California Election Clusterfuck - November 2010

[JONJONAUG]

So I'd thought I'd start this thread early.

Proposition 19 - Legalize and tax marijuana
For why all the arguments against prop 19 suck, please read this here

Proposition 21 - Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks
Yeah, sure.

Proposition 22 - State government prohibited from taking designated types of local funds
Along with prop 25 this could go a long way towards balancing the budget by forcing the state to actually look for better ways of raising funds.

Proposition 23 - Suspend AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5%
Basically, AB 32 requires California to reduce emissions levels to 1990 levels. I'm generally against suspending that.

Proposition 24 - Eliminates three business tax breaks that allow businesses to lower the tax liability of themselves and their affiliates
Yeah, sure.

Proposition 25 - State budget and tax increases can be passed with a simple majority vote, rather than current 2/3rds requirement
Would allow California to actually balance its budget a little. So huge yes.

Proposition 26 - Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by 2/3 vote
In the same way that 25 is a big yes, this is a big no.

Proposition 20 - Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee
and
Proposition 27 - Return task of redistricting to the California State Legislature (repealing Prop 11)

I don't know what the situation in California is on this and it's kind of dull compared to the rest of these.

 

[Dave]

Omaha just passed a wheel tax that specifically targets those who live outside of Omaha but use the roads to come to work. So in essence it's a tax on people who work in Omaha but don't live here and can't vote against it. I'm so against this it's not funy. Yes, we have budget issues, but this is taxation without representation and it one of the reasons we are a country and not a British principality.

 

[JONJONAUG]

EDIT: OK now I've confused myself. Give me 20 minutes to actually prepare a good reply.

Alright, I'll agree with Dave as far as local areas passing laws that levy fees that affect people from outside of that locality. But letting California levy fees as a state is a good thing because their budget is hilariously out of whack. Overall, I'd still vote no.

You also have to realize that this would redefine fees on corporations as taxes, and that this measure is mostly being funded by large corporate entities who want to use it to make it harder to pass fees on corporations for pollution or things of that nature.

 

[Troll]

Omaha just passed a wheel tax that specifically targets those who live outside of Omaha but use the roads to come to work. So in essence it's a tax on people who work in Omaha but don't live here and can't vote against it. I'm so against this it's not funy. Yes, we have budget issues, but this is taxation without representation and it one of the reasons we are a country and not a British principality.

There seems to be a growing trend of taxing people who travel into cities but don't live there, which strikes me as a really bad idea. Aren't major cities discouraging people to come in and spend money this way? How much are they hurting local revenue by taxing the travel into the area?

 

[AshburnerX]

Proposition 20 - Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee
and
Proposition 27 - Return task of redistricting to the California State Legislature (repealing Prop 11)

I don't know what the situation in California is on this and it's kind of dull compared to the rest of these.

It's most likely an attempt to sabotage elections in certain locals that run against the current party in power in Cali. That's what it was the last time it happened in Ohio anyway.

 

[Bubble181]

There are some pretty good reasons for taxing people who work in cities but do'nt live there, though. Depends on the surrounding country wether or not it's sensible.
For example, Brussels. About 1.2 million people live here, but about 800.000 people commute intothe city every day. These people don't pay taxes for cleaning/repair of the roads they use (or the subsidized public transportation), they don't pay for garbage collection, cleaning up pollution, and so on, and so forth.
All in all, it means that the people who -do- live in Brussels have to pay more taxes than anyone else just to keep things moderately running (and even so...), while everybody from outside is complaining the city is dirty, the flowerbeds aren't always clean, whatever...But they don't pay for it themselves.
London has a congestion charge, specifically for those people who feel the need to use a car int he city during peak hours. Some other places use other systems...It all depends on a lot of other variables whether or not such a thing is positive or negative, really.

