Comments on: Prop. 1A’s union foes: Voters OK with tax hikes

By: Some notes on the governor’s speech - Political Blotter - Politics in the Bay Area and beyond

Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:00:14 +0000

[...] to do their jobs, make the hard choices, and not raise taxes. As I’ve written earlier, there’s a lack of consensus on what the extremely low turnout and election results really mean, especially when it comes to [...]

By: Elwood

Elwood — Sat, 23 May 2009 06:54:30 +0000

lev⋅ee

1. an embankment designed to prevent the flooding of a river.

lev⋅y

1. an imposing or collecting, as of a tax, by authority or force.

By: jon k

jon k — Sat, 23 May 2009 04:29:16 +0000

So hilltopper, how is it that California is the most taxed state in the country and we are looking at bankruptcy. Does this not prove that the liberal high tax big government policies do not work. Government is inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful. There is no incentive for goverment entities to excel at their job. Oh, and if the levies are so critical (which I agree they are), why is there no stimulus money for the levies to be fixed?

By: John W

John W — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:56:14 +0000

While income and sales taxes in the state are high, part of our problem is that the tax base needs to be broader. We rely on a fairly narrow slice of wealthy taxpayers for income tax revenue. And, due to Prop. 13, we rely heavily on more recent homebuyers to fill the property tax bucket. We could have a flat 6% income tax rate, with no deductions, with all but the very lowest income people contributing and generate more revenue. We could lower the property tax rate from 1% to .75%, make every residential and commerical property reassess every 7 years and generate more revenue. There could still be breaks for low income people, elderly or otherwise. Under Prop. 13, the effective property tax rate for residential is only about .5% (according to the Homebuilders Ass’n) due to so many homes under long-term Prop. 13 protection. And, no, they are not all house rich, cash-poor grannies who would lose their homes if they paid property taxes. I don’t understand why somebody gets to inherit their parents’ home in Alamo, free and clear of mortgage, with no inheritance tax, and still get to pay property tax tied to 1978 assessments while a modest income family purchasing their first starter home pays through the nose. I suspect the effective rate on commercial property is even lower.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:03:55 +0000

21st century definition of progressive:

“I’ll take your money and give it to someone whom I deem underprivileged. I get to decide because I’m smarter and morally superior to you!”

By: hilltopper

hilltopper — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:29:55 +0000

Elwood says: “I wonder why Props. A through E weren’t passed with whopping majorities if only 35% oppose tax increases.”

Most progressives opposed these propositions (as did I). Did you know that “liberal bastions” like Alameda, San Francisco, and Marin Counties voted overwhelmingly “no”?

By: ulno13

ulno13 — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:38:20 +0000

I think it’s time to get government out of education and other areas. Instead of having people directly employed by the state, private companies can provide those services. If the state wants to send each citizen cash they can spend on it, then this would meet the demands of those who say public education is a right. The families could spend it with the private provider who does the best job.

I think this should be applied to other areas, such as the motor vehicles department, etc. Private providers.

State-run agencies have no incentive system to improve, offer non-market based benefits, and have no feedback system for control. The state and media are eternally able to say “it’s for the kids! You can’t be against more taxes to save children” malarky. It’s an eternal hostage situation that ends with the economic ruin of everyone involved.

I agree with Elwood, it’s really amazing how these out of touch reporters are able to trot out their fixed polls to justify taxes. When the people vote one way, they don’t really mean it, or they are stupid, or having a temper tantrum. When the people vote another, democracy has triumphed at last! Ha ha.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:46:29 +0000

hilltopper Says: etc. etc. etc.

Gee, I wonder why Props. A through E weren’t passed with whopping majorities if only 35% oppose tax increases.

It would seem that only about 35% of the electorate feels the same way as hilltopper. What next? Plagues of locusts?

The 2/3 requirement is the only thing protecting us from people like hilltopper.

Children dying in the streets? Riiiiiiiight! It’s the end of the world as we’ve known it!

Not!

By: hilltopper

hilltopper — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:19:05 +0000

I doubt that the anti-tax fanatics of today’s California republican party will be satisfied until the delta levies fail (as in New Orleans) and some bridges collapse (as in Minneapolis). They would seem to prefer to have poor children die than to get emergency health treatments. And they prefer letting poachers destroy the wildlife in our parks ( as the Gov. lays off more game wardens).

Californians believe in responsible government. That requires revenue increases as well as cuts of some services. The “shut it down” tyranny by 35% of the legislature is anti-democratic and needs to end.