Why Can States Delay Your Refunds?
by Big Dog on Feb 16, 2009 at 20:05 Political
First it was the state of California and now it is Kansas. These states are issuing IOUs for taxpayer refunds because they are out of money. A refund means that the taxpayer paid too much in and if that is the case why does the state not have the money? It is quite simple to answer. The states spend the money when it comes in and they have little regard for the budgetary process.
It is interesting to note that states with problems are run by Democrats either as the governor or as a majority in the legislature or both as in the state of Maryland whose fiscal mismanagement has led the politicians to depend on pork from the stimulus bill to avoid laying off employees.
Yes, the governor of California is a registered Republican and that is as far as he goes. He is a RINO and the state is run by Democrats who turn a blind eye to illegal immigration and tax residents and businesses so heavily that they pack up and leave. California is on the verge of financial collapse and it is mostly due to unsound fiscal policy and burdensome taxation.
I want to know what gives the state the right to delay paying you YOUR money? If you owe taxes they want them right away. Delay in paying your fair share will result in penalties and interest. Will these states pay penalties and interest to the people who are owed money?
Interestingly, a report from July 2008 discussed states with looming financial problems and several were noted as being financially strong:
States where the housing market is in a slump also are facing severe financial challenges, including California, Delaware, Florida and Massachusetts. To address the issue, many states have reduced their current-year revenue forecasts, in some cases several times.
However, says National Conference of State Legislatures Executive Director William “Bill” Pound, energy producing states appear to have a strong fiscal situation and a good outlook for fiscal year 2009.
This, Pound says, is the case for states like Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Louisiana and Texas — though those states have no personal income tax or corporate income tax. San Antonio Business Journal
Several things come into play. The states doing well are energy producers. In addition, they have no personal or corporate income tax. States without energy production facilities would still benefit if they reduced personal and corporate taxes. Texas has done well for quite some time and a recent report indicates that even though the state feels the economic distress it is doing well because of sound fiscal policy.
States like Kansas and California would do well to pay attention. Imagine how well California could be doing if it allowed offshore drilling for the abundance of oil under its property. It would also do the state well to reduce taxes on its citizens and the businesses that remain there. Tax cuts always increase revenue. If the revenue is not spent recklessly then the result is good. Unfortunately, most politicians have not grasped that concept.
The federal government would have done well to follow the model of Texas and the others. Instead of canceling the oil exploration and drilling leases the feds should have gone ahead with it. That industry would produce plenty of jobs and it would help the economy. The stimulus should have included a reduction in the corporate tax rate. I think it should have been suspended for a year and then brought back to half of what it is now.
This would have stimulated the economy. However, the goal of the bill was not so much to stimulate the economy as it was to put special projects into place and to pay off political supporters. Very little in the bill will stimulate and certainly not nearly as much as cutting taxes and increasing domestic energy exploration and production.
Just ask Texas.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: california, fiscal, kansas, liberals, refunds, states, taxes, texas
I moved from California last year, it is appalling what is happening there, when you are in downtown LA, you would think you were in Mexico City, I would not be surprised if the ridiculously left were not sending a bus to the border with box lunches. People in other states just do not realize what is happening there, and the mexican gangs are flourishing, thanks to it being a sancturary city, just as much as San Francisco is. Hospitals are going out of business, the law needs to be changed re: anchor babies, there is no longer a reason for this law.
I for one am actually hoping California fails. It’s time to quit subsidizing failure.
On another note, I’m hoping that a taxpayer in California or Kansas sues their state government for withholding the taxpayer’s money.
“I for one am actually hoping California fails.”
How revoltingly un-American. I’ll bet you’re with Rush the doper Limbaugh in hoping that Obama fails too, right? And you probably were one of the “real Americans” questioning the patriotism of those asking any questions whatsoever regarding Iraq. Joke.
Bunny, you are aware that Limbaugh said he hoped the president failed with regard to his policies, right? You do know that he said I support the president but not his policies and I want him to fail if it means imposing his policies, right?
If you are going to quote then use the whole thing.
I do not want Obama to succeed with regard to his policies because I do not agree with them. I know you were one of the BDS sufferers who wanted Bush to fail. You were happy any time there was a setback and you fought the things he wanted to do.
How is that any different?
As for California, I want them to solve their own problems. The federal government does not belong bailing out states any more than it belongs bailing out private business. That is our money.
