Good luck getting a Republican vote for that
By Josh Richman
Thursday, May 12th, 2011 at 5:01 pm in Assembly, Nancy Skinner, state budget, taxes.
As Gov. Jerry Brown issues his May budget revision Monday, an East Bay lawmaker will be renewing her call for a tax increase on California’s richest residents.
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, has scheduled a news conference for Monday morning outside the state office building on Oakland’s Clay Street to discuss her AB 1130, which faces its first hearing in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee later in the afternoon.
Skinner says AB 1130 would raise $2.3 billion a year to help close California’s budget deficit, reducing the need to further cut schools and essential services. The bill imposes a 1 percent tax increase on California’s wealthiest, those with incomes above $500,000 a year – a return to the marginal tax rates in place when Republicans Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson served as governor.
Scheduled to join Skinner at her event are UC Berkeley Labor Center Chairman Ken Jacobs; members of the California Federation of Teachers; and a special guest described as “Millionaire in Top Hat.” (Think “Monopoly.”)
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
May 12th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Go for it. Finish off the producers…
Did you ever think commies would rule California?
May 12th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Simple minds come up with simpleton solutions.
May 12th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
They don’t come much simpler than Nancy Skinner.
Steal from the rich,
Give to the poor,
Silly whore,
Nancy Skinner
May 12th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Re: #3
With apologies to Monty Python.
May 13th, 2011 at 12:04 am
I definately think we should raise taxes on the super wealthy. Meg Whitman, former Ebay CEO just dropped 100 million on her run for Governor, this didn’t even dent her wealth, she’s a billionaire. CEO’s make too much, regular working people not enough. We have 10 dollar an hour workers all up and down state putting 40 hours a week in. They often have no health care plans, no pensions, no nothing. Frequently they work two jobs, in fact. Then you have these billionaires running all over the place now in California, people so incredibly wealthy you just can’t believe it. America isn’t a banana republic, people should pay their fair share of taxes. no way Meg Whitman’s paying her fare share, she wouldn’t have been able to drop $100 million on a run for Governor if she was.
May 13th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Re: #5
Steal from the rich,
Give to the poor,
etc.
May 13th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
The dirty little secret about California income taxes is that we under-tax at the lower and middle levels. We should get rid of the $99 exemption credits and have a flat tax of about 5% on the first $100k of taxable income (married or single) and graduate up to a maximum 8% on income above that. In Colorado, it’s a simple 4.63% of federal taxable income, regardless of income or marital status.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Silly whore? Really? That is the best you can do? You obviously don’t know the Nancy Skinner I know.
May 13th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I think that there should be a 50% state tax on all lottery winnings — it’s completely unearned wealth, and is likely to go to those who are too dumb to realize they are being ripped off, since they were too dumb to realize that they had no business gambling in the first place given the horrid odds against them…
May 13th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Re: #8
Don’t blame me. Blame Monty Python.
And look at Ms. Skinner’s record of mushheaded bleeding heart liberalism.
May 14th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Here’s an analysis of another Skinner brainchild bill, the one to tax out of state online retailers such as Amazon:
“The very best case scenario, according to a Board of Equalization staff analysis produced earlier this year, was that this “revenue enhancement” measure would bring in a measly $200-or-so million maximum in 2012-13. But that is assuming that no out-of-state online retailers terminate their relationships with California websites, which the big online retailers– primary targets of the legislation– have threatened to do, and which would reduce that number. The number also likely fails to take account of the effect that reduced affiliate income if terminations occur would have on overall tax revenue, so some observers believe the net “benefit” of the legislation in terms of revenue could be closer to zero.”
http://tinyurl.com/5sd8hp6
May 15th, 2011 at 10:41 am
In LA Paris Hilton and the Kardashian sisters get paid to attend parties, $25,000 to $50,000 according to reports. These ultra wealthy-socialite-party givers pay this money because they believe having Hilton or the Kardashian sisters at their parties adds cachet to the party, they are kind of like decorations, expensive decorations. This mega-wealthy cohort of the population, the people who have Private jets and pay Paris Hilton to come to their parties and so forth has been growing by leaps and bounds, due to tax policies that favor the wealthy. When CEO’s make 35 million dollars annually – as many do these days – you’ve got plenty of money for decadent spending. Meanwhile, regular working people keep getting the shaft. Increasingly CEO’s order underlings to slash health care benefits, lay off workers, and ship jobs overseas, and put the savings into corporate coffers. As the corporate coffers swell, so does CEO pay. People are starting to notice though, just ask Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorna.
May 15th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Re: #12
See #6