The critters will take advantage of what ever we plant with certain exceptions… like rocks, dead branches of anything and similar non-productive goodies.

Jackrabbits seem to love poisonous oleanders…creosote… Cottontails shun ‘em. Cottontails will eat Texas Sages, mesquite tree saplings and hanging branches, red-yucca, beaver tail cactus… and the list goes on. This is especially true during prolonged droughts and our winter seasons. And, this “spring” there is no dandelions, or other seasonal flowering plants or native grasses for them to munch on so they go for what ever is available. In fact, my rescued tortoise (now 5 yrs old) has no native foliage to munch on… only store bought stuff.

I put out a mix of birdseed and rabbit pellets in about 4 or 5 distant locations from my “garden” along with a low-boy ground level birdbath for water. The critters tend to stay away from my “garden”… with exception of the Jacks messing with my oleanders and cultivated creosotes.

Wire cages around some plants works too, but not a good sight to be looked upon. So, we take what ever measures are available to thwart total destruction and yet provide some kind of landscaping interest.

–BF
I guess I could plant rocks and eliminate all that nonsense.

We all love both species that share our planet. Here is how I have dealt with the problem. It has taken me 11 years to understand exactly sort of plants will survives droughts, floods, funky climate anomalies and hungry bunnies.
Everybody I know comments on my landscape. It is certainly nothing fancy… just a selection of the right plants. I water my plants sometimes. Maybe twice a year. No bunny problems.

Truth be to point and according to photographer Charlie… NO. And, bunny will not be eating Charlie’s plants either.

–BF

My personal comment? Just like any other government or “big biz” that controls the public at large, “… we’ll upgrade your stuff with new modern equipment and if you don’t want the upgrade, you can “opt-out” but, we’ll charge you additional fees and monthly charges until you give in.”
–BF

A few days ago, I tested TURBOTAX software for a relatively simple federal and state income tax return. During the process, and only on the STATE return for California, the software asks (paraphrased) “did you purchase any taxible goods from out-of-state on which you did NOT pay sales or use taxes?” The permitted responses were either yes or no. Having responded with “no”, I continued on with the balance of the software’s process of completing the state tax return. On completion, I examined the “form 540″ and observed that “line 95″ remained blank. Further examination of the remainder of the state documents revealed “no automatic implementation” of an arbitrary USE TAX.

Therefore Mr Schaefer, your suggestion that a taxpayer can enter “zero” as the USE TAX as you suggested, which apparently results in “no use tax obligation”.

For persons who prepare their own returns without the use of intellegent software to walk them through the often complex procedures, many will end up using the tax table as the lesser of two evils. Generally, 68% of all California tax returns are prepared either by software or a professional tax preparation facility.

Thanks for the comment.

Overall, I agree with you in principle, excluding your thought of “misrepresentation of the FTB’s position.”

Where taxpayer may enter “zero” on line 95 of the Calif Form 540 (et al), that in itself is not clear. The state is “assuming” that “everyone” has purchased “something” and didn’t reimburse the seller for sales tax, and therefore, owes the state a “use tax” in the same amount as would have been the appropriate “sales tax” amount.

The California Income Tax return instructions, commencing on page 14 (top right) of the instructions and continuing through page 15 follows:

Estimated Use Tax Table
You may use the Estimated Use Tax Table to estimate and report the use tax due on individual non-business items you purchased for less than $1,000 each,[note 1] instead of reporting your use tax liability determined using the Use Tax Worksheet. This option is only available if you are permitted to report use tax on your income tax return and you are not required to use the Use Tax Worksheet to calculate the use tax owed on the purchases of such items. Simply include the use tax liability, that corresponds to your California Adjusted Gross Income, on line 95 [note 2] and you will not be assessed additional use tax on the individual non-business items you purchased for less than $1,000 each.

You may not use the Estimated Use Tax Table to estimate and report the use tax due on purchases of items for use in your business or on purchases of individual non-business items you purchased for $1000 or more each. See the instructions for the Use Tax Worksheet if you have a combination of purchases of individual non-business items for less than $1,000 each and purchases of individual non-business items for more than $1,000.

California Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Range Use Tax Liability
Less Than $20,000 $ 7
$20,000 to $39,999 $ 21
$40,000 to $59,999 $ 35
$60,000 to $79,999 $ 49
$80,000 to $99,999 $ 63
$100,000 to $149,999 $ 88
$150,000 to $199,999 $123
More than $199,999 – Multiply AGI by 0.070% (.0007)

NOTES:
Note 1: “for purchases of items less than $1,000 each…” Well, that includes the 25 CENT drinking glass bought at a yard sale.

Note 2: “…use tax liability, that corresponds to your California Adjusted Gross Income, on line 95 [of the Calif 540 tax return]…” Now, that suggests, at least, the taxpayer is obligated to pay “something” based solely on the AGI.

However, I agree with you Mr Schaefer, that taxpayer “may” enter “zero” on line 95, which implies (but does not “prove”) the taxpayer has not purchased otherwise taxable goods and would, therefore, not be “obligated to pay an arbitrary Use Tax based on one’s AGI. I hasten to point out that nowhere in the “instructions” nor direct from the Board of Equalization (BOE) is it indicated that one “may” insert “zero” on line 95. In the absence of such an instruction (enter “0″ if none), this alone will cause many taxpayers to insert “something”, in this case, the “amount shown in the tax table” which s/he may NOT in fact be obligated to pay.

While all professional tax preparers and taxpayers who are articulate with these “instructions” and “fill in the blank spaces” will simply insert “0″ as you suggest is the taxpayer’s option. The facts are that other less knowledgeable taxpayers will opt to insert what is found in the “Table”. I agree that “0″ is at the option of the taxpayer but how many less astute taxpayers than yourself will be willing to plug in “0″ on the chance they might be audited?

I believe it is a small enough amount (from the tax table) that most will simply plug in “something”, pay it and forget it. If indeed the taxpayer DID NOT PURCHASE something subject to the tax, and the taxpayer is audited, how can the taxpayer PROVE something was NOT purchased?

Agreed. The table applies to “estimated use tax”. Since the “tax” is based on both state and local tax rates, which vary with differing jurisdictions, the table could not display EVERY rate for ALL cities, counties and state in a single simple Table.

As an aside Mr Schaefer, let me pose a fairly common situation: Seller announces or advertises “No Sales Tax” as a “price reduction gimmic”. Buyer purchases but is not “charged” the sales tax reimbursment to the seller as agreed. Seller remains OBLIGATED to pay a “sales tax” to the state. Since the buyer did not “reimburse” seller for that tax, the buyer is, by law, obligated to pay an equivelent amount as a “Use Tax.” The state has thus collected “twice” the amount it is entitled to.

My written question to the BOE regarding appeals has not yet been answered. They intimated it would be 20-business-days before such an answer would be available. The date of my inquiry was March 12, 2012. I do not expect an answer until the 10th of April, 2012, at the very earliest, if even that early. Granted, I could have telephoned their 800 line, but I’d rather the answer be in writing, thereby leaving no room for “my” interpretation.

Lastly Mr. Schaefer, if my missive is a “misrepresentation”, “What, in fact, IS the FTB’s position?”

The bottom line is: Less representation for the population affected. Yet, the population will continue to pay the taxes at the same level as today. The net effect is “raised taxes.”

As for “local” politics; if the incumbant(s) offend, cut ‘em off. However, there is a caveat to that notion. We know what the “performance” is of the incumbant(s), but we know naught the performance of the “new politician.”

—BF

Good response. Thank you.
bh

Hard to say… depends a lot on how the dialogue reads in the “sample ballot”. The fiscal impact will reflect “millions in savings”. That alone will sway most less aware voters.

If it does “pass”, rest assured there will be some manuvering among the Supervisors to “lessen” their respective activities, travel and “interaction with the public” on any issue. Basically, I can see the SBCO Board of Supervisors reducing their “current” activities to about 1/3rd given that their salary will be equally reduced and they become classified as “part-time” supervisors.

That bodes well to factually reduce the “services to the public” for which they were “hired” by an electorial mandate. I would not doubt that any or all the current Supervisors will seek “greener pastures” elsewhere.

People do not go to “work” for the love of “work”. They do that job for the income it produces. As proof of that notion, we only need to cut the “worker’s” salary to less than half. That employee will seek another job elsewhere that pays what s/he feels is “comfortable” and adequate for their personal lifestyle.

Personally Branson, I’m “more” in favor of administrative cost reductions, but not at the extreems presented as that only reduces professional services to the public who will ultimately suffer the lack of appropriate representation.

–BF