Support NeoGAF

[Gentleman Jack]

If you want the state to thrive you need to fund education. The UC is a pact to residents that those who want to and who try are entitled to pursue a world class education without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, that agreement has been breaking down and the students have to shoulder more of a burden. All that a NO on 30 will do is a) reduce the level of service, b) reduce the quality, and c) reduce the availability of education.

There are ways to find funding for education that do not involve sales tax hikes. Repealing some of the more generous tax credits (mortgage interest payment credit rings immediately to mind) and undoing our braindead property tax cap would go a long way there.

 

[Macam]

Taxes and unemployment are certainly tied together. Along with stringent regulation and high taxes, it affects businesses that have gone out of the state or change their decision to come in state to form their own businesses. Without businesses, it is harder to lower the unemployment rate as it is more expensive for businesses to come to California.

Fair enough, but I had the the specific taxes in Prop. 30, which is a marginal increase in sales tax and on wealthy individuals largely in mind.

The only obligations that is required of the legislatures is to provide 39% of the budget towards education as mandated in Prop 98. Everything else is whatever the legislatures want to spend on. They could spend more of that money on education if they wanted to, and the fact that the voters of California had to mandate them to spend at least 39% shows how politicians would rather not fund education if they did not have to.

News to me, but I'm a fairly new resident. That said, underfunding education and similar items is not something unique to California legislators.

 

[Cyan]

The UC is a pact to residents that those who want to and who try are entitled to pursue a world class education without breaking the bank.

The UC was the crazy idea that we could have the best public university system in the world, and that it would yield enormous benefits for the state down the line.

It worked.

And now we're letting it slowly die, not with a bang but a whimper. More funding cuts, more tuition increases, fewer in-state students.

It's sad. Having the best public universities in the world isn't just a point of pride, it's a key factor in California's economic power over the years.

I guess you gotta keep that prison guard union happy, though.

There are ways to find funding for education that do not involve sales tax hikes. Repealing some of the more generous tax credits (mortgage interest payment credit rings immediately to mind) and undoing our braindead property tax cap would go a long way there.

Unfortunately, neither is on the table.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Unfortunately, neither is on the table.

Nor will they be until voters take every other option off the table. Hence the no votes.

 

[Karakand]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

It is! But when we make the wrong choice it really hurts and you got no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Zhengi]

To everyone who is opposed to 30, below is the graph representing per student expenditures at the UC over the past 20 years:

It isn't an issue of us being 'over funded' and 'mismanaging' the money, it's an issue of the state GUTTING education. They've crusaded to cut the fat (to pay for tax cuts), but have cut out the fat, the muscle, and are now at the bone.

If you want the state to thrive you need to fund education. The UC is a pact to residents that those who want to and who try are entitled to pursue a world class education without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, that agreement has been breaking down and the students have to shoulder more of a burden. All that a NO on 30 will do is a) reduce the level of service, b) reduce the quality, and c) reduce the availability of education.

The money is there, but the legislators are cutting higher education despite having money not to cut any of it.

I am for more money going into higher education because that is the sector I work in. However, I am not going to fund a state that holds education hostage to make people pay more in taxes to fund the other pet projects that the legislators want to fund.

The state budget is at $91 billion for the upcoming year. The 2007-2008 budget was at approx $102.2 billion and the 2008-2009 budget was at $103.4 billion. When the recession hit, the budget collapsed to $84.5 billion. Don't tell me there is not enough money for higher education especially since the revenue stream has increased by nearly $7 billion and that it is absolutely necessary for there to be tax increases.

Here's the money for the general fund through the years:

2007-2008 - $102,258,193,000
2008-2009 - $103,400,760,000
2009-2010 - $84,582,902,000
2010-2011 - $86,551,495,000
2011-2012 - $85,936,859,000
2012-2013 - $91,337,850,000

Note that around 2010, the tax increase expired. It didn't affect the budget as much as some people are trying to claim and in this year's budget, we have more tax revenue than during the years when that tax increase was implemented.

There is enough money. The legislature needs to use it wisely.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Nor will they be until voters take every other option off the table. Hence the no votes.

No, the problem is that due to the proposition system, voters have voted for unfunded initiatives for the last 30 years and none of the states revenues go to where they are needed.

