April 5, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Sheriff’s Department and CHP are making a push this month to cite distracted motorists, including people who text or call on their phone while driving according to KHTS
Ken Pulskamp gets a quote in an AP story about taxing online retailers. Pulskamp doesn’t endorse or reject the idea out of hand but told the AP that taxing online retailers would result in a “lot of money” that could go toward government services that people in places like Santa Clarita are demanding SIGNAL/AP
The owner of Calgrove Kennels is closing his business because dealing with the County, CalTrans, and issues related to the layout of his property have been stressful. He also had a heart attack recently and wants to move out of California. He’s been at the location for 40 years. SIGNAL
Corporate group lobbies to keep perchlorate limits at current levels. A new state study says the limit of perchlorate parts per billion ought to be substantially lowered. SIGNAL
Supervisor Antonovich wants officials at Dodger Stadium to limit alcohol sales and increase security in the wake of the beating of a Giants Fan LA TIMES
Truckers and drviers alike will benefit from HOV and special truck lanes that will be constructed on I5 and the Newhall Pass SIGNAL
LTE Writer says she’s not surprised a homeless woman died in Henry Mayo’s emergency room. She says she witnessed Mayo staff pester a mother about filling out insurance forms while the mother’s baby was sick and needed emergency treatment LTE

Comments (21)

Alan FerdmanApril 5, 2011 at 9:18 am

The idea of adding Sales Tax to internet sales is just another way for governmental agencies to take more of your money. If Ken Pulskamp was not in favor of it, he would not have contributed to the article. Particularly during this time of economic downturn, government should be looking for ways to spend less and forget about adding new tax burdens on our population.

Phil EllisApril 5, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Just because he was quoted in the article he must be in favor How does one jump to such a conclusion?

spineflower2April 5, 2011 at 10:07 am

I’m not for higher taxes, but why are internet sales free of taxes when telephone or mail order sales are not? A decade ago this was instituted to give the fledging internet sales markets a chance to become established. That time has passed, and it’s time to level the playing field.

Phil EllisApril 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm

Not all internet sales are free from taxes. I have paid taxes on many of my purchases.

ToddApril 5, 2011 at 11:00 am

Internet sales are exempt from sales taxes just as mail order is exempt… The business you’re buying from isn’t in the state, so they have no obligation. Obviously, retail stores with operations in California get stuck having to collect taxes online because of this.

Venturan (NDApril 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Yeah, and internet-based companies and their respective affiliates don’t consume ANY of California’s resources in shipping to CA-based customers? Right? Give me a break. Take Amazon: They house data centers here. They have web traffic that is directed from nearly 10,000 affiliates that are homed in CA . They are partnered with UPS for logistics, which is effectively warehousing inventory here. In order for many of these internet companies to compete with their brick and mortar counterparts, they HAVE to have a physical tie here, be it through indirect or direct means. And they are exploiting nexus loopholes to compete primarily on sales tax savings. Well, we’re “saving” ourselves into oblivion. Count Amazon with many others (like legacy Prop 13-protected homeowners and commercial property owners) among those who suck off of our state and don’t pitch in with the rest of us.

spineflower2April 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Residential Prop-13 beneficiaries are a tiny, aged, and generally “low expenditure” people. Business Prop-13 beneficiaries, however, are the problem. Commercial land sells FAR less frequently, and are the true under-valuated class. Changing this does not hurt new startups, who typically sign short-term leases, and do not buy property outright– that would tie up precious capital in a non-income-producing investment. The Old Guard businesses, however, can better aford to pay their fair share.

CCApril 5, 2011 at 7:25 pm

Give me a break. Property tax has contributed an incredible amount of tax revenue with the state and if you look at the actual increase in dollars you wouldn’t be so quick to say that it was a problem. The problem is that the Legislature increased spending in kind and then the housing market tanked. But instead of cutting back spending, they want to find more tax revenue. This tax payer has had enough!

spineflower2April 6, 2011 at 8:02 am

If you look at the real data, the burden of taxation from property taxes has shifted from commercial to residential propoerty in the years since Prop-13 passed. Yet another type of “corporate welfare.” And we hear whining by businesses that Cali is too hard on them. Phooey!

