3 ms·

California tax payers, obviously. Perhaps the bulk of it will come from folks (and companies?) who have driven real estate prices up to the point no working cl

California tax payers, obviously. Perhaps the bulk of it will come from folks (and companies?) who have driven real estate prices up to the point no working class person can afford to buy a home in any major city in California. There may be some negative consequences to that, as well, in the form of some companies or people moving out of California. But, hey, maybe that'd help solve the housing crisis. And, it's also a competitive advantage on some vectors, so maybe it would have a net positive impact on economic growth in the state. I, honestly, have no idea how it'd work, especially for a state that has managed to have a budget crisis seemingly every year for decades (but, maybe this is just me having a selective memory). But, the CA economy is very, very, big (the biggest, and bigger than many other states combined). If any state could do it, it would be CA. It'd be interesting, anyway. Somebody has to go first.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I, honestly, have no idea how it'd work, especially for a state that has managed to have a budget crisis seemingly every year for decades Those crises were artifacts of requiring a supermajority for passing a budget, which meant as long as parties voted as blocks, the minority party could prevent the majority party from passing any budget; crises were, then, deliberately engineered to extract concessions. Since going to a majority-rule for passing budgets (retaining the supermajority requirement for tax increases), the annual budget crises have disappeared.