This is an initiative that is funded, for an education system that benefits everyone in the state. CA has the best public university system in the WORLD and you want to get rid of it to "send a message" to the legislature? Talk about spiting your face.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Well the no on 30 is not about sending a message. It's about saying no to more sales tax. Don't be so dramatic.

 

[Cyan]

CA has the best public university system in the WORLD and you want to get rid of it to "send a message" to the legislature?

Hopefully not to the legislature, since the legislature can do fuck all about Prop 13.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Hopefully not to the legislature, since the legislature can do fuck all about Prop 13.

They can put its repeal on the ballot. It's hard, but not impossible.

 

[Cyan]

2007-2008 - $102,258,193,000
2008-2009 - $103,400,760,000
2009-2010 - $84,582,902,000
2010-2011 - $86,551,495,000
2011-2012 - $85,936,859,000
2012-2013 - $91,337,850,000

There is enough money. The legislature needs to use it wisely.

A 20% drop in revenue is huge. We haven't come even close to recovering from that, especially once you account for inflation. Including inflation, we're still at less than 80% of peak revenue.

I'm not convinced that there's enough money and this is purely about spending.

They can put its repeal on the ballot. It's hard, but not impossible.

They could, and I'd love it if they did, but for practical reasons it will never happen.

 

[jamesinclair]

The UC was the crazy idea that we could have the best public university system in the world, and that it would yield enormous benefits for the state down the line.

It worked.

And now we're letting it slowly die, not with a bang but a whimper. More funding cuts, more tuition increases, fewer in-state students.

It's sad. Having the best public universities in the world isn't just a point of pride, it's a key factor in California's economic power over the years.

Its part of the "fuck you, I have mine" generation.


Who cares if todays kids cant afford college, classes are bigger, the professors arent as good and facilities are falling apart?

When THEY went to the UC, it was great. They got their, now let it burn.

 

[Czigga]

My votes:

30: NO. Will only make CA even LESS likely to attract new investment & business.

31: NO. Allows lawmakers to not be forced to deal with HUGE budget problems every year. Allows them to kick the can down the road. Also allows for even less transparency and discussions regarding huge budget crises.

32: YES. People labeling this prop as union busting need to read the law more closely. All it does is prohibit AUTOMATIC deductions for political use without each unioner's individual consent. They can still voluntarily deduct if they wish to. The so-called 'exemptions' referenced in ads attacking the law only exist because currently ONLY unions can use mandatory dues for political contributions. SuperPACs (as much as I hate them) already got Supreme Court's blessing so the law couldn't affect that even if they wanted to put that in there. Totally misleading ads attacking this law.

33: Not sure don't know enough about it yet.

34: YES. Fuck the death penalty.

35: Not sure. It seems good but there is a lot of weird wording that makes me iffy. "“Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, is guilty of human trafficking.” So if an employer requires an employee to not take a requested vacation are they human trafficking? Pretty broad wording. Probably NO.

36: YES. People don't deserve to be in jail for life for petty theft, period.

37: NO. People supporting this law need to consider it carefully and think about who this law would harm the most. Sure it sounds nice, consumer information etc etc. But what about ethnic food stores? Mom & Pop stores and in-house produced small market grocery? These new regulations will cripple places like these as they struggle to meet them. Why can't a producer voluntarily label their food as GMO-free? Producers can give themselves a competitive advantage while at the same time not totally fucking over everyone else if consumers don't care.

38: NO. see prop 30 above

39: NO. see above. We have almost worst unemployment in the country. Taxing businesses is not the answer, as has already been proven.

40: yes i guess. The people opposing it said they don't care any more and you can vote yes, lol

 

[Cyan]

32: YES. People labeling this prop as union busting need to read the law more closely. All it does is prohibit AUTOMATIC deductions for political use without each unioner's individual consent. They can still voluntarily deduct if they wish to.

I called it union-busting because that's become the standard method for busting unions.

39: NO. see above. We have almost worst unemployment in the country. Taxing businesses is not the answer, as has already been proven.

I'm not a huge supporter, because as mentioned previously I don't like ballot-box budgeting, but 39 actually closes a tax loophole that incentivizes companies to move employment/operations out of state.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Prop 32 is straight up union busting man. It's a terrible law.

