Does it take a rocket scientist to realize that if California legalized and taxed Marijuana and legalized gay weddings, they'd have their budget back in balance in a year?

Comments

• California's never been normal :D

  • Report
  

  by Piano Player on July 29th, 2009

Comments

• This question was just about the economics of it all. The AVERAGE wedding in the US costs $21,000, but most gay couples are two income households and presumably can spend more discretionarily on things like weddings. The difference relative to the ceremony is that in weddings there are likely halls and limousines rented, flowers purchased, fancy suits purchased, all of which are taxed. 10,000 weddings at $40,000 each is $400,000,000, and that's a very substantial amount of new revenue and taxes into the California coffers.

  • Report
  

  by Piano Player on July 29th, 2009

• Well, in all honesty, I could care less about the econommics with respect to the increased revenue brought in by gay weddings.
  .
  The point with homosexual marriage has been the legal recognition necessary for homosexual couples to enjoy the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples...like insurance, medical benefits, ans so on. That's a multi Billion dollar group of benefits which could pay out directly to homosexual people.
  .
  Homosexual people can STILL have all the ceremonies they want...and pay for them just like regular couples. So the economy still benefits from their expenditures, like you pointed out above. The problem is that the marriages aren't recognized legally. So they don't reap any of the financial benefits that legally married people do.
  .
  D*mn good points, though. +5

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on July 29th, 2009

• I have never seen a heterosexual couple spend $40,000 to celebrate them "just living together," whereas it's fairly common if they are celebrating a wedding. So I suspect there is a real economic impact to this decision.

  • Report
  

  by Piano Player on July 29th, 2009

• Thos that "just live together" do not, no matter what their sexual orientation.
  .
  Doubtless, there will be a real economic impact...but it pales to insignificance when compared to the Billions in direct benefits homosexuals will be entitled to under a legal civil marriage.
  .
  But again...you are correct. And those in the industries supporting marriages will definately see it.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on July 29th, 2009

• You know, in fairness, Chief, the question referred to the potential impact on the California State budget on the MJ issue, where your response focused on the cost to "consumers."
  .
  Hey, maybe that's the name the campaign to legalize the stuff should take on: "Turning Users into Consumers."
  .
  I don't use (or consume) the stuff myself but, even as a liberal, I have to say that if it were legalized in California, it would be really, really entertaining to watch the ensuing impassioned debate over the standards for who could, or could not, label their pot as "organic." That would definitely call for a great big bowl of popcorn and at least a six pack of beer.
  .
  On the marriage issue, the financial impact might not be as large as you think. California would benefit as a "wedding destination" location only to the extent that other states didn't allow civil marriage. That is still a big list, though.
  .
  (more)

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on July 29th, 2009

• But on the benefits cost issue, there are two questions that I do not know the answer to.
  .
  First, the biggest cost would likely be family coverage on health insurance policies (CA's domestic partnership statute already allows that -- although the cost is considered taxable income for the domestic partner of the employee, while it is not treated that way for a spouse). But a huge proportion of gay and lesbian households are two-earner families -- so most get their health insurance through their individual employers. I'm sure there would be changes as couples decided to both be covered under whichever policy provided the best benefits at the lowest cost.
  .
  But, in most cases, I suspect that the cost impact will result from the differential between two existing policies rather than from a shift to coverage from non-coverage of one party.
  .
  (more)

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on July 29th, 2009

• I just don't know where that will fall.
  .
  And, second, because of the "previously unrecognized two-earner family" issue, I just don't know how big an impact there will be.
  .
  From the perspective of a business covering an employee, one of the things that employees are theoretically working for is health and benefits coverage for their families in addition to themselves.
  .
  So, there's really no difference between hiring a straight kid out of college who isn't married yet and hiring a gay kid out of college who isn't married yet. There doubtless will be some impact from the accumulated backlog of gay couples who wanted to get married, but couldn't, but I'm not sure how large that would be.