CCApril 6, 2011 at 8:58 am

Prove it your “real data”. Then, let me know why companies are taking their business elsewhere.

spineflower2April 6, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Steve Lopez cited the following in his recent LA Times article: But the most obvious thing to do, he argued, would be to quit giving owners of commercial property the windfall break they’ve gotten under Proposition 13. Lenny Goldberg, of the California Tax Reform Assn., has been lobbying for that very thing for years. “In virtually every county in California,” Goldberg said, “commercial property owners are paying a much smaller portion of the total property tax burden since Proposition 13.” In Los Angeles County, he said, homeowners paid 53% of all property taxes in 1975, but today they pay 69%. Commercial property owners have gone from 46% to 30% . In Orange County, homeowners have gone from 59% of the burden to 72%, while commercial property owners have gone from paying 40% to 27%. One reason is that commercial property doesn’t change hands as often as residential property, so it doesn’t get reassessed as frequently. The other reason, Goldberg said, is that commercial property owners have exploited “huge loopholes” by transferring properties to various partnerships and affiliates and avoiding reassessment. Cracking down on inequities and abuses on the commercial side could reap an additional $8 billion to $10 billion in property tax revenue each year, Goldberg estimated. When I suggested that the business lobby would surely crush any such attempt, he argued that the current system is so inequitable, it saddles new businesses with onerous taxes and stifles economic development. A new gas station, dry cleaner or hotel will pay higher property taxes than competitors who have been in the same neighborhood for years, Goldberg said. High labor rates due to the higher cost of living in California is what drives many away. Environmental regulations also have some impact (by not having the state subsidize environmental problems). The tax claim is a false one.

MikeApril 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm

“You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket. ” -Frank Sobotka

CCApril 6, 2011 at 9:01 am

California ranking is 49th for being business friendly. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22661.html

Venturan (NDApril 7, 2011 at 8:39 am

And it taxes less than Texas : California takes about 4.7% of what a business produces in taxes — which happens to be the national average. The government take is higher in Alaska (13.8%), New York (5.5%) and Florida (5.3%). Even Texas, known for rolling out the red carpet for business, pocketed more than California — 4.9%. That’s according to an annual study of the tax burdens in all 50 states by the Council on State Taxation, a business-friendly group led by senior executives of Chevron Corp., General Electric Co. and other major corporations. “California is pretty middle-of-the-pack when it comes to business taxes,” said Joseph R. Crosby, the organization’s senior director of policy.

JayceApril 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm

I hope you all are reporting what you buy from out of state online when you get your taxes done

LindaApril 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm

The owner of Calgrove Kennels didn’t have a heart attack — he only thought he did. It turned out to be stress.

harryhoudiniApril 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm

Making tax code consistent and applicable to all citizens is certainly a good thing. Focusing on ways to increase taxes by doing this at a time when many are just scraping by should not be the priority of our government. In fact, tax my internet purchases.. I’m fine with that. But then also stop double taxing each time I buy a used car… sales tax was collected on the first purchase, taxation should end there. That kind of pro/con, up/down can continue forever. Solving economic crises, stopping “government shut downs” and circumventing political posturing should be the focus of our so called “elected” officials. At a time when private citizens are having a hard time scraping money together the government should stop focus on what each citizen should do and that is set a budget and stick to it. “Shortfalls” and budget issues amount to nothing more than political and government failure. You have X dollars… spend no more. Oh what? You have debt USA? Ok, SPEND LESS! Sad to think I am being asked to be a responsible citizen.. pay my taxes, pay my bills and mortgage on time and yet my tax dollars are being used frivolously and the budget those tax dollars provide isn’t being adhered to. A budget isn’t something you set and continually go over.

Mr PerezApril 5, 2011 at 10:37 pm

Mr Perez was at Dodger Stadium on Opening Day and there were many incidents where security should’ve removed ppl from the property, not just the stadium itself. Of course they didn’t and easily could report their incident numbers from last year were down dramatically.

LindaApril 6, 2011 at 4:50 am

Someone has been hanging with Petz!

Mr PerezApril 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Hehehehe, initially I was going to refer to myself as simply “Perez” since besides rank, it’s how we address each other in the Army. I opted not to go to that level and fear a copyright lawsuit by Petz lol.

MikeApril 6, 2011 at 6:44 am

I think the Signal got Pulskamp’s quote independently. Papers do that to AP stories sometimes to provide local context. His quote doesn’t appear in the other versions of this article I’ve seen.

Alan FerdmanApril 5, 2011 at 9:18 am
The idea of adding Sales Tax to internet sales is just another way for governmental agencies to take more of your money. If Ken Pulskamp was not in favor of it, he would not have contributed to the article. Particularly during this time of economic downturn, government should be looking for ways to spend less and forget about adding new tax burdens on our population.
Phil EllisApril 5, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Just because he was quoted in the article he must be in favor How does one jump to such a conclusion?
spineflower2April 5, 2011 at 10:07 am
I’m not for higher taxes, but why are internet sales free of taxes when telephone or mail order sales are not? A decade ago this was instituted to give the fledging internet sales markets a chance to become established. That time has passed, and it’s time to level the playing field.
Phil EllisApril 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Not all internet sales are free from taxes. I have paid taxes on many of my purchases.
ToddApril 5, 2011 at 11:00 am
Internet sales are exempt from sales taxes just as mail order is exempt… The business you’re buying from isn’t in the state, so they have no obligation. Obviously, retail stores with operations in California get stuck having to collect taxes online because of this.
Venturan (NDApril 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Yeah, and internet-based companies and their respective affiliates don’t consume ANY of California’s resources in shipping to CA-based customers? Right? Give me a break. Take Amazon: They house data centers here. They have web traffic that is directed from nearly 10,000 affiliates that are homed in CA . They are partnered with UPS for logistics, which is effectively warehousing inventory here. In order for many of these internet companies to compete with their brick and mortar counterparts, they HAVE to have a physical tie here, be it through indirect or direct means. And they are exploiting nexus loopholes to compete primarily on sales tax savings. Well, we’re “saving” ourselves into oblivion. Count Amazon with many others (like legacy Prop 13-protected homeowners and commercial property owners) among those who suck off of our state and don’t pitch in with the rest of us.
spineflower2April 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Residential Prop-13 beneficiaries are a tiny, aged, and generally “low expenditure” people. Business Prop-13 beneficiaries, however, are the problem. Commercial land sells FAR less frequently, and are the true under-valuated class. Changing this does not hurt new startups, who typically sign short-term leases, and do not buy property outright– that would tie up precious capital in a non-income-producing investment. The Old Guard businesses, however, can better aford to pay their fair share.
CCApril 5, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Give me a break. Property tax has contributed an incredible amount of tax revenue with the state and if you look at the actual increase in dollars you wouldn’t be so quick to say that it was a problem. The problem is that the Legislature increased spending in kind and then the housing market tanked. But instead of cutting back spending, they want to find more tax revenue. This tax payer has had enough!
spineflower2April 6, 2011 at 8:02 am
If you look at the real data, the burden of taxation from property taxes has shifted from commercial to residential propoerty in the years since Prop-13 passed. Yet another type of “corporate welfare.” And we hear whining by businesses that Cali is too hard on them. Phooey!
CCApril 6, 2011 at 8:58 am
Prove it your “real data”. Then, let me know why companies are taking their business elsewhere.
spineflower2April 6, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Steve Lopez cited the following in his recent LA Times article: But the most obvious thing to do, he argued, would be to quit giving owners of commercial property the windfall break they’ve gotten under Proposition 13. Lenny Goldberg, of the California Tax Reform Assn., has been lobbying for that very thing for years. “In virtually every county in California,” Goldberg said, “commercial property owners are paying a much smaller portion of the total property tax burden since Proposition 13.” In Los Angeles County, he said, homeowners paid 53% of all property taxes in 1975, but today they pay 69%. Commercial property owners have gone from 46% to 30% . In Orange County, homeowners have gone from 59% of the burden to 72%, while commercial property owners have gone from paying 40% to 27%. One reason is that commercial property doesn’t change hands as often as residential property, so it doesn’t get reassessed as frequently. The other reason, Goldberg said, is that commercial property owners have exploited “huge loopholes” by transferring properties to various partnerships and affiliates and avoiding reassessment. Cracking down on inequities and abuses on the commercial side could reap an additional $8 billion to $10 billion in property tax revenue each year, Goldberg estimated. When I suggested that the business lobby would surely crush any such attempt, he argued that the current system is so inequitable, it saddles new businesses with onerous taxes and stifles economic development. A new gas station, dry cleaner or hotel will pay higher property taxes than competitors who have been in the same neighborhood for years, Goldberg said. High labor rates due to the higher cost of living in California is what drives many away. Environmental regulations also have some impact (by not having the state subsidize environmental problems). The tax claim is a false one.
MikeApril 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm
“You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket. ” -Frank Sobotka
CCApril 6, 2011 at 9:01 am
California ranking is 49th for being business friendly. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22661.html
Venturan (NDApril 7, 2011 at 8:39 am
And it taxes less than Texas : California takes about 4.7% of what a business produces in taxes — which happens to be the national average. The government take is higher in Alaska (13.8%), New York (5.5%) and Florida (5.3%). Even Texas, known for rolling out the red carpet for business, pocketed more than California — 4.9%. That’s according to an annual study of the tax burdens in all 50 states by the Council on State Taxation, a business-friendly group led by senior executives of Chevron Corp., General Electric Co. and other major corporations. “California is pretty middle-of-the-pack when it comes to business taxes,” said Joseph R. Crosby, the organization’s senior director of policy.
JayceApril 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm
I hope you all are reporting what you buy from out of state online when you get your taxes done
LindaApril 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm
The owner of Calgrove Kennels didn’t have a heart attack — he only thought he did. It turned out to be stress.
harryhoudiniApril 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Making tax code consistent and applicable to all citizens is certainly a good thing. Focusing on ways to increase taxes by doing this at a time when many are just scraping by should not be the priority of our government. In fact, tax my internet purchases.. I’m fine with that. But then also stop double taxing each time I buy a used car… sales tax was collected on the first purchase, taxation should end there. That kind of pro/con, up/down can continue forever. Solving economic crises, stopping “government shut downs” and circumventing political posturing should be the focus of our so called “elected” officials. At a time when private citizens are having a hard time scraping money together the government should stop focus on what each citizen should do and that is set a budget and stick to it. “Shortfalls” and budget issues amount to nothing more than political and government failure. You have X dollars… spend no more. Oh what? You have debt USA? Ok, SPEND LESS! Sad to think I am being asked to be a responsible citizen.. pay my taxes, pay my bills and mortgage on time and yet my tax dollars are being used frivolously and the budget those tax dollars provide isn’t being adhered to. A budget isn’t something you set and continually go over.
Mr PerezApril 5, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Mr Perez was at Dodger Stadium on Opening Day and there were many incidents where security should’ve removed ppl from the property, not just the stadium itself. Of course they didn’t and easily could report their incident numbers from last year were down dramatically.
LindaApril 6, 2011 at 4:50 am
Someone has been hanging with Petz!
Mr PerezApril 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Hehehehe, initially I was going to refer to myself as simply “Perez” since besides rank, it’s how we address each other in the Army. I opted not to go to that level and fear a copyright lawsuit by Petz lol.
MikeApril 6, 2011 at 6:44 am
I think the Signal got Pulskamp’s quote independently. Papers do that to AP stories sometimes to provide local context. His quote doesn’t appear in the other versions of this article I’ve seen.