 

[BreakyBoy]

Someone should do this for Florida's.

I glanced at the 10+ and every single one looked dumb as fuck, some probably unconstitutional, that I'm voting no on.

Ballotpedia has a pretty good overview. I'm leaning toward voting No on everything but Amendment 12. Most of that is because I fully belive that state revenue should come primarily from consumption and property taxes. I think taxing income is ass-backward from an economic theory point of view. However, my empathy for old people and disabled vets is making me teeter on some of the property tax amendments.

Specifically:

A1 - GET YOUR OBAMA OUT OF MY HEALTHCARE - Fuck No.

A2 - Extend property tax discounts for disabled veterans - My brain says No, my bleeding heart says Yes. I'll probably go with No.

A3 - Restructure revenue limits with a new system like the one in Colorado - I'm not convinced the immediate revenue hit will be made up in the long run. No.

A4 - Enact strict limits to assessment increases on property tax. - I don't think the short-term gains in the housing market will offset the long term losses in revenue. No.

A5 - Legislators are pissy that their pet amendments were struck down by the State Supreme Court, including their first stab at Amendment 1 in 2010. Now, they're trying to get this amendment passed so they can kick everyone out and have more control over who gets elected. - Balance of power anyone? Fuck No.

A6 - Prohibits the use of public funds for abortion programs and places a strict limit on the interpretation of the State constitution's abortion rights - Fuck No.

A8 - Repeals the existing state ban on public funding for any religious programs/activities. - Keep church & state separate, thanks. No.

A9 - Property tax relief/exemption for surviving widows of veterans or first responders killed in action - See A2. No.

A10 - Personal property tax exemptions for properties valued between 25k - 50k - See A4. No.

A11 - Allow local authorities to provide exemptions to property taxes for low-income seniors. - These guys are really tugging at my heart here. See A2. No.

A12 - Restructure how student representation in the State University Board of Governors works, so that a larger number of Universities get an actual representative in there. - I'm admittedly not particularly informed on this one, but I'm pretty sure I'm ok with this. Yes.


I have my early voting ballot waiting for me at home. I'm still kind of teetering on some of those property tax issues, and I really need to read up on that last amendment, but I should get it done and in the mail by this Monday.

 

[Czigga]

I called it union-busting because that's become the standard method for busting unions.

Well, I'd consider it union busting if it prohibited dues period, but it doesn't do that. It only requires consent. I think that that's more transparent and totally reasonable.

I'm not a huge supporter, because as mentioned previously I don't like ballot-box budgeting, but 39 actually closes a tax loophole that incentivizes companies to move employment/operations out of state.

Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm actually a bit torn on this one also, I don't like businesses abusing loopholes. But the bottom line is that it WILL cost jobs unfortunately and dissuade future business investment and expansion here. And to me right now given CA's current business climate I think that's more important.

 

[jamesinclair]

Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm actually a bit torn on this one also, I don't like businesses abusing loopholes. But the bottom line is that it WILL cost jobs unfortunately and dissuade future business investment and expansion here. And to me right now given CA's current business climate I think that's more important.

No, it will have the opposite effect. Right now, every job a corp has outside the state = bonus.

By evening things out, they can consolidate IN California.

How does it cost a single job?

 

[Babalu.]

Tagging the thread. I started researching all these a few days ago and will continue to get input and make decisions until I vote.

Thanks for the thread, I was going to make one as well but you did all the work for me.

 

[Czigga]

No, it will have the opposite effect. Right now, every job a corp has outside the state = bonus.

By evening things out, they can consolidate IN California.

How does it cost a single job?

Why would they consolidate in CA as opposed to consolidating OUT of CA? So they can pay more money than if they left? I don't understand your logic.

Businesses are already leaving the state. This does nothing to reverse that trend; rather, it makes it worse.

 

[Karakand]

I hate SuperPACs but there's nothing we can do about them, so let's vote to defang unions instead.

I swear I hate SuperPACs.

 

[Fenderputty]

30 - Y (UC / State schools already went up way too high. Higher education need to be more accessable)

31 - N (Two years for a budget?)

