“I move that the basic themes for the OEA’s mobilization to Sacramento be: (1) opposition to cuts in education, pre-K to college, and in social services, (2) the need for progressive means of taxation to fully fund education and social services.”

The council also voted in favor of this motion:

“I move that OEA Rep Council:
1. States that all current budget proposals are inadequate
2. Opposes the Brown budget cuts to education and social services
3. Takes the position of “let the voters decide” on the proposed tax extensions
4. Postpones a decision on the merits of any tax extension initiative until the April 4 Rep Council, after it is known whether or not there will be a special election and Reps have had discussions with their members.”

Was that by design or . . . ?

For those weeping and gnashing teeth, I thought OEA was a democratic organization. This ain’t Libya. Or is it?

I took this off the internet:

“Tax proposals
Gov. Jerry Brown wants to extend for five years temporary tax increases that were part of the February 2009 budget deal. Two of those expired Jan. 1 and the other two would expire July 1. Brown also wants to change how corporations calculate the taxes they owe in the state and eliminate tax benefits in designated enterprise zones. The tax extensions include:

Income: A 0.25 percent surcharge on each personal income tax rate, which would generate $3.2 billion in the next 18 months.

Dependents: A reduction in the tax credit for dependents from $227 to $99, for $1.9 billion over 18 months.

Sales tax: A 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax – from 5 to 6 percent, bringing in $4.5 billion over 12 months.

Licenses: An increase in vehicle license fees from 0.65 percent of a car’s value to 1.15 percent, bringing in $1.3 billion over 12 months.

The above 5 listed taxes would bring in about $10.9 billion. About 41% of the tax extensions would be in a regressive sales tax that is the largest part of the extension. And, the reduction in tax credit for dependents is not progressive either. Nor is the surcharge on income tax rates.”

I understand why some feeling they are taxed, while corporations and the individual rich don’t pay their fair share, see any regressive taxes as just plain wrong. And, in the current climate they may anticipate that food will be the next thing that is California taxes.

Jim Mordecai

Thanks for the clarification. The sales tax is regresssive (though not as much as in many states, where food is taxed), but perhaps not terribly so at the bottom, since low income people probably pay a high percent of their income on items (food, housing, public transporation) that are not subject to sales tax.

Re: the car tax, that is almost certainly progressive (which is why Repubicans were so eager to cut it a few years back).

But, overall, how progressive/regressive it the tax extension? Does anyone knos how much is collected from each extension?

“To help plug the budget hole, Brown proposed $12.5 billion in spending cuts and an extension on vehicle, sales and income taxes. The five-year tax extension would generate $12 billion under Brown’s plan.”

You left off the regressive sales tax.

The deal the business community is talking about in support of the tax extension would be a cap on future spending.

But, your point is well made that of the three type of taxes that will be extended if sent to the voters and the voters pass that extension, sales is the only clearly regressive tax.

Income tax is progressive. The car tax is hard to categorize. Car tax is also regressive in the sense that everyone pays the same tax based on the price of the car but that the rich could afford a more extensive car is true. But, because the rich have the capacity to buy an expensive car doesn’t mean that they will. And, with financing available to a range of incomes, it is not clear to me how to classify the car tax extension.

I think it is fair to say that the three taxes being proposed for extension taken as a package is a mix of progressive and regressive taxes.

This is my personal view and not representative of OEA or its Executive Board majority.

Jim Mordecai
Substitute Teacher
Representative OEA Rep Council

The notion that people don’t react to taxes is just silly. Yes, across 3 or 5 year periods in the studies you cite, there’s no big difference. That’s because people don’t want to uproot their lives on that type of timescale.

The damage takes longer to see and is more longlasting than that. It’s when people get it into their mind that a place is a high tax locale. So, if someone was considering taking a job in Seattle or SF, all things being equal, they might select Seattle because of the income tax climate.

The real problem is that, once people get this notion about a place, it takes years and years for it to reverse. Sadly, it’s almost certainly too late for California.

Here’s a study to compete with yours: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2010-10-CompetitiveStatesTXvsCA.pdf

The other thing about the soak the rich mentality is that it makes the set of people who pay taxes so narrow that when that group catches a cold, the state catches pneumonia. And, when they do well, the state runs out and ramps up spending unsustainably.

California needs a broader tax base so it can budget in a more rational an future-proof manner. And, that means taxing the middle class, not just the wealthy.

Guess what? The rich won’t pay (unless there is some new proposal that I’m not aware of) and by being against the tax ententions, maybe it won’t pass and then there will be NO money for schools. For crying out loud, can someone at OEA be practical and realistic about this situation?!

And why would the teacher members not want to support something that will have a direct positive impact (in the form of preventing a disaster with more drastic cuts and larger class sizes)?

People, we live in the real world not some liberal utopia.