California Props 30 vs 38

Ok.. I need some help here in a more in depth explanation of where the money goes. I only brought it here because many people are from California and would be far more familiar than myself.

I can see Prop 30 passed and prop 38 was defeated by a steep margin.

Quote : Proposition 38 TAX FOR EDUCATION. EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS NO 72.3% YES 27.7% Proposition 30 TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION YES 54.0% NO 46.0%

It "looks" like (I say that because I'm very unaware of these two props unlike most CA residents) that 38 raises far more and is a far more stable form of revenue. It also hits everyone and guarantees the money to go to the K-12 schools

Prop 30 looks somewhat open ended.. raises less and may and may not raise what they anticipate. Also it doesn't seem to guarantee where the money goes. It primarily goes after wealthier individuals who very are more likely not to even use the public school system.

Just at at a glance this is what I got on it.. If anyone has more information and/or opinions I would appreciate. But it does appear to me (just from my limited research) that individuals by majority wanted someone else (richer individuals) to take care of the costs of the public school issues. Yes. No?

Quote from drsketch : who cares about california?

Apparently you do. Every time someone mentions California, you are there asking who care about it.

So many people are bitter losers and had to leave California. That is just the natural process of cleansing our society.

Read this
http://www.businessweek.com/news/...ornia-vote

Quote : Prop 38 Her initiative, Proposition 38, would increase taxes for 12 years on income of more than $7,316 from 0.4 percent for the lowest earners to 2.2 percent for those making more than $2.5 million a year. It would raise $10 billion annually. While 30 percent of the added revenue would pay down school-bond debt for the first four years, all the money would go to educational operations for the remaining eight years. .... Prop 30 . It would temporarily boost the state sales tax to 7.5 percent from 7.25 percent and raise the levy on income starting at $250,000. ... If both measures pass, only the tax increases from the proposal that gets the most yes votes would take effect, under the state constitution.

8 years of GOP rule and GOP Arnold killed California, its gonna take a Democrat to fix things.

Jerry Brown a true fiscal conservative. In His first term as Governor of CA in 1975 he refused a chaufered limo to work he drove himself. Refused a fancy new Governors mansion, but rented an Apartment closer to Capitol Park. And more, he left a 5,000,000,000 Billion dollar surplus.

Its gonna take a while to cleanup GOP messes around the country.

Quote from rayzac : Read this http://www.businessweek.com/news/...ornia-vote

that's pretty much a reiteration of what I stated. So basically the people of California voted to make those that use the system (public schools) by an enormously less percentage.. pay the majority of their bill??

Quote from DJPlayer : that's pretty much a reiteration of what I stated. So basically the people of California voted to make those that use the system (public schools) by an enormously less percentage.. pay the majority of their bill??

Umm they use it plenty

Quote from HEATBaller : 8 years of GOP rule and GOP Arnold killed California, its gonna take a Democrat to fix things.

GOP rule?

One could argue whether Arnold was part of the GOP or not, but regardless, the state has been run by the Dems during it's spiral down the toilet....

Quote from HEATBaller : Jerry Brown a true fiscal conservative.

Oh my God.... you have to try out for Comedy Central..... you could do a one man show....

So Californians raised taxes on small businesses, who have already been leaving the state, taking jobs with them, raised their own already too high sales tax, which disproportionately affects the poor and causes residents to spend their money out of state, and failed to do away with the idiotic and expensive death penalty.

Yup, that's my old state!

Quote from DJPlayer : that's pretty much a reiteration of what I stated. So basically the people of California voted to make those that use the system (public schools) by an enormously less percentage.. pay the majority of their bill??

Rich people use the schools more than the poor. A poor person gets educated, but a rich person gets an educated society that makes his business/investments vastly more productive. As important is the fact that societies that have "ladders" of success for poor people are much safer for everyone (rich people especially) than societies that don't. The whole reason public education began in the late 19th and early 20th century was that rich people were scared that poor people were becoming so repressed that they might just turn violent.

Prop 38 had nothing in it for the universities, so there would have been another $750 million cut to the colleges. Also, the $$ generated by Prop 38 would have taken 6 mo to arrive (next tax year), so there would have been tens of thousands of teacher layoffs and 3 weeks would have been lopped off of the school year if it passed.

Finally, I voted No partly because I suspect that the measure's backer, Molly Munger, is actually a shill for her right-wing brother, Charlie Munger. I suspect that she pushed this bill (her ads were anti-30 rather than pro-38) in an effort to kill 30 by muddying the waters. She attacked 30 from the Left, and her brother attacked it from the Right. Together, they spent $100 million trying to kill 30.

Quote from gunnerusa : Rich people use the schools more than the poor. A poor person gets educated, but a rich person gets an educated society that makes his business/investments vastly more productive.

Ahhh yes.... the old trickle up theory......

The top combined income tax rate in California will now be over 53%.

Add some of the highest sales tax rates, high property taxes, ridiculous DMV and other government fees, and I'm glad I bought my out of state homes when I did.

The exodus of capital from California is sure to raise prices for the best properties in other states.


By the way, the new CA rates for the rich will actually be applied retroactively for 2012. Pretty smart on Brown's part. At least he can grab some cash from the pockets of the productive, on their way out of the state.

Quote from Elmer : Ahhh yes.... the old trickle up theory......

it's only funny because trickle down is send to not work.. but given the right situation.. trickle up does work.

Quote from Elmer : By the way, the new CA rates for the rich will actually be applied retroactively for 2012. Pretty smart on Brown's part. At least he can grab some cash from the pockets of the productive, on their way out of the state.

ouch.. I didn't even know you can do that.. So even if someone left the state 6 months ago, they are not safe from the results of a vote that just occurred yesterday?

Imagine a retroactive increase in sales tax? Anyone who bought a house, auto etc.. in 2012 getting a bill.

Quote from Elmer : Add some of the highest sales tax rates, high property taxes, ridiculous DMV and other government fees, and I'm glad I bought my out of state homes when I did.

One thing's for sure: you're exceptional!

Quote : The data came from the California franchise tax board and was crunched by two Stanford sociologists at the request of Board of Equalization member Betty Yee. Their main goal was to determine if the last big California tax hike on millionaires, the mental health surcharge of 2005, had a detectable effect on the out-migration of those who paid it. (The surcharge added one percentage point to the tax rate of incomes over $1 million, raising the top marginal rate to 10.3%.) In their just-published paper the Stanford analysts, Cristobal Young and Charles Varner, also investigated whether the state's 1996 tax cut for high-income residents, which cut the top rate to 9.3% from 11%, had the opposite effect — that is, lured wealthy taxpayers into the state. They found no such effects. The 2005 increase did not boost out-migration among the $1-million-plus population — in fact, the rate of millionaire out-migration declined after the hike. The 1996 tax cut didn't increase the flow of millionaires into California, either.

http://www.latimes.com/business/l...737.column