US - California politician proposes tax on email

[Dranio]

I've had no issues with packages from UPS or USPS myself. However, 1 out of every 2 packages from Fed-EX, for me at least, always gets lost in transit.

[Skjie]

I'd love to know how they plan to enforce such a law.

Let's focus more on this one. How do you enforce this? Giant spam blockers with credit card inputs?

[Kerberoz]

I prefer USPS to UPS. They always come at the same hour and don't make me sign for shit worth $10. Fuck UPS.

The only time I don't trust USPS is if it's something live that's worth more than $20 or so.

[Pikarya]

All parcel companies in the US are horrible. Even though USPS is a complete pile of steaming shit at least they require a warrant before opening a package. Fuck UPS and Fed-Ex.

[Ksandra]

Let's focus more on this one. How do you enforce this? Giant spam blockers with credit card inputs?

You don't. California is just so poor and have no idea on what to do about it.

[Kohan]

You don't. California is just so poor and have no idea on what to do about it.

In terms of overall spending practices and money management, California isn't nearly as out of line as sensationalist coverage implies it is.

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/Califor...udgetmyths.pdf

If anything, I normally view half-assed cash-grabs like this as supportive arguments for legalizing gay marriage and marijuana use. If you want to make money off of something, why not have it be something that everyone wants?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,2533952.story

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...migration.html

An email tax, on the other hand, will probably make computer-literate users balk, while everyone else will just be confused.

[Plow]

That is my favorite part. I'd really like to see them try and control this asinine idea of email taxation. Sad to say but fk the Post Office, millions of dollars to fund them to lose my packages and not give me refunds. Let em burn.

you're aware we haven't given the post office shit in like 30 years, right?

[Ksandra]

In terms of overall spending practices and money management, California isn't nearly as out of line as sensationalist coverage implies it is.

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/Califor...udgetmyths.pdf

Well, my comment encompasses not just spending, but how much they have to spend in the first place. I find it interesting in the link that they compare a lot of california's spending to education (stating things like k-12 education's budget is 4 times as much as their prison's budget), but then points out that the overall money spent on education is lower than the country's average (which is crazy to me when I think of the midwest states).

When it compares California to other states it looks like it is comparing a percentage based on how much they spend of what they have, without addressing how much California actually has compared to other states. So that chart doesn't necessarily prove California isn't poor, just that we aren't overdoing what we have.

[Kerberoz]

Get rid of religious exemptions for property taxes and California would be so far in the black it's almost scary.

[Ksandra]

Or just legalize/tax marijuana.

[Kohan]

Or just legalize/tax marijuana.

Or do all three of the suggested things at once, and make California a really fucking happy state.

As for the matter of how much California has to spend in the first place, in basically every respect, California manages its money as well as every other highly-populated state in the Union. In fact, for all of their hootin' and hollerin', Texas is statistically worse off than California is.

Meanwhile, those middle-of-nowhere states you referred to spend more money on their schools because they've truthfully got very little to spend their money on. There's nothing in them, and the amount of schools they have is piddling. For the most part, they have no debt.

[Ksandra]

Meanwhile, those middle-of-nowhere states you referred to spend more money on their schools because they've truthfully got very little to spend their money on. There's nothing in them, and the amount of schools they have is piddling. For the most part, they have no debt.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Unless you are suggesting that Kansas has state-of-the-art classrooms with pcs for every student. The chart is talking about per student, and what most schools give is not nearly enough, and california is giving even less. Yet that is one of their highest expenditures.

As well, California has the highest debt over any state:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1836603.html

While, understandably, that is not per capita, and California is fucking huge, it's still debt that it has to pay off. Now, for sure it does seem like we're slowly climbing out of it, but still considering our current status, I would still definitely say we are poor.

[edit] holy fuck that's a lot of "still". That's what I get for posting while healing raids.

[archibaldcrane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor..._13_%281978%29

The root of most of California's revenue problems.

[Kohan]

Consider this list, which was a fiscal year ranking projection for all fifty states:

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/st...nk-85899375024

As for Kansas in particular (which has a smaller total population than Los Angeles), they do spend about a thousand more per year per student than California does. Of course, they have far less money to operate with overall, much like all of the other states with smaller populations and appropriately smaller budgets. So, proportionally, that thousand more per year per student amounts to a large chunk of their money being spent—even if their teachers are apparently terrible. That we manage to get so much to our students when we have literally many millions more is—in perspective—impressive, not sad.

The original point, though, was that California really doesn't have a noteworthy degree of difference separating it from other states, and how they manage their budgets. We really aren't any poorer than any other state in the Union when the big picture is considered, and in a lot of ways, we're actually richer. For example, look at the bottom of the list provided above to see who isn't in debt, and then look at this:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...-in-the-union/

Also, for bonus points, I have to quote one of the posts from the comments:

Say what they will, but Californicate has to be the most poverty ridden state in the union because the debt they have will come due and I’m not paying for it. For a bonus they are the most morally bankrupt state in the union. I would live in NC any day before I would ever live in the communist Repuplic of Californicate.

So good. Who needs facts when you have phrases like "morally bankrupt" to throw around? I can just feel them seething with envy.

Returning to the point, though: California isn't really "poor." It has debt, but so does every other state that isn't a dried-up backwoods turd. It's mocked because its debt looks so large (and it is), but when put into perspective, it's nothing like the world-ending catastrophe it's claimed to be. Considering how incredibly large and highly populated California is, it's run well.

[Qalbert]

but what are the milk futures

[Ksandra]

Returning to the point, though: California isn't really "poor." It has debt, but so does every other state that isn't a dried-up backwoods turd. It's mocked because its debt looks so large (and it is), but when put into perspective, it's nothing like the world-ending catastrophe it's claimed to be. Considering how incredibly large and highly populated California is, it's run well.

I don't want this to drag on as it's really coming down to a semantics argument now. You are saying that it isn't poor because everyone is in debt. I would just say that means everyone is poor. I never said we were the worst, btw. This is coming down to a glass is half full/half empty argument.

[Uzor]

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind this? How often do you actually send more than 1gb worth of email messages per month?

As for schools, how the fuck can your schools not afford 1 computer per student? Swedish schools in Stockholm are giving away free MacBook Airs to every student that enrolls.

[archibaldcrane]

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind this? How often do you actually send more than 1gb worth of email messages per month?

As for schools, how the fuck can your schools not afford 1 computer per student? Swedish schools in Stockholm are giving away free MacBook Airs to every student that enrolls.

Perhaps you should become accustomed to the differences between the Swedish and American tax codes.

[Uzor]

I fail to see how the tax code difference would make a large difference on the 1 cent/1 gb of data.

Yes, it would matter on the school computer part, but computers are cheap. I fail to see how schools can't afford an old computer in this day and age.

[Ksandra]

lol, most of the schools I've worked at in both CA and CT have a computer lab with about 30-40 old ass computers and then one computer per classroom.

In the school I student taught at (a charter) the computers' keyboards didn't even work half the time. Kids had to like smash the keys to get them to register.

Yet, they spent a fuckton on giving every teacher a Promethean Board, without any training. Why? because those boards are enticing to get sponsors, because those sponsors won't ever touch the comp keyboards to know just how bad they are.