 

[tegid]

There are some pretty good reasons for taxing people who work in cities but do'nt live there, though. Depends on the surrounding country wether or not it's sensible.
For example, Brussels. About 1.2 million people live here, but about 800.000 people commute intothe city every day. These people don't pay taxes for cleaning/repair of the roads they use (or the subsidized public transportation), they don't pay for garbage collection, cleaning up pollution, and so on, and so forth.
All in all, it means that the people who -do- live in Brussels have to pay more taxes than anyone else just to keep things moderately running (and even so...), while everybody from outside is complaining the city is dirty, the flowerbeds aren't always clean, whatever...But they don't pay for it themselves.
London has a congestion charge, specifically for those people who feel the need to use a car int he city during peak hours. Some other places use other systems...It all depends on a lot of other variables whether or not such a thing is positive or negative, really.

Another partial solution is to give funding from state/region/whatevs taxes.

 

[SpecialKO]

There seems to be a growing trend of taxing people who travel into cities but don't live there, which strikes me as a really bad idea. Aren't major cities discouraging people to come in and spend money this way? How much are they hurting local revenue by taxing the travel into the area?

Depends on the tax. Most people won't change jobs out of some "no taxation without representation principle", they change jobs because the cost associated with the commute has become insupportable. There's a grey area where the pain of the fee/tax is high enough for the city to collect some revenue that can be used for maintenance, but low enough that commuters won't actually leave.

When I was working in Manhattan, NY got practically none of my income through taxes; NJ got most of the state income tax because I live there, and that's the case with a lot of people who work in the city. As uncomfortable as it is to watch public transit and bridge tolls rise, it's undeniable that NYC has to deal with a growing upkeep cost from people who earn in NYC but pay their taxes elsewhere.

 

[Bubble181]

Sure - but that means you're punishing people who don't go to the city, too. Also, you're siphoning money from one level of government to another, which, not to sound like GasBandit, just causes bureaucratic inflation and a complete and utter mess.

Anyway - there's no real simple answer, mind you. I think a "tax" system per wheel or per car during certain hours, with potentially different rates for inhabitants and people coming in from outside the city, is best...But just misrepresented. It isn't taxation - it's paying for a utility you use. Having to pay for power, gas or water is perfectly logical. Why not pay for roads? :-P

 

[Covar]

There seems to be a growing trend of taxing people who travel into cities but don't live there, which strikes me as a really bad idea. Aren't major cities discouraging people to come in and spend money this way? How much are they hurting local revenue by taxing the travel into the area?

Depends on the tax. Most people won't change jobs out of some "no taxation without representation principle", they change jobs because the cost associated with the commute has become insupportable. There's a grey area where the pain of the fee/tax is high enough for the city to collect some revenue that can be used for maintenance, but low enough that commuters won't actually leave.

When I was working in Manhattan, NY got practically none of my income through taxes; NJ got most of the state income tax because I live there, and that's the case with a lot of people who work in the city. As uncomfortable as it is to watch public transit and bridge tolls rise, it's undeniable that NYC has to deal with a growing upkeep cost from people who earn in NYC but pay their taxes elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

It's not like business with offices in the city get taxed on them...

Well it's not like a portion of the money you spend while in the city goes back into it...

 

[tegid]

Sure - but that means you're punishing people who don't go to the city, too.

That happens with taxes all the time, within the city. You punish people who don't use public transport when you tax them to subsidize it, for instance.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Dear California,

Legalize it.

 

[SpecialKO]

It's not like business with offices in the city get taxed on them...

That's always the case, regardless of whether a company's employees commute or live in the same city.

Well it's not like a portion of the money you spend while in the city goes back into it...

Again, that's always the case, regardless of where people live. And I'm frankly skeptical that commuters spend as much in the city as they do outside the city when they're at home.

Don't forget, most folks who live in NYC take the MTA (which is a whole 'nother kettle of crapfish, granted). The folks who drive in from outside are the ones who contribute the most to road-wear and transit pollution.

Admittedly, NYC makes it relatively simple rather than backdoor taxes. Wanna drive in? Pay the bridge tolls. Wanna not pay for the bridge tolls plus ridiculous monthly parking fees? Take the train/subway.