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on July 29th, 2009

• That's pretty interesting, Chris.
  .
  In all honesty, I really didn't answer the question with respect to the CA budget.
  .
  And here's my take on that: Historically speaking, the government will take ANY additional income they get, from whatever sources, and find ways to spend the f*ck out of it until they end up exactly where they were in the first place. There is rarely any interest in changing the status quo significantly, with respect to the budget and debts.
  .
  Case in point: state backed lotteries which support education in their respective states: hundreds of millions of dollars generated from those annually...and what happens? They end up being an excuse for the states to cut back on their funding from taxes, maintaining the status quo of the financial status of the educational system, so they can waste the money on other stuff, which ends up not significantly affecting the status quo of the rest of the states budget.
  .
  What do the educational systems get out of it? NOTHING any different than before.
  .
  What do the state budgets and debts get out of it? NOTHING any different than before.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on July 29th, 2009

• This is why I have absolutely NO confidence that changes in the way MJ and gay marriages will benefit the state's budget or debts.
  .
  PERIOD.
  .
  :):):)

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on July 29th, 2009

• yeah it would because bud wouldnt cost more or the same as cigs because it grows way faster and under any climate.

  • Report
  

  by mirror I rorrim on July 30th, 2009

• You miss the point, my friend.
  .
  MJ contains a hallucinogen, whereas tobacco does not. This means MJ would have to have FAR more stringent regulations on it before it could be legally sold, because if not, the governments open themselves up to Billions of dollars in lawsuits for anything which happens involving people under the influence of it, like accidents.
  .
  That alone will drive the cost of MJ way up, FAR more than it's current street value.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on July 30th, 2009

Comments

• It sure would! Though they already legalized medical marijuana so it wouldn't be as big a leap.

  • Report
  

  by Piano Player on July 28th, 2009

• It's well past time to legalize it.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on July 28th, 2009

Comments

• See the comment on The Chief's posting, for an economic look at it.
  thanks :D

  • Report
  

  by Piano Player on July 29th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• And they are?

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 28th, 2009

• SPI 1.5 Million Acres.
  Irvine Company a housing developer 1.2 Million Acres.
  Southern Pacific railroad 32,000 miles of track.
  .
  Prop 13 prevents them from paying a single dime in property taxes.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 28th, 2009

• What's SPI-something to do with Southern Pacific? I'm afraid the railroads got a big break when they were given the land in return for developing the infrastructure 150 years ago-a deal's a deal.
  How's the Irvine Company ducking it. I know who they are and isn't the majority of The Irvine Company's land actually reserved as open space?
  These companies are public. I think if you look at their financial statements you'll see that even taking 100% of their income won't solve California's budget problems. And if they're not going to pay property taxes from income how are they going to pay it-sell off the roadbed mile by mile?
  (By the way, I'm not a screaming right winger-I wouldn't have voted or Governor Arnold if you put a gun to my head and I have an MBA from Berkeley)

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 28th, 2009

• Actually I spoke too soon about the ownership status of Southern Pacific Rail and Irvine Co. The are both privately held. I suspect that my analysis is still correct in that the number I keep hearing about the CA budget shortfall is around $40 Bil. Just because someone has some undeveloped real estate doesn't mean they have $40 Bil. laying around.

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 28th, 2009

• You understanding falls a little short. Prop 13 passed in 1978. It excluded railroads and other large land owners from having to pay property taxes. Nothing about infrastructure from 150 years ago.
  .
  And now rather than assume a single 40 Billion dollar pay out. You extrapolate the amount they would have payed over the last 30 years and you'll see that that extra money could have been used to pay for projects that instead went into bond measures who's tax burden we're still paying. And who's long term fiscal impact would have not only have lowered our current deficit(this years taxes), but through years prior by(hopefully) preventing previous "payday loans" we'd actually be solvent.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 28th, 2009