California voters

[vvvexation]

I've mostly figured out how I'm voting on Tuesday, but I'm still undecided on Props. 1A, 61, and 63. Anyone want to argue me into a position on those?

Comments

[fyfer.livejournal.com]

auros has some good discussion of those, from a few days ago (and one of the comments on it has more info about 1A).

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

Yeah...these are the ones I still wasn't sure about after reading that discussion.

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

My only concern is that it will seperate the haves from the have-nots. This means that a low income community like East Palo Alto only get revenue from it's people, and a rich community like Palo Alto gets a lot more. I'm guess that EPA needs a heck of a lot more money for policing than PA (on a per capita basis.) But under this PA cops will have a heck of a lot more.

I admit that I don't know how this funding happen currently.

I am also hesitant to amend a constitution (state or federal) unless there is a damn good reason.

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

When prop 13 went through no body talked about how it was a tax break on bussinesses (because bussiness does not move as often as the common family). I am always looking for the side effects (esspecially one not mentioned by in the argumnets.)

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

I should take a step back here. When Prop 13 passed I was too young to know what government was let alone anything else. So I really don't have any right to say anything about that election.

Given that, I do think prop 13 gives the wealth and business an unfair tax advantage. Business and the Wealthy tend not to move as often as the average family. Therefore there property tax basis does not reflect the value of their property. HP, Lockheed, FMC, Century theaters..... have all owned the same property for the last 20+ years. How many times have you moved in that amount of time?

I also know that prop 13 has had many unexpected consequences on the California budget. We are the worlds 6th largest economy, but we are in the last 10% of states on school funding.

What I do want to do is look at all the consequences of current bills before I vote for (or against) them. Somebody payed a lot of money to get those proposition on the ballet, and I don't trust the motives of money. I am distrustful of most legislation, therefore I want to look at in ways that are not covered in the voter info guide.

Now the side effect. There is a reason the state takes everybody's school taxes and distributes then evenly (per student) across the state. I grew up in Los Gatos, I understand that I was privileged. I remember my parents going to my elementary school on weekends to fix it up (repaint walls, wash windows, replace broken lights...). I can also imagine that there are schools out their where the parents don't have this time or money to do so. But even more important, I can imagine what those schools would be like if their funding was equivalent to the local tax base.

From what I understand, prop 1A doesn't effect schools. But it does effect other vital community services. By forcing tax money to stay local, you are preventing the state from being able to re-allocate spending based on need. I have no reason to believe that the state is doing this now, however this bill will prevent them from doing that in the future.

I live in East Palo Alto. My back fence is the EPA-Menlo Park boarder. Palo Alto is less than 1/2 mile from me. I see a great difference in the quality of the houses, the streets, the attitude in that short difference. I am worried that this bill will just make it worse.

I'm still not sure how I'm voting on 1A. But there is something that just feels weird to me about it. This is one of the things I came up with.

[japlady.livejournal.com]

Kind of curious how you are on the Native American casino issue. That one amuses me, like Californians have any control over what the tribes do. They are soverign nations and only the federal government has control over them. Basically the whole thing is about them coming to a settlement with the state of California so the state will stop trying to interfere with what they do by sueing them in the federal courts.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

Well, it's more about brokering deals with them than trying to control them. The way those propositions are set up, though, I'm not keen on.

[japlady.livejournal.com]

thing is, there's really no hard core reasons for the tribes to broker those deals other than to get the states off their backs and be good neighbors....

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

Vote yes on 63 :)

Basically what it does is puts a 1% tax on taxable income over $1,000,000. The results go to fund outpatient mental health care.
If it fails in SC county alone about half the out patient care places will be closed and the other half will be gutted.
Inpatient admitions will likely increase, as will the length of stays, thus costing more money in the long run.

Also my job will get more stressful and I don't need anymore stress just now. ;)

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

The main argument I've heard against it is that we should be getting that money somewhere else, because if we get it from taxing millionaires the millionaires will just leave and then the money will disappear. What's your take on that?

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

I don't know as it's worth it to a millionaire to leave a state based on a 1% tax increase on their state taxes (when it will be a credit for their fed taxes).

Seriously, if you leave a state based on a 1% tax going towards the mentally ill... maybe you should have different priorities.

[japlady.livejournal.com]

thing is, its 1% + 1% + 1%, etc

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, in terms of John Millionaire + Jane Billionaire + Tim BigBucks, etc.

If you mean it's another 1% tax on rich people that would be the proverbial straw on the camel's back, well, that I'm not so sure of.

[japlady.livejournal.com]

There's also the issue of, when you only tax the rich, your tieing the funds in that account to the stock market in effect... thats great as long as the economy is robust, but when things go wonky the money dries up.

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

There's that. But there are going to be bigger problems than just mental health funding if the stock market tanks. An alternate funding source would be similarly screwed with a wonky market (and economy).

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

My thought is that 1% of income over 1mill isn't all that much, and moving would cost them much more than that. Also, I haven't heard anyone offer any suggestions as to where else to get the money.

In addition, they will get a return on their money from less people on the street or in high cost inpatient care, and just because they are rich doesnt mean that they or their family wont need that kind of care some time.

[rfrench.livejournal.com]

So if the rich people will get this return, why won't everybody else? It seems the non-rich people will get a "free" benefit. Wouldn't it be more fair to tax everyone equally? It seems like this targets rich people because they don't have the voting power to make it not pass. It's the masses ganging up on the minority.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

According to the Chronicle, they admit this but seem to be stuck for other ways to pull this off.

[rfrench.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the pointer. I was actually just sitting down tonight to look over all the voting stuff, so this discussion was the first I'd seen on any issue.

Personally, while I might agree that the benefit is good, I don't agree with the means of funding, and so I'll vote "no". If people think this is an important issue, everyone should chip in. It seems really bizarre to fund this from the "rich". It's about as illogical a connection of funding source and benefit as I can imagine.

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

Were it up to me everyone would get the tax, but this is what we have now. Its unfortunately more likely to pass as written also. I suppose the rational behind it is that rich people can afford it better than us regular folk.

[lm.livejournal.com]

While we should be getting the money from somewhere else--we aren't. And in the meantime between now and when we do get it from where we're supposed to, there are people suffering from illnesses they can't control, and no money allocated to help them.

Most of the millionaires in CA live here for a reason--primarily the social life in SF and LA, the business in Silicon Valley, or because they're Hollywood actors. While they can afford to fly back and forth, it's pretty likely they won't think it worth the hassle. The cost of daily/weekly transportation from another state or country would often equal the amount of the tax, after all.

[lm.livejournal.com]

To clarify: Wehn I say "no money allocated to help them," what I mean is no money that is reaching them. There is money there, but it doesn't reach the people it's supposed to, most of the time. There's no guarantee that it suddenly will if this prop passes, unfortunately, but I'm trying to be hopeful here.