Tax Refunds Now on Hold in California

[Ghosthunter]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/0 ... s-now.html

if you owe them money and don't pay they throw you in jail can we throw them in jail


meanwhile obama gets to spend 819 Billion of our heard earned money to rescue companies he should be sending to us the taxpayers if anything

what a corrupt government we have

[Sava700]

They wasted alot of money in the last year fighting forest fires that should have been allowed to burn like nature intended.. now don't get me wrong I agree with standing guard around a house to protect it but many of these fires they were fighting were not going to harm anything. Its scientific evidence shown that the more you prevent them the worse it gets since your preventing nature from cleaning up.

[Brk]

I've already e-filed my returns. I want my money back before this is pulled on a larger national scale.

[YARDofSTUF]

They wasted alot of money in the last year fighting forest fires that should have been allowed to burn like nature intended.. now don't get me wrong I agree with standing guard around a house to protect it but many of these fires they were fighting were not going to harm anything. Its scientific evidence shown that the more you prevent them the worse it gets since your preventing nature from cleaning up.

[JawZ]

I've already e-filed my returns. I want my money back before this is pulled on a larger national scale.

Same here, expecting almost $5k in returns.

Tea anyone?

[Sava700]

Tea anyone?

I'll take some

[TonyT]

Realize that Calif is NOT delaying fed tax refunds. It's state tax refunds. The state has no authority over fed tax disbusrements.

[JawZ]

Actually, he's correct.

Fire is a natural part of our ecosystem and very necessary. It is because of the urban interface that we are compelled to fight these fires. In other words, we should stop allowing people to move into the woods without having an adequate fire protection/prevention plan. Fire breaks should be constructed, fire ponds should be dug, etc.

Cali spent near $2 Billion this past year on wildland fires. Very difficult to tell the public that we must allow these fires to burn.

[YARDofSTUF]

Actually, he's correct.

Fire is a natural part of our ecosystem and very necessary. It is because of the urban interface that we are compelled to fight these fires. In other words, we should stop allowing people to move into the woods without having an adequate fire protection/prevention plan. Fire breaks should be constructed, fire ponds should be dug, etc.

Cali spent near $2 Billion this past year on wildland fires. Very difficult to tell the public that we must allow these fires to burn.

The jawdrop is more for the idea of hanign firemen to stand guard around the houses. Letting the fire go and spread would mean more houses at risk and require more work to guard them.

Setting up fire breaks and such sounds like a great idea.

[Ghosthunter]

I've already e-filed my returns. I want my money back before this is pulled on a larger national scale.

this is why i claim 4 i don't believe in giving a lot throughout the year expecting to get a lot back becuase one day they might not give it back

[YeOldeStonecat]

this is why i claim 4 i don't believe in giving a lot throughout the year expecting to get a lot back becuase one day they might not give it back

I'm similar.....I like it to be close to zero. If you're getting huge amounts back...you're giving the gov't an interest free loan throughout the year...time to fix your withholding. I'd rather have a bigger paycheck each week throughout the year, than 5 or 7 grand each spring.

[CiscoKid]

You guys mentioned the fires we had out here last year, even though they were almost 200 miles to the north from Stockton, we still suffered from the smoke. Letting them burn was not really an option when air quality was so bad, alot of public pools closed, summer youth programs shutdown untill after the worst of the fires were out. If measures had been taken prior to the lightening strikes that spurred the fires, that's one thing, but after it was to the point it was at, letting them burn themselves out was NOT an option. Letting them burn out would have been more of a disaster

[Dan]

They wasted alot of money in the last year fighting forest fires that should have been allowed to burn like nature intended.. now don't get me wrong I agree with standing guard around a house to protect it but many of these fires they were fighting were not going to harm anything. Its scientific evidence shown that the more you prevent them the worse it gets since your preventing nature from cleaning up.

that's ridiculous ! LOL

just about anywhere in California a fire will "harm something",as in many states,

that theory may be correct out in the back country of Yellowstone or places like that,NOT a good idea in communities of thousands of homes !

and if you thinking was correct then in other states with tornadoes or hurricanes or flooding,*all natural disasters too*,then is that state "wasting' money fighting or recovering from those disasters too?

state budget problems are not just in California,and there are many many reasons why cities and states are having budget problems in this economy and it's NOT from fighting fires

[JawZ]

that's ridiculous ! LOL

just about anywhere in California a fire will "harm something",as in many states,

that theory may be correct out in the back country of Yellowstone or places like that,NOT a good idea in communities of thousands of homes !

and if you thinking was correct then in other states with tornadoes or hurricanes or flooding,*all natural disasters too*,then is that state "wasting' money fighting or recovering from those disasters too?

state budget problems are not just in California,and there are many many reasons why cities and states are having budget problems in this economy and it's NOT from fighting fires

Dan, the point is, we should be cognizant of the need for natural fires. Building homes in areas where uncontrolled fires can wreak havoc is unwise. If we are to build in these areas, then the proper protective and prevention measures should be exercised. It's about controlling future development. It should also be mentioned that in the other scenarios you mention, many of those folks assume the risk. Many can't even get flood insurance...but what can you expect when you build on a flood plain despite the warning?

