4 ms·
"When our politicians do something like this to us, it makes me want to become more conservative, and just never vote "yes" to anything that could have -- and i
by mturmon 14y ago
"When our politicians do something like this to us, it makes me want to become more conservative, and just never vote "yes" to anything that could have -- and in this case, did have-- hidden gotchas no matter how principled the ideal might be."
It sounds like you're looking for reasons to become more conservative.
It has been quite clear to all residents that the state of California has been in trouble for a couple of years now. Teachers being let go en masse, school districts seeing cuts in state funds, and state services from campsites to the DMV being cut.
The text of the Prop. 30 tax increase was originally finalized in March 2012, was sponsored by the Governor, and received a big push from him. The original text of what became Prop. 30 was developed by the Governor in 2011 (http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1035_11-0090.pdf http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1035_11-0...).
If you're significantly affected by this increase in marginal tax rates (an extra 1% for individuals over $250K/couples over $500K, up to 3% for individuals over $500K/couples over $1M), you should be aware of these issues, or be paying someone who is.
- cdellin 14y agoWhile your points may be entirely true, in my opinion they are no excuse for failing to make clear the retroactivity of the proposition.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mturmon 14y agoThe real WTF (that you, me, and the OP probably agree on) is the California initiative process, which forces/allows citizens to act as legislators. But to your point, the first substantive link off the official Prop. 30 summary page (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm) makes clear in several places that the increases will take effect starting Jan. 1, 2012. ("Because the rate increase would apply as of January 1, 2012, affected taxpayers likely would have to make larger payments in the coming months to account for the full-year effect of the rate increase.") If the OP was worried about taxes, he should feel lucky that 38 failed ;-).
- cdellin 14y ago"The real WTF (that you, me, and the OP probably agree on) is the California initiative process, which forces/allows citizens to act as legislators." I definitely agree with this (-: You're right, in that a reasonably informed voter should have known the nature of the proposition. Unfortunately, due to the broken initiative process, those weighing the options tend not to be sufficiently informed. In my opinion (though not that of the US Supreme Court, see Calder v Bull), such ex-post-facto tax laws should be as prohibited as similar laws are in criminal circumstances.
- mturmon 14y agoWe're continuing to digress, but I have to imagine that the framers of the (generally successful) US constitution must be having a laugh at the expense of the framers of the (less successful) California constitution regarding the initiative process.
- tzs 14y agoIt was pretty clear in the voter's pamphlet. See the bottom of page 29 and the top of page 30.