3 ms·

The equal and proportional was with regard to the income tax bump. Since not everyone was given an increase, it can neither be equal or proportional. Sales tax

The equal and proportional was with regard to the income tax bump. Since not everyone was given an increase, it can neither be equal or proportional. Sales tax is of course a dollar for dollar match. We all got hit with that. But my simple reasoning was not "people with more money spend all their money"... it was that people with more money tend to spend more money. Their dinners out are often more frequent and more expensive. Their cars are often more expensive. They often have more gadgets and stuff. So while the sales tax bump itself was equal, the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. That was not so much a criticism of fairness but just another point of getting more from the rich... who were already being asked to pay more from the start. Sure, Prop 38 was not perfect either, true. But, IMO, it was more balanced and fair. It was less likely to drive people away like 30.

joshAg 14y ago
> it was that people with more money tend to spend more money And somewhere between $100k/year and $100M/year this no longer holds. Instead of spending the money, it gets invested. Generally speaking, Someone with $1B spends about as much as someone with $5B and about as much as someone with $500M. > the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. > [the rich] were already being asked to pay more from the start That's true of literally every tax except for a flat tax. The general reasoning behind non-flat taxes is that the richer you are, the more you have benefited from society (so the more you should pay back to society) and you are more able to pay a tax (eg: 30% of $30k per year will have a huge impact on lifestyle, but 30% on $300M or even $300k, will have much less of an impact, because the absoulte after-tax income is so high, even though the tax rates are the same) > Sure, Prop 38 was not perfect either, true. But, IMO, it was more balanced and fair. It was less likely to drive people away like 30. Prop 38's issues weren't that it was unfair or unbalanced, but that it was not nearly as effective as 30 and/or that it would have more negative consequences than 30, because of how it required money to be spent.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  I disagree.

joshAg 14y ago

> it was that people with more money tend to spend more money And somewhere between $100k/year and $100M/year this no longer holds. Instead of spending the money, it gets invested. Generally speaking, Someone with $1B spends about as much as someone with $5B and about as much as someone with $500M. > the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. > [the rich] were already being asked to pay more from the start That's true of literally every tax except for a flat tax. The general reasoning behind non-flat taxes is that the richer you are, the more you have benefited from society (so the more you should pay back to society) and you are more able to pay a tax (eg: 30% of $30k per year will have a huge impact on lifestyle, but 30% on $300M or even $300k, will have much less of an impact, because the absoulte after-tax income is so high, even though the tax rates are the same) > Sure, Prop 38 was not perfect either, true. But, IMO, it was more balanced and fair. It was less likely to drive people away like 30. Prop 38's issues weren't that it was unfair or unbalanced, but that it was not nearly as effective as 30 and/or that it would have more negative consequences than 30, because of how it required money to be spent.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
I disagree.