32 - N (Union Busting)

33 - N (From what I understand it's backed by insurance companies and will cause rates to rise)

34 - Y (I'm for the death penalty in theory, but since in practice we send innocents to their death ... not for it)

35 - N (Not really sure. Not really for human trafficing, but not really for voting for extended prison terms ... leaning N)

36- Y (Very BIG yes to this. People don't need to go to prison if their third crime isn't violent. Prisons are crowded already)

37 - Y (Who supports the NO? Monsanto. On the plus side ... people are aware if they may care about such things)

38 - N (From what I understood this bill works against prop 30 and while prop 30 does include a sales tax, it targets 250K & 500K plus people which this does not)

39 - Y (Semi iffy, but closing the loophole encouraging companies to send work out of state is worth the Y IMO.)

40 - Y (This thread actually cleared that one up for me. Things are fine ... no need to change and spend more money)

 

[Cyan]

Why would they consolidate in CA as opposed to consolidating OUT of CA? So they can pay more money than if they left? I don't understand your logic.

So they can make more money than if they left. What attracts business to California is the huge market--we have a large population. What keeps them out might be tax law, or regulation, or a number of other things.

The problem with the loophole that Prop 39 closes is not that it's unfair, it's that it incentivizes businesses to take advantage of our market while officially staying out of the state. They get the best of both worlds, and it doesn't really help us much. Thing is, if some of those businesses leave because they no longer get the best of both worlds, we've still got that huge market. And the businesses that do come along will be able to reap that market while also benefiting the state.

The relationship between taxes and businesses is not a pure negative correlation, where more taxes means fewer businesses and thus fewer jobs. Because tax law isn't purely about choosing between raising and lowering taxes.

In this case, I don't see any reason to incentivize businesses to take advantage of our market while keeping jobs out of the state.


On the union question, it's not that I consider anything that sounds anti-union to be an attempt at union-busting. It's that the intended and practical effect of Prop 32 appears to be union-busting.

 

[Zhengi]

A 20% drop in revenue is huge. We haven't come even close to recovering from that, especially once you account for inflation. Including inflation, we're still at less than 80% of peak revenue.

I'm not convinced that there's enough money and this is purely about spending.

The revenue is coming back. We are only off by roughly $12 billion from where we were before the recession hit. Another problem with California is the huge debt obligation and that was racked up before the recession started. The legislature was borrowing money on top of the yearly $100 billion state budget they had. If that is not a spending problem, then I don't know what is.

Things would be a lot better if they did not borrow all those bonds during the good years. Then they would have enough credit RIGHT NOW to borrow money and cover the missing tax revenue. Not that they have stopped borrowing money cause if you look at the links, they have borrowed nearly $11 billion in bonds for the 2012-2013 year. So this lack of revenue burden was self inflicted and created by the legislature. Stop spending and borrowing all that money.

 

[jamesinclair]

Why would they consolidate in CA as opposed to consolidating OUT of CA? So they can pay more money than if they left? I don't understand your logic.

Businesses are already leaving the state. This does nothing to reverse that trend; rather, it makes it worse.

Under current law, you can base yourself in Nevada and sell in California (assuming your someone like Amazon, which can ship product by truck). Under current law, this is your best incentive.

Under new law, you want to be in California to reduce trucking costs, as your taxes will go up if you stay in nevada. So might as well locate where your market is.



Read a book about how businesses choose where to locate, taxes pay a minimal roll for companies that matter (companies where human capital is key)

Why do you think companies like twitter and Facebook actually moved TO California....even though they operate on the web and could theoretically be anywhere?

Why is silicon valley the economic powerhouse of the country?

Youll note in that article you linked to, not a single hard example was given.

If 100 companies leave and 10 arrive, its sounds like OMG DISASTER.

But what if those 10 companies are Facebook, Twitter, Apple etc and the 100 that leave are "Jacks Oil Station" and "Martha Greasy Grill".

Its easy to say "200 left" when zero details are given on to what these companies are, and if theyre even remotely significant.

The corporate income tax rate is 8.84%, the highest west of the Mississippi and eighth highest in the country.

Let me guess, the highest taxes are in New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts....where all the other important companies not based in California are?

Last I checked, having low taxes (Mississippi, North Dakota) meant jack shit for attracting business.

