2 ms·
Scroll down to the donors section to see why you should vote no on Prop 30: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_30,_Tax_on_Income_Above_$2_Million_f
by jedberg 4y ago
Scroll down to the donors section to see why you should vote no on Prop 30:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_30,_Tax_on_Income_Above_$2_Million_for_Zero-Emissions_Vehicles_and_Wildfire_Prevention_Initiative_(2022) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_30,_Tax_on_In...
It sounds like a great idea, but Lyft wrote this law and couldn't get the state legislature to pass it, so they are trying to do an end-around the legislature. The devil is in the details.
The law would tax high earners and put that money into a fund whose spending will be directed by an unelected board. Lyft would of course lobby to control that board and make sure all the money is spent on the upgrades the state had required for rideshare companies, which is their ultimate goal.
Also, it is budgeting by fiat -- it sets how state revenue will be spent for the next 20 years, with no way to change it if something changes in the next 20 years.
I love the idea of subsidizing electric vehicle adoption via wealth transfer, but this law is not the way to do it.
- minerva23 4y agoI agree setting tax and spending policy through the preposition process is a bad idea, but saying “no way to change it” isn’t entirely correct, right? The legislature can change it via a super majority and another prop could change it. It’s also not entirely budgeting by fiat. One of the cool things about this prop is portions of the spending don’t count against California constitutional spending limit (this prop effectively raises that limit so we can improve our infrastructure). I’m still on the fence about this prop. There seem to be good reasons to both vote it in and vote it down.