California propositions
Update (10/13/04): I altered by views slightly after further research; look over these recommendations instead.
The massive voter information guide to the
- Prop. 59: Public Records, Open Meetings – Yes; open government is a good thing.
- Prop. 60: Election Rights of Political Parties – Yes; mainly to prevent the odious Prop. 62 from taking effect.
- Prop. 60A: Surplus Property – No; there are already too many nitpicky rules about government spending.
- Prop. 61: Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act – Yes; how can I turn down children’s hospitals, even with the massive bond burden?
- Prop. 62: Elections. Primaries – No; voters in a primary should belong to the relevant party, and blocking third parties from the November ballot is just wrong.
- Prop. 63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million – Yes; taxing the rich to pay for mental health care is a no-brainer.
- Prop. 64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws – No; class-action lawsuits are one of the few forces fighting corporate injustice.
- Prop. 66: Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment – Yes; applying Three Strikes after non-violent crimes has been an expensive disaster.
- Prop. 67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge – Yes; paying 50 cents per month for better emergency medicine is a good deal.
- Prop. 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments.Revenues, Tax Exemptions – No opinion on Indian gambling; I just don’t care.
- Prop. 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding – No; privacy concerns, especially for people who aren’t convicted, outweigh the law-enforcements benefits.
- Prop. 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State – No opinion on Indian gambling; I just don’t care.
- Prop. 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds – No; though stem-cell research is very promising, the state can’t afford it.
- Prop. 72: Health Care Coverage Requirements – Yes; everyone with a job should receive health care.
8 Comments:
Prop 63: Why is taxing the rich to pay for mental health "a no brainer"? The legislature cannot pass a tax to all Californians, so they are couching their poor state management as a "let the rich pay" knowing that the majority of voters will vote yes. NO FAIR. Don't try to fix a mismanagement problem by just trying to tax one portion of the population. If this is good for Californians, let's let ALL people help the mentally ill, not just the so-called rich.
The no-brainer line was a lame joke, since Prop. 63 involves mental health funding.
I'd describe the situation as a problem of priorities, not a "mismanagement" problem. Raising taxes to fund handling people's basic needs, such as mental health treatment, is the right thing to do. However, Republican politicians would never support it.
Besides, considering the regressive nature of the state sales tax, an additional tax on the wealthy is totally fair.
An additional tax on a select group is very regressive as well, especially on a group that creates jobs and puts their resources on the line everyday to make a better living for themselves. Soon, this group will have enough of the state of California and leave. Then where will you be? The other part of this proposition that no one is talking about is that if this becomes law, then the state is obligated to fund mental health services at the 03-04 levels. It cannot spend less than this level. So, if the income from this regressive tax, for some reason, falls below this level, the state has to fund from some other source.
Since Prop. 63 only applies to people with annual incomes exceeding $1 million, it's clearly not regressive.
The term "progressive" is technical. A tax that affects greatest those who can most afford it is progressive. A regressive tax is the opposite. A tax on millionaires is progressive.
As for "creating jobs" -- that phrase is propaganda by the wealthy to distract from the fact that, if you are generating a million dollars of personal income, you clearly are not immediately spending it on expenses like labor. Instead, you're accumulating capital that can be used at a later date, or used to purchase assets that are a more stable investment than labor. A tax on millionaires should cause them figure out how to adjust their incomes to below a million dollars, perhaps by figuring out how to spend the money before it becomes classified as personal income.
Generally speaking, investors will tend to try and reduce the number of jobs required to do anything. That's your basic increase in productivity that fuels growth and creates profit margins. (They can also export jobs to a poorer country.) The profits are then, if possible, plowed into lower-risk investments, like land or real-estate, bonds, and stable businesses.
Rich people do not create jobs. The main thing that creates jobs is consumer demand, which gets people trying to figure out how to gather all that dispersed weath back into their stable investments. So they open more businesses. The best way to create consumer demand is to empower people to demand higher wages. This is my opinion.
There are other ways to stoke the fires of investment, like deregulation or tax cuts, but better wages are the best way because the wage increases are going to be measured against productivity increases. Tax cuts taketh from the government workers to giveth to other workers - a zero sum game. Deregulation undoes a lot of regulation work that probably cost millions to institute in the first place, and probably serves some useful purpose -- like keeping the air breatheable. This is just my personal opinion.
John
Cal Election Web Forum
http://www.riceball.com/drupal
Nice site!
[url=http://jemkjymn.com/huqk/cdmm.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://stnesarg.com/xxfb/yfgf.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit
Thank you!
http://jemkjymn.com/huqk/cdmm.html | http://iyhckeds.com/ybmr/dxcr.html
Post a Comment
<< Home