Prop 30 - Will it have unintended consequences?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>

</p>

<p>I did not say they were. What concerns me is that Democratic politicians never define the “fair share” they say the rich ought to be paying. Listening to their rhetoric, I wonder if they would have a moral objection to a 91% tax rate applied on income above $1 million. After all, if the effective tax rate on the 1st million is 35%, anyone with income above $1 milllion would still have after-tax income of $650,000, which is a lot. Why should they complain?</p>

<p>The country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. If 99% of the people can vote to tax the top 1% at any rate, that principle is effectively being violated. Scapegoating the rich is no more ethical than scapegoating people on the basis of religion or race.</p>

62

<p>Mickelson backed out of taking an ownership interest in the SD Padres, citing the tax increase as the reason. I don’t know what, if any, impact this decision has on the State of CA, but it does show that income tax increases do impact spending decisions of the uber-rich.</p>

63

<p>Rich people have to pay higher revolution-prevention insurance premiums than others. Why is that surprising? People with higher risks always have to pay higher insurance premiums.</p>

<p>Also, I wouldn’t be too quick to argue that the economic system should be based on moral principles–you’d want to think carefully about how that might pan out.</p>

64

<p>Polarscribe, that’s a great post.</p>

<p>You think and write well.</p>

65

<p>wow dstark, you think dishonesty and rudeness are hallmarks of good writing? Really.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>What you are describing here are the services that majority of people would agree are legitimate government functions. These services are not why CA is going broke and needs additional revenue.</p>

67

<p>I thought polarscribe’s post was extremist, and will contribute to ruining this interesting thread.</p>

68

<p>

If I had a dollar for every time someone said something to this effect, I could buy myself a seat in the House of Representatives.</p>

69

<p>

The majority of voters in California just voted in a free and fair election to raise sales and income taxes, and at the same time elected historic supermajorities of Democrats to the state Assembly and Senate. Seems like the majority of the state’s electorate agreed that the state’s current governmental activities are necessary and should be properly funded.</p>

70

<p>Is it San Bernadino, CA that has had police layoffs, crime increases and inmates released early? Certainly not Ayn Randville.</p>

71

<p>Zoosermom, polarscribe wasn’t rude. Thinks well. Writes well.</p>

72

<p>Can people please refrain from discussing political parties, for the benefit of the rest of us who were liking this thread? Thank you.</p>

73

<p>They can vote for the tax increases but they can’t force taxpayers to stay, and they aren’t. Which is why so much of the state is in so much trouble. Or one of the reasons.</p>

74

<p>I agree with polarscribe’s point (which I think was rhetorical, and not directed at zoosermom in particular, so not really rude)–we have a system in which people pay different amounts of taxes, not for moral reasons, but for pragmatic reasons, primarily. We look for the “sweet spot” at which the amount of taxes is enough to pay for what we’d like to do as a society, but not too much to discourage economic growth and investment in business. I think one can have a sensible argument about whether California has overstepped the sweet spot.</p>

75

<p>

No. He lied and attacked something that was only said by him. That is rude and dishonest. But if that’s your thing, then fine.</p>

76

<p>Yes Hunt, we could have that discussion. We should have that discussion as a nation, but all interactions, whether financial or otherwise should be conducted with respect and gratitude for the gifts that all bring to the table. I am sincerely shocked that so many find those concepts immoral or otherwise objectionable. Maybe that’s why our country is so polarized today. It’s hard to deal honestly and fairly with someone you can only demonize.</p>

77

<p>You do that all the time.</p>

<p>Where is the lie?</p>

<p>Is California going bankrupt?</p>

<p>Do you want to bet?</p>

<p>This thread should be closed.</p>

78

<p>

Yes. Government budgets were cut in California, and that includes police budgets. The massively-inflated prison system budget has begun to be reined in, and that includes releasing low-risk inmates and starting to reform our terrible habit of overincarceration. Tuition at state universities has been shooting up. Painful governmental cuts have been made statewide. Without the tax increases enacted by voters last year, there would have been even more cuts.</p>

<p>

[citation needed]</p>

<p>California has proposed its first balanced budget in a decade. The cuts of the past have not been made whole, but there a foundation being laid for future improvement. Unemployment is down - not where it should be, obviously, but that’s the case nationally as well.</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course they did. The majority is not affected by the increases in taxes they voted for. Many of the people who voted for this prop also depend on the state programs that only directly benefit them. How selfless of them to vote for the prop.</p>

80

<p>

This is the lie dstark. No one ever said this.</p>