NYC has the nations highest taxes....and not surprisingly, is home to most companies.

Companies arent boxes, theyre full of people, and to be successful, you need to be where the people are. Guess what, the people want to be in high tax places because thats where the amenities are.

When you have a kid, the first thing you think of is "we need to be in a good school district". You know who has good school districts? Ares with high taxes.

Doesnt matter if Job A is trying to woo you from Alabama with stories of low taxes, your kids education is on the line, and you sure as fuck arent going there.



The only exception are oil companies and such which HAVE to locate where their product is. Texas is looking good now, but ask the coal/steel belt how that works out in the long run.

 

[DarkFlow]

I feel like I need to take a damn cheat sheet with me when I vote. So many props to keep up with.

 

[Cyan]

I feel like I need to take a damn cheat sheet with me when I vote. So many props to keep up with.

You probably should. Did you receive a sample ballot? You can fill it out and use it as a cheat sheet. That's what I always do.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Well the no on 30 is not about sending a message. It's about saying no to more sales tax. Don't be so dramatic.

Don't be dramatic? How about don't be so apathetic toward education in your state?

If 30 doesn't get passed, it will eviscerate education. It's truly a matter of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[mollipen]

Still need to sit down and really go through this stuff, but here's where I'm sitting so far. Glad to see this thread pop up, as it brings up good (and useful) discussion about the different props.

30: ?
31: ?
32: No
33: No
34: Yes
35: No
36: Yes
37: Yes
38: ?
39: Yes (?)
40: Yes

 

[CrookedRain]

I feel like I need to take a damn cheat sheet with me when I vote. So many props to keep up with.

Fill out the sample ballot at home before you go out to vote.

 

[DarkFlow]

You probably should. Did you receive a sample ballot? You can fill it out and use it as a cheat sheet. That's what I always do.

Yeah I have it somewhere, guess I'll have to find it.


They need a prop that limits the number of props lol. 11 at once is just too damn many.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Don't be dramatic? How about don't be so apathetic toward education in your state?

If 30 doesn't get passed, it will eviscerate education. It's truly a matter of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You're jumping to the conclusion that a no vote on 30 means I'm apathetic to the educational needs of the state. It's getting a bit silly now.

 

[Cyan]

You're jumping to the conclusion that a no vote on 30 means I'm apathetic to the educational needs of the state. It's getting a bit silly now.

It's easy to get emotional about politics, especially the last few years.

I will say that while I disagree with your conclusions, I am glad that you've put a lot of thought into them. Better an informed and thoughtful electorate than one just voting for stuff that sounds good.

Same goes for Czigga.

 

[hitsugi]

Some of the highest paid teachers and school administrators in the nation combined with being near the bottom for both reading and math = needs more money....

How do we fix this?

 

[mj1108]

Yes on 30
No on 32

If 30 doesn't pass, there will be MASSIVE cuts to education this next year.

 

[Cyan]

Some of the highest paid teachers and school administrators in the nation combined with being near the bottom for both reading and math = needs more money....

How do we fix this?

I'd be interested to know if that still holds true when indexed to cost of living.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Some of the highest paid teachers and school administrators in the nation combined with being near the bottom for both reading and math = needs more money....

How do we fix this?

Accurate and transparent teacher evaluations, more money for kindergarten/day care programs in low-income areas, and of course dealing with the problems 'up top' of shitty neighborhoods with zero investment in the--

oh, you were making a 'throw more money' joke, were you?

 

[Czigga]

Under current law, you can base yourself in Nevada and sell in California (assuming your someone like Amazon, which can ship product by truck). Under current law, this is your best incentive.

Under new law, you want to be in California to reduce trucking costs, as your taxes will go up if you stay in nevada. So might as well locate where your market is.



Read a book about how businesses choose where to locate, taxes pay a minimal roll for companies that matter (companies where human capital is key)

Why do you think companies like twitter and Facebook actually moved TO California....even though they operate on the web and could theoretically be anywhere?

Why is silicon valley the economic powerhouse of the country?

Youll note in that article you linked to, not a single hard example was given.

If 100 companies leave and 10 arrive, its sounds like OMG DISASTER.