It's a give and take situation. Nobody wants to see you lose your home but we also have to be smart about development.

[morbidpete]

already filled mine, IRS already accepted my e-file. Getting 2.9K should have it today

no kids here BTW

[Dan]

Dan, the point is, we should be cognizant of the need for natural fires.

all that's great ,but not real world in the this modern day we live in,

I agree,but that's not going to happen ,with more and more people all over the world,it's just a fact of the times.

trust me,I am very into the ecological world and our disappearing wildlife and wild places and the problems the planet faces,but it's not going to get any better.we have to deal with it going forward and face the fact that we need more places for people and less places for other things.

theories in regards to fire fighting ,home building,and many other things that worked 80,or 50,or even 25 years ago,need to be changed.

and besides ,all I was saying was that our budget/income tax refunds problems here in california,are not because of fighting fires,most of those funds come from individual cities and counties and a huge amount from federal funds for that stuff anyway!.

I am not arguing the merits of fire fighting methods such as letting them burn in the right conditions and areas,I watch natgeo too !

[knightmare]

I know you just got back, but still going to toss the repost police on ya....

https://www.speedguide.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=249460

[Sava700]

all that's great ,but not real world in the this modern day we live in,

I agree,but that's not going to happen ,with more and more people all over the world,it's just a fact of the times.

trust me,I am very into the ecological world and our disappearing wildlife and wild places and the problems the planet faces,but it's not going to get any better.we have to deal with it going forward and face the fact that we need more places for people and less places for other things.

theories in regards to fire fighting ,home building,and many other things that worked 80,or 50,or even 25 years ago,need to be changed.

and besides ,all I was saying was that our budget/income tax refunds problems here in california,are not because of fighting fires,most of those funds come from individual cities and counties and a huge amount from federal funds for that stuff anyway!.

I am not arguing the merits of fire fighting methods such as letting them burn in the right conditions and areas,I watch natgeo too !

Its scientific knowledge that nature will have to clean up at times and it uses fires to do so... if you never have a fire in certain areas for 50+ years you end up building up enough fuel that the fire is massive and causes more destruction than it would have been if it was left to do what it wanted. Its time we stopped building in these places and as long as a home isn't in danger I say let it burn and stop wasting money flying planes over it dumping water or whatever along with sending fire fighters in that may die to save some dead tree's that need to be cleaned up anyway.

[downhill]

Sava, it's more complicated than that in the west. Huge forests coupled with massive drought years, and global warming are devestating very large parts of our forests.

I think if you read Dan's post very throughly, you'll see he just said pretty much what you did on the subject of mother nature.

A solution for a lot of areas that are inhabited is controlled burns. It's going to have to be pretty wet in southern Cali with all the eucalyptus for a controled burn to work and it still doesn't solve much of that particular problem because of the nature of eucalyptus to feed more fuel to a fire.

Deserts are just as prone and it's not so much of a problem of letting mother nature take care of it as it is, like southern cali, the introduction of a species of grass that's invaded our deserts and is flat out explosive when coupled with fire. "Cheat grass".


I'm not arguing the point of just let it burn as in some cases it's a good idea. I'm only pointing out that it's not always a good idea.

[Sava700]

Sava, it's more complicated than that in the west. Huge forests coupled with massive drought years, and global warming are devestating very large parts of our forests.

I think if you read Dan's post very throughly, you'll see he just said pretty much what you did on the subject of mother nature.

A solution for a lot of areas that are inhabited is controlled burns. It's going to have to be pretty wet in southern Cali with all the eucalyptus for a controled burn to work and it still doesn't solve much of that particular problem because of the nature of eucalyptus to feed more fuel to a fire.

Deserts are just as prone and it's not so much of a problem of letting mother nature take care of it as it is, like southern cali, the introduction of a species of grass that's invaded our deserts and is flat out explosive when coupled with fire. "Cheat grass".


I'm not arguing the point of just let it burn as in some cases it's a good idea. I'm only pointing out that it's not always a good idea.

The POINT is more money was spent on fighting them than needed..I'm sure that's a fact in many ways than one. Year after year you hear Arnold complain about the state losing so much money fighting fires... fighting mostly the ones they should let burn.

[YARDofSTUF]

The POINT is more money was spent on fighting them than needed..I'm sure that's a fact in many ways than one. Year after year you hear Arnold complain about the state losing so much money fighting fires... fighting mostly the ones they should let burn.

And if they let them burn but guarded all the homes in danger it would be cheaper? I doubt it.

UOD gave some good methods of handling it, but guarding all the homes in danger is not one of them.

[Sava700]

And if they let them burn but guarded all the homes in danger it would be cheaper? I doubt it.

UOD gave some good methods of handling it, but guarding all the homes in danger is not one of them.

Well you start with not building in those area's to begin with.. and yes I would imagin not flying all those choppers and planes over secluded area's dropping whatever would be much cheaper vs standing around a few homes with water hoses.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Unfortunately due to the encroachment of man..and housing/developments...it's more difficult than that.