California will have to make tough decisions to get better just as you or I would if our budgets were out of control.
Dog, you really dig yourself holes sometimes. None other than Pat Robertson criticized Rush the Doper Limbaugh for the comments in a recent right wing rag…
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/2/17/exclusive-pat-robertson-says-obama-showing-partisanship-denounces-rush-limbaughs-i-hope-he-fails-remark.html
If Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for the REAL (r)epuke party, then I don’t know who the hell does. If you ain’t with Pat, you must be with that commie Specter.
I am not with Pat. And I heard the Rush show in question and I read the transcript. I know what the man said.
He supports the president but not his policies. There is nothing wrong with that right? You know, I support the troops but not the war, and all…
If you’re not with Pat, you might as well be with the terr’sts.
I agree with some of his views but not all of them. However, I will NEVER be with the terrorists. I am an American patriot.
Hoping Obamas policies fail is hoping that Obama fails.
Dog-
I learned years ago that you are either with us (Robertson, Bush, Cheney, Foley, David Vitter, Haggard) or you’re with the terr’sts. There are no if, and or buts about it.
If you still expect to lead this “revolution” of yours, you’d better get with the program.
Bunny, you are either with us (AMERICA) or you are with the terrorists.
I can see how you would have trouble with that. You are a liberal so you are use to conservatives defending what you hold dear.
I do not have a revolution. I merely stated that one day we will have another one or another civil war.
Of course, I can understand how you would miss that because you are not very good at attention to detail and you have a Kool Aid IV.
Randy, thanks for clearing it up. You have now admitted that liberals do not support the troops. Not supporting the war means not supporting the troops. Traitors.
I admitted no such thing. I don’t remember ever hearing any significant ‘liberal’ spokesperson say about George W. Bush, and I quote, “I hope he fails”, when the Iraq war was started. Much less made the insinuation that they hoped the troops would fail in the mission they were given. Disagreeing with a policy and hoping it fails are two very different things.
And just to be clear with how flawed your logic is here, the troops didn’t make the policy to invade Iraq.
You said that hoping Obama’s policies fail is hoping that he fails. The logic would be not supporting the war means you do not support the troops.
Once can hope he is successful but hope that his policies fail especially if one believes that not doing his policies will make him more successful. You also seem to mix the man with the nation. I want my nation to succeed. He just happens to be the head of it. I don’t care if he succeeds as long as the nation does. And no, the success of the nation is not equal to him succeeding. If his spendathon had failed but the nation pulled out of the recession then his policy would have failed and the nation succeeded.
How is Obama successful if his policies fail?
On another point, I think the war in Iraq was very wrongheaded. I have also directly supported the troops.
Round and round we go. Dog’s “logic” is starting to give me a headache. How is one supposed to respond to a comment like this?…
“Once can hope he is successful but hope that his policies fail especially if one believes that not doing his policies will make him more successful.”
I don’t even understand what is being said. Dog, are you a closet ESL student? Good grief.
I will type slower for you Bunny. It all depends on what your definition of success is. I don’t think success is generations of debt, increased welfare, bailouts of the banking industry, Wall Street, states, or people.
So if he fails at doing those things America will succeed.
As I stated, it depends upon your definition of success.
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Have any other readers heard from Scottie or Swines? I’m ready for some REAL debate around here. Those guys just don’t post anymore since the whoopin.
Dog- Obviously, you are with the terr’sts. We are talking about Pat f’n Robertson here. Who the hell are you to question him?
And another thing. I was gone awhile, but it appears one thing hasn’t changed. Carla is still whining about her miserable time in California. Look, I get it. You didn’t like it out there. Those pesky Mexicans and all the other business. Well listen sister, I don’t blame you for leaving. But enough with the whining about it. I’ve lived in some hellholes in this great land of ours myself. But nobody wants to hear it. Time to MoveOn.
Sebelius signed the KS bill from the Republican led Congress in Topeka to cut $325 billion in spending from the current budget then she went on a Rob Peter to Pay Paul excursion through other parts of the Kansas state budget to pay tax refunds and employees to the tune of $225 billion…basically they did an internal loan which must be paid by itself!
Can I get on your blog roll? I will gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you! I am a Navy veteran who served 13 year (Clinton told me bye bye!)…now I am a 100% disabled veteran, who has been labeled a right wing blogger! I am proud of that moniker and resemble it too!