But what if those 10 companies are Facebook, Twitter, Apple etc and the 100 that leave are "Jacks Oil Station" and "Martha Greasy Grill".

Its easy to say "200 left" when zero details are given on to what these companies are, and if theyre even remotely significant.



Let me guess, the highest taxes are in New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts....where all the other important companies not based in California are?

Last I checked, having low taxes (Mississippi, North Dakota) meant jack shit for attracting business.

NYC has the nations highest taxes....and not surprisingly, is home to most companies.

Companies arent boxes, theyre full of people, and to be successful, you need to be where the people are. Guess what, the people want to be in high tax places because thats where the amenities are.

When you have a kid, the first thing you think of is "we need to be in a good school district". You know who has good school districts? Ares with high taxes.

Doesnt matter if Job A is trying to woo you from Alabama with stories of low taxes, your kids education is on the line, and you sure as fuck arent going there.



The only exception are oil companies and such which HAVE to locate where their product is. Texas is looking good now, but ask the coal/steel belt how that works out in the long run.

You make some good points. But I would argue that silicon valley is successful because of the reasons you named (location, people, weather, water, etc) in spite of high taxes. I believe it could or would be even MORE successful with lower taxes. Even the companies you mentioned have many workers working overseas in manufacturing and in their giant datacenters (ie Google, Apple). More of those jobs could be here too, but they're not.

I also think it's strange that you're arguing for higher taxes, while pointing out smaller companies 'don't matter'. You're arguing for higher taxes which in theory is supposed to help the little guy, while in the next breath talking about how you don't care if it hurts the little guy's company. I think lower taxes would help all companies.

 

[timetokill]

Awesome. I love our initiative system.

Not entirely sure on each thing so far. Here's where I'm leaning:

30 - Begrudging YES. Though I hate the Teacher's Union.

31 - Leaning YES. I like the transparency stuff and more money in the hands of local governments.

32 - NO. But mostly because I'd want it to prohibit corps too. The unions need a swift kick in the balls but it can't just be them.

33 - NO. Sounds like they just want to raise rates on people, and considering car insurance is backing it, I'm wary.

34 - Probably YES. Interested in cost savings, but I don't know that this would actually provide any. They say that it's "unknown" how many additional costs might be incurred by taking away the prime incentive for somebody to take a plea bargain and reduce court workloads.

35 - NO. Highly suspicious of this one. Reading the text, it seems that it could be used against consensual prostitution against adults. I think such prostitution should be legal. Additionally, it isn't specific enough to me about what "distribution" of child pornography means. Finally, if you're against the death penalty, it would be generally be logically inconsistent to be in favor of this law, which basically says that "increasing the punishment will deter the criminals." Not really. Anyway, this seems like it will be a boon for police agencies to gain access to the assets of somebody they consider a "pimp," and who that might be is not locked down enough. So NO.

36 - YES.

37 - Probably NO, but I kinda want to say YES to fuck with Monsanto.

38 - NO. I can't afford a tax hike, personally.

39 - Ughhhhh..... YES, I guess

40 - YES, obviously.

 

[jamesinclair]

You make some good points. But I would argue that silicon valley is successful because of the reasons you named (location, people, weather, water, etc) in spite of high taxes. I believe it could or would be even MORE successful with lower taxes. Even the companies you mentioned have many workers working overseas in manufacturing and in their giant datacenters (ie Google, Apple). More of those jobs could be here too, but they're not.

I also think it's strange that you're arguing for higher taxes, while pointing out smaller companies 'don't matter'. You're arguing for higher taxes which in theory is supposed to help the little guy, while in the next breath talking about how you don't care if it hurts the little guy's company. I think lower taxes would help all companies.

You can have taxes at zero, and manufacturing like that is never coming back. Ever.

$1 an hour can't ever compete with $10 an hour, doesn't matter how low taxes are. Throw in silly little things like workplace safety regulation and environmental protection and its simply not an equation.

And it doesnt have to. Do you want to take a job twisting a widget for 12 hours a day? No one does.

Or would you prefer the state have a school system that supports people creating new products that can be manufactured elsewhere?

I mean, for all people talk about China....how many products do you use that were INVENTED there? When Apple sells a billion iphones, yes 200,000 chinese get paid, but where does the big money end up? Not in Shanghai, but in San Francisco.

