Skip to comments.
L.A. to Sue Calif. Over Lost Car Tax Revenues
Reuters ^
| Dec 16, 2003
| Reuters
Posted on 12/17/2003 2:45:35 PM PST by mac_truck
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles City Council and county Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday to sue the state of California to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues lost when newly installed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rescinded an unpopular increase in car taxes.
The two councils authorized their attorneys to join other municipalities seeking to restore the lost funds, which in Los Angeles County amounts to $2 million a day and is used to pay for fire and police services.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: arnold; budget; california; cartax; lawsuit; losangeles
Is there some rule that says municipalities have to cut essential services first when they face budget shortfalls?
1
posted on
12/17/2003 2:45:35 PM PST
by
mac_truck
To: mac_truck
Does this mean we can now sue the government for lost revenues due to taxes out of our paychecks?
2
posted on
12/17/2003 2:47:04 PM PST
by
zandtar
(He who does not punish evil commands it to be done - Leonardo Da Vinci)
To: mac_truck
The Los Angeles City Council and county Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday to sue the state of California to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues lost when newly installed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rescinded an unpopular increase in car taxes. Leave it to the Leftists to try (once again) to use the courts as their Trump Card!
Don't these morons understand that the tripled car tax would have been ruled illegal and they would have had to fork over those "hundreds of millions of dollars" eventually anyway? Better that they had to give it up now than later!
Besides, I've seen how the City of L.A. spends its money. The funds are definitely better off in the hands of private citizens!
3
posted on
12/17/2003 2:49:51 PM PST
by
Prime Choice
(Leftist opinions may be free, but I still feel like I'm getting ripped off every time I receive one.)
To: mac_truck
ROTFLMAO.....
To: zandtar
My understanding is that the CA state constitution explicitly states that the revenue raised from the VLF belong to local government.
My beef is with the local governemnts who, when faced with a budget shortfall start with essential services and work backwords.
5
posted on
12/17/2003 2:52:51 PM PST
by
mac_truck
(Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: mac_truck
Is there some rule that says municipalities have to cut essential services first when they face budget shortfalls? Well, it seems they don't cut back on lawyers first.
To: mac_truck
Well, you don't expect them to lay off all of the $100,000/year Democratic Party operatives on the city payroll, do you?
To: Blue Screen of Death
I'd prefer an across the board reduction. Like every department cuts 5% or something like that.
9
posted on
12/17/2003 2:58:23 PM PST
by
mac_truck
(Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
To: All
Thread continues over
here
10
posted on
12/17/2003 3:02:35 PM PST
by
mac_truck
(Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
To: mac_truck
How else would they be able to scare people into believing higher taxes are a necessity?
To: mac_truck
Can't the county of L.A. just raise their own taxes to compensate for this?
12
posted on
12/17/2003 4:15:05 PM PST
by
perfect stranger
(No tag line today. Tag line yesterday, tag line tomorrow, but no tag line today.)
To: Still Thinking
bingo
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson