3 ms·

I’d rather see a CA constitutional amendment outlawing special purpose taxes. Define a reasonable tax system, put the taxes into the general fund, and spend the

by amluto 4y ago

I’d rather see a CA constitutional amendment outlawing special purpose taxes. Define a reasonable tax system, put the taxes into the general fund, and spend the general fund in useful ways. (And while I’m dreaming, maybe a consortium of environmentalists should band together to repeal CEQA, which is a reasonable contender for the most environmentally damaging thing CA has done in recent memory.)

IX-103 4y ago
Oh dear. Have you talked to an economist about this idea? From what I gathered, most economists think that taxes should only be specifically targeted. That is, the government should tax things that they want to reduce.
- amluto 4y ago
  I’m not suggesting that targeting the tax should be banned. I’m suggesting that targeting the revenue should be banned. Want to tax rich people an extra 1.3%? Sure, but just change the tax brackets for that — don’t call it a mental health tax.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > most economists think that taxes should only be specifically targeted Pigovian taxes ("tax bads not goods") are just about nobody's sole basis for taxation, and many oppose them altogether. Can you substantiate your claim, or was the caricature intentional?
zackmorris 4y ago
Be careful what you wish for. Idaho (where I live) has a balanced budget rule: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/idaho https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... The legislature must pass a balanced budget, but it can carry a deficit over into the following year. In practice, they use that to deny nearly all discretionary spending, and even spending that other states consider crucial: https://www.idahoednews.org/news/nea-idaho-ranks-last-in-per-pupil-spending-again/ https://www.idahoednews.org/news/nea-idaho-ranks-last-in-per... And then do odd things like raise education funding while cutting corporate taxes: https://apnews.com/article/education-tax-reform-legislature-brad-little-4b31a0e2414733efcb0ec9039d3282dd https://apnews.com/article/education-tax-reform-legislature-... Which would seem fine and dandy, but if there's an economic downturn and we no longer have a budget surplus, that tax burden will fall on the backs of working people and they'll just cut education/social services/environmental protections again like they always do.
- tstrimple 4y ago
  > In practice, they use that to deny nearly all discretionary spending, and even spending that other states consider crucial That's often the intended outcome for folks who make proposals like this. They have a vested interest in the government not working and will take whatever steps necessary to "prove" it's true.
jedberg 4y ago
I'd like to see a CA constitutional amendment that requires all other amendments to set percentages of revenue instead of fixed dollar amounts, and require every proposition to state what other program will lose their percentage to maintain the total at 100%. Force people to consider the tradeoffs of their proposals.

by amluto 4y ago

IX-103 4y ago

Oh dear. Have you talked to an economist about this idea? From what I gathered, most economists think that taxes should only be specifically targeted. That is, the government should tax things that they want to reduce.

amluto 4y ago
I’m not suggesting that targeting the tax should be banned. I’m suggesting that targeting the revenue should be banned. Want to tax rich people an extra 1.3%? Sure, but just change the tax brackets for that — don’t call it a mental health tax.
notacoward 4y ago
> most economists think that taxes should only be specifically targeted Pigovian taxes ("tax bads not goods") are just about nobody's sole basis for taxation, and many oppose them altogether. Can you substantiate your claim, or was the caricature intentional?

zackmorris 4y ago

Be careful what you wish for. Idaho (where I live) has a balanced budget rule: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/idaho https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... The legislature must pass a balanced budget, but it can carry a deficit over into the following year. In practice, they use that to deny nearly all discretionary spending, and even spending that other states consider crucial: https://www.idahoednews.org/news/nea-idaho-ranks-last-in-per-pupil-spending-again/ https://www.idahoednews.org/news/nea-idaho-ranks-last-in-per... And then do odd things like raise education funding while cutting corporate taxes: https://apnews.com/article/education-tax-reform-legislature-brad-little-4b31a0e2414733efcb0ec9039d3282dd https://apnews.com/article/education-tax-reform-legislature-... Which would seem fine and dandy, but if there's an economic downturn and we no longer have a budget surplus, that tax burden will fall on the backs of working people and they'll just cut education/social services/environmental protections again like they always do.

tstrimple 4y ago
> In practice, they use that to deny nearly all discretionary spending, and even spending that other states consider crucial That's often the intended outcome for folks who make proposals like this. They have a vested interest in the government not working and will take whatever steps necessary to "prove" it's true.

jedberg 4y ago

I'd like to see a CA constitutional amendment that requires all other amendments to set percentages of revenue instead of fixed dollar amounts, and require every proposition to state what other program will lose their percentage to maintain the total at 100%. Force people to consider the tradeoffs of their proposals.