The engineers getting paid $150,000 a year are supporting a lot more jobs than someone making $10 an hour in a widget factory.




Companies are based where they are for one reason: people. So weather plays a part in that the people these companies want to hire want to live in desirable weather places.

So why worry about raising taxes? Theres no where else on earth that has the mix california has in terms of desirability.

Companies locate where the people are. The people locate where the companies are.

Raising corporate or income tax wont change it.

You know what will? Erasing the things that make the state desirable. Kill education in San Jose, and suddenly the school district in Boise is a little more enticing for that engineer. Decimate Berkeley, and suddenly the pool of innovation and R&D that tech companies lounge in dries up.

Theres a reason the low tax states like Alabama, Arkansas and South Dakota are in the shitter. Theres a reason the most desirable cities in the world are high tax.

People hate paying for it....but they hate losing those amenities even more.



I didnt say I dont care about the little guy, I do, I said the article and stats dont differentiate. Theres a big difference between a 3 man company leaving the state and a 30,000 man company.

And you know why these scare articles that quote anti-tax organizations never name any names? Thats because there arent any. I dont want to see Mollys Beads move to Texas, but in the end of the day, her $5,000 a year business doesnt mean much in the big picture.

And honestly, Molly doesnt move because taxes go up .25%. She moves because of friends, family, weather etc. Do you really think the average small business sits down and tallies up costs for 50 potential locations? No, they open near people they know, in places they like.

 

[Anatopism]

You're jumping to the conclusion that a no vote on 30 means I'm apathetic to the educational needs of the state. It's getting a bit silly now.

Does it matter whether you're apathetic and education gets eviscerated or if you care and it still gets eviscerated with your vote anyway ?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Its CA, we just vote no on every tax

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Does it matter whether you're apathetic and education gets eviscerated or if you care and it still gets eviscerated with your vote anyway ?

I suppose not, but the discussion I'm interested in is about the methods required to make education better, not the voters who disagree with said methods. Mischaracterization of 'the other' is one of the worst ways to discuss politics, and I'm pretty sick of it. Yes, if prop 30 fails the wholly manufactured sword that Gov. Brown has been holding over education will drop and it will suck, but that's not where the story ends. The legislature and the Governor will still have to find a way to combat back the cuts, and it's there where I think the most good can be done. Not in shaming/blaming the people who voted one way or the other on a sales tax increase.

 

[Kusagari]

Ballotpedia has a pretty good overview. I'm leaning toward voting No on everything but Amendment 12. Most of that is because I fully belive that state revenue should come primarily from consumption and property taxes. I think taxing income is ass-backward from an economic theory point of view. However, my empathy for old people and disabled vets is making me teeter on some of the property tax amendments.

Specifically:

A1 - GET YOUR OBAMA OUT OF MY HEALTHCARE - Fuck No.

A2 - Extend property tax discounts for disabled veterans - My brain says No, my bleeding heart says Yes. I'll probably go with No.

A3 - Restructure revenue limits with a new system like the one in Colorado - I'm not convinced the immediate revenue hit will be made up in the long run. No.

A4 - Enact strict limits to assessment increases on property tax. - I don't think the short-term gains in the housing market will offset the long term losses in revenue. No.

A5 - Legislators are pissy that their pet amendments were struck down by the State Supreme Court, including their first stab at Amendment 1 in 2010. Now, they're trying to get this amendment passed so they can kick everyone out and have more control over who gets elected. - Balance of power anyone? Fuck No.

A6 - Prohibits the use of public funds for abortion programs and places a strict limit on the interpretation of the State constitution's abortion rights - Fuck No.

A8 - Repeals the existing state ban on public funding for any religious programs/activities. - Keep church & state separate, thanks. No.

A9 - Property tax relief/exemption for surviving widows of veterans or first responders killed in action - See A2. No.

A10 - Personal property tax exemptions for properties valued between 25k - 50k - See A4. No.

A11 - Allow local authorities to provide exemptions to property taxes for low-income seniors. - These guys are really tugging at my heart here. See A2. No.

A12 - Restructure how student representation in the State University Board of Governors works, so that a larger number of Universities get an actual representative in there. - I'm admittedly not particularly informed on this one, but I'm pretty sure I'm ok with this. Yes.


