing with the same folks who gave big tax breaks to those that bought gas-guzzling Hummers which other Americans were being underemployed by outsourcing or serving in Iraq in un-armed Hummers.
Posted by SandyH on February 21, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Republicans only support welfare for the rich, not the rest of us!
Posted by Butte on February 21, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Republicans are demagogues, standing steadfastly by their only reason for being, lowering taxes and debilitating public programs which benefit everyone except the wealthy. California is being devastated by the deficit; the prison system, public health, education, medi-cal, programs for the elderly and disabled, public parks, etc. Republicans are steadfast against any increase in any form fees, special interest taxes, tax loophole closures, etc., and have provided no meaningful solutions to this crisis.
This should become a national interest story for the presidential campaign, because this is just a sampling of what repugs want to happen on the national scale. In hard economic times, like we are experiencing here in California and nationally, the repugs thrive because they can achieve across the board cuts in social programs just by refusing to approve any budget enhancements that might save them from severe cuts.
Basically, the repugs care little about public education (vouchers are for the advantage of those already in private schools), health care, local law enforcement, programs for the disabled, elderly and disadvantaged, etc. But threaten to take back the gift of tax breaks for these greedy unpatriotic fat cats, and they'll fight to the finish.
Posted by CalDemo on February 21, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Another form of regressive taxation.
Both tax and subsidy can be hidden, or alienated, by various means.
A flat tax, for example, is mathematically equivalent but proportionally inequitable.
Have to remember that BOTH tax and subsidy can result in a regressive effect. That's why the tax code has to be simplified, not just because it is too complex.
It is impossible for most citizens to assess the effect of tax and subsidy without just knowing that there are no exemptions. No substitute for that. The verification would be a healthy household economy--the economiae.
Very best wishes.
Posted by griffith on February 22, 2008 at 09:45 AM
It will be funny when these people that you tax for everything they buy or do just move out of your state all together and then who are you going to take money from? Maybe if you worked hard enough you could buy a yacht. And I am sure if you bought one you wouldn't want to pay extra money for it. Think about it, they are already paying the people that worked hard to make it for them. Thats how a trade works, you do something for me and I will pay you for it,or, I will do something for you and you pay me for it. Notice that you have to do something first, not just take it from someone that worked for it. I understand we need some taxes because there is people that can't help themselves. But taxing people for everything just because they have money is insane because eventually they wont buy it and thats when hard working people lose their jobs.
Think about it, that means some other states have been making alot of money selling these yachts because people don't want to buy them in california where they cost that much more. The only people your hurting is anyone making yachts in california. Which is a shame because your on the coast where I imagine the demand is alot higher and alot more people could have jobs in your high unemployment state as you would all say. I would say your state made the right choice of not taxing those people because you would be about to lose alot more than 26 million a year out of your state. How about looking at the long term than making everybody happy tomorrow.
Posted by Mod08 on February 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Where is Arnold? Oh, that's right. He probably owns yachts and planes so I don't imagine he'll be rushing to save $26 million for our state. And I thought he'd balance the budget! What waste for those who don't need the savings! Our schools could use some of that money! I think I'll give him a call - California citizens, join me:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160
Posted by SharonJenson on February 29, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Dear Governor:
Recently I discovered that California Assembly Republicans defeated a bill that would close the so-called "sloop hole" that allows owners of yachts and private planes to dodge a use-tax by parking the vehicles out of state for the first three months after purchase.
California loses an estimated $26 million a year because of the current law. Can you explain this wasteful tax break for luxury items while public school children in California are attending schools that must be taught in portables because their buildings are falling apart? Or how about the teacher spending her own earnings, already small enough, on supplies for her classroom that aren't provided by you?
This will not be a pressing issue for you as I am sure you own a yacht and/or a plane. But I am a single mother who cannot afford to fill my gas tank right now, so a few extra dollars for anything in this state would surely help. I have a friend who needs help paying her mortgage if your friends wouldn't mind paying use-tax for their luxury items. Perhaps there could be a compromise; maybe they could split the time. How about limiting the use-tax to 90 days? Then we, the hard working tax payers of California, could recover $13 million.
What a silly, no-brainer way for you to save this state millions of dollars! Could you pass this information along to Maria? Maybe she'll understand it.
Respectfully,
Sharon Jenson
Vacaville, CA
Posted by SharonJenson on February 29, 2008 at 08:34 PM
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.