Yes wildfires are good for mother nature..they replenish the forest 'n environment. THe woods around colonial America were much different than they are now..due to the Indians doing slash/burn to manage them. Forests were nice and open, with grass..versus just overgrowth of shrubs and briars we see now.

But...man...neighborhoods, housing, roads, etc..we can't do that now. Small pockets of open forest...if we let them burn..where does the wildlife go? They get displaced and forced to retreat into residential areas.

They have droughts enough as it is..you can't man every home by watering it down with a hose.

[Sava700]

They have droughts enough as it is..you can't man every home by watering it down with a hose.

No but I'm sure more secluded area's could be let go since its not going ot harm much.. either way I think there has been funds wasted during these fire fights.

[Dan]

either way I think there has been funds wasted during these fire fights.

tell that to homeowners here,


several years ago,there was a firestorm in Oakland,that was miles away from anything close to a forest.all that burned was homes.is that a waste fighting that fire?
the recent fires in San Diego were mostly homes in a desert type area,not much forest there,if you have ever driven through California you would see that heavily forested areas are a very small part of the state,it's mostly a low brush desert area,where there are heavy forests there is not many fires,like in the sierras.most of the fires you see on the news here are arson in urban areas.

[Sava700]

tell that to homeowners here,


several years ago,there was a firestorm in Oakland,that was miles away from anything close to a forest.all that burned was homes.is that a waste fighting that fire?
the recent fires in San Diego were mostly homes in a desert type area,not much forest there,if you have ever driven through California you would see that heavily forested areas are a very small part of the state,it's mostly a low brush desert area,where there are heavy forests there is not many fires,like in the sierras.most of the fires you see on the news here are arson in urban areas.

I guess I can't really relate to what your trying to explain cause I don't live there but I do live in the mountains and its very clear to see that the prevention of fires by us over a course of many years causes more fuel to set up thus making a small fire much larger and harder to contain than what it would have been if nature took its course. But I'm sure many states not just Cali spend too much money on fighting fires in secluded places that should be let burn or even snow removal when we could just let it melt in place like intended by nature.

[YARDofSTUF]

Well you start with not building in those area's to begin with.. and yes I would imagin not flying all those choppers and planes over secluded area's dropping whatever would be much cheaper vs standing around a few homes with water hoses.

Oh man you just go from one hole to another, its amazing you can dig them all yourself

Ya, a "few" homes. Right.

So we shouldnt build in those areas, well then I guess we should all get use to a concrete jungle eh? Not everyone likes the big city condensed atmosphere.

[Sava700]

Oh man you just go from one hole to another, its amazing you can dig them all yourself

Ya, a "few" homes. Right.

So we shouldnt build in those areas, well then I guess we should all get use to a concrete jungle eh? Not everyone likes the big city condensed atmosphere.

I live in the mountains... i'm taking the risk like they are but what I'm saying is there were fires way out where there was nothing but forest..no homes and they continued to drop stuff on it from the air which you know costs way up there. Better to just stay on the edges where the homes were and let the middle burn or burn in the other direction where there isn't anything. Plus I'd make those that started it pay for the rest of there life to make up for the funds spent.

[YARDofSTUF]

I live in the mountains... i'm taking the risk like they are but what I'm saying is there were fires way out where there was nothing but forest..no homes and they continued to drop stuff on it from the air which you know costs way up there. Better to just stay on the edges where the homes were and let the middle burn or burn in the other direction where there isn't anything. Plus I'd make those that started it pay for the rest of there life to make up for the funds spent.

And doing that means watching over a larger area as the fire grows which means more people and providing water to that whole area to defend the homes.

The way to save money is to look at the big picture and prevent the fires from reaching the homes with the methods UOD mentioned.

[Sava700]

And doing that means watching over a larger area as the fire grows which means more people and providing water to that whole area to defend the homes.

The way to save money is to look at the big picture and prevent the fires from reaching the homes with the methods UOD mentioned.

If you constantly prevent fires you cause more fuel to build up and in turn the fire will burn larger and hotter and harder to control. Best to let them burn if nothing is being harmed in the way of homes..not to mention building with code and some sort of fire prevention around the home. They recommend certain distances to remove all fuels around the homes and most don't do this.

[YARDofSTUF]

If you constantly prevent fires you cause more fuel to build up and in turn the fire will burn larger and hotter and harder to control. Best to let them burn if nothing is being harmed in the way of homes..not to mention building with code and some sort of fire prevention around the home. They recommend certain distances to remove all fuels around the homes and most don't do this.

Read UOD's post.

He mentions letting them burn, but in a controlled fashion protecting homes and such with firebreaks and ponds, I think theres also other methods that can be used.

It should make sense to you and fit in with your let it burn/fuel build up stuff.

[Brk]

I'm tellin' ya...get yours while you can!

http://www.kansas.com/735/story/701750.html

[JawZ]

I'm tellin' ya...get yours while you can!

http://www.kansas.com/735/story/701750.html

I got both of mine back.