I have my early voting ballot waiting for me at home. I'm still kind of teetering on some of those property tax issues, and I really need to read up on that last amendment, but I should get it done and in the mail by this Monday.

I'm leaning toward no on 12 because I have no idea why it's even on the ballot. I don't see how that's something worthwhile for us to vote on at all. Just let the board itself determine that.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Vote no on 32, it's a union buster.

The real source of funding for politicians is the corporations, Super PACs, and individuals that are all exempt from this bill anyway. This bill isn't designed to limit funding that politicians receive, but it's designed to cripple unions from being able to support local measures, which is exactly what the special interests want.

 

[Czigga]

Vote no on 32, it's a union buster.

The real source of funding for politicians is the corporations, Super PACs, and individuals that are all exempt from this bill anyway. This bill isn't designed to limit funding that politicians receive, but it's designed to cripple unions from being able to support local measures, which is exactly what the special interests want.

Much more money has been spent opposing this bill than supporting it. All the big money supports it. The only reason the other things are 'exempt' is because currently ONLY the unions are able to take workers' money for political contribution without their consent. This law doesn't outlaw union contributions outright, it only requires consent. To me that's more transparent and totally reasonable. All the ads opposing it are totally misleading.

I hate Super PACs as much as anyone, but unfortunately the dumb fucks in the Supreme Court gave them their blessing so any state law couldn't do anything about that if they tried, it would just get overturned. That's no fault of prop 32.

 

[Jetman]

No on 37 is being funded by Monsanto. Fuck them, so I'm voting yes.

Right on. Saw a few comments for 'No' on 37 and was getting worried about this thread

Heres the Bill Maher interview of Gary Hirshberg from Stonyfield, interesting stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t7l42cIJXvM#!

Transparecy and labeling cant cost THAT much more. I see all kinds of crazy labels on multiple types and brands of food products, everything from "20% more!!" to "Less Sugar!!" to "New Hardkore Flavor!". I'm sure there will still be a demand for GMO products with competitive pricing and such, but I'd at least like to pave a pathway for me and my kids and their kids to at least see what it is they are ingesting...

 

[Macam]

You make some good points. But I would argue that silicon valley is successful because of the reasons you named (location, people, weather, water, etc) in spite of high taxes. I believe it could or would be even MORE successful with lower taxes. Even the companies you mentioned have many workers working overseas in manufacturing and in their giant datacenters (ie Google, Apple). More of those jobs could be here too, but they're not.

Just to pick up on those examples you chose, that's not really true. Geography plays a significant role when choosing the location of data centers, which you want to keep cool, have a steady supply of affordable power (and renewable if the company is so inclined) and there's a very real reason that places like Oregon, North Carolina, and colder climates are chosen. There may be some parts of California that would be suitable, but I wouldn't expect most companies to put them here, especially given the likelihood of earthquakes.

Some manufacturing could perhaps be done here, but that similarly isn't all too likely. Steve Jobs himself said he would prefer to, but noted the scale, speed, and talent levels that places like China offered (e.g., you could quickly get a factory up and running with thousands of mid-level engineers relatively quickly). Google tried briefly with their dead-on-arrival Nexus Q (more a victim of poor product planning that labor costs or anything). The kind of manufacturing in question would benefit more from, among other things, a strong educational base and vocational training, particularly when coordinated with some regional/local academic institutions.

I sympathize with your end goals, but I don't think the position you're currently advocating will actually do much for it. California does need to shift its tax base away from relying so heavily on income and the like -- which would make it more regressive to some degree, but certainly more stable -- but Prop 30 is something of a decent, stopgap measure. Far from perfect, but I think it's good enough on the whole given the current situation. Given the current legislature, I think it's about as good as we're gonna get.

 

[thirty]

Don't be dramatic? How about don't be so apathetic toward education in your state?

If 30 doesn't get passed, it will eviscerate education. It's truly a matter of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

They bring up education every damn time and the school system in this state is worse than it was 15 years ago with all the increases we've had.

 

[Cyan]

They bring up education every damn time and the school system in this state is worse than it was 15 years ago with all the increases we've had.

Which increases?