HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » California (Group) » Prop 39: Closes a corpora...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:45 PM

Prop 39: Closes a corporate tax loophole, but earmarks most of the money

to fund projects that "create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs."

http://www.svcn.org/2012/November%206th%20Ballot%20Powerpoint%202.pdf (p. 12)

While I'm not against energy efficiency or clean energy jobs, obviously, I must again question the wisdom of dedicating revenue from a ballot proposition to one program when the general budget has such massive shortfalls. This was, for me, the fatal flaw in June's Prop 29, which would have raised the tobacco tax to fund cancer research.

Also, what exactly are "clean energy jobs"? It'd be interesting to know if 39 has any corporate sponsors.

11 replies, 1667 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Prop 39: Closes a corporate tax loophole, but earmarks most of the money (Original post)
KamaAina Aug 2012 OP
Starry Messenger Aug 2012 #1
KamaAina Aug 2012 #2
Starry Messenger Aug 2012 #6
KamaAina Aug 2012 #9
Starry Messenger Aug 2012 #10
KamaAina Aug 2012 #11
pinto Aug 2012 #3
KamaAina Aug 2012 #4
pinto Aug 2012 #5
Auggie Aug 2012 #7
bemildred Aug 2012 #8

Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 04:42 PM

1. I was curious about this one too KamaAina.

It hasn't gotten as much publicity as some of the others--CA Labor Federation kicked it up to their Exec before endorsing it. On the face, it sounds progressive, but wonder how it creates jobs, etc. Also, does it compete with other tax initiatives, or is it its own beast?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 11:48 PM

2. Shouldn't compete with 30 or 38

doesn't raise income or sales tax, just recalculates corporate tax. But why must these things (38 included) always be written to benefit special interests rather than helping to balance the overall budget? Thanks to the repukes and their obstinacy, initiatives like this are the only way we have to raise revenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:34 PM

6. Beacuse we live in a state that makes no sense. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:33 PM

9. Well, yes, but name one that does.

And would you want to move there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:34 PM

10. I do like it here, but Vermont is a close second.

But I'm sticking here to try to get things make more sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:23 PM

11. Single-payer! Ravaged by floods. Bernie Sanders! Below-zero temps.

Goddard College! No way to reach anyplace outside Burlington -- including Goddard -- by transit.

I'm so confuuu-uuu-uused!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 10:05 AM

3. Prop 39 donors -

Prop 39 Donors

Thomas Steyer is the primary financial backer of Proposition 39.

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of July 14, 2012:

Donor
Amount


Thomas Steyer
$21,900,000

Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs
$325,000

(a good source for Prop info)

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_39,_Income_Tax_Increase_for_Multistate_Businesses_(2012)

Thomas Steyer

Thomas Steyer is the founder and co-senior managing partner of Farallon Capital Management. CNN has described him as "California's hedge fund king." According to Forbes, in 2008, Steyer's net worth was $1.2 billion. In 2011, the magazine ranked his fortune at $1.3 billion.

Steyer and his wife Kathryn Taylor have four children. They have pledged to donate half their fortune to charity. They own homes in San Francisco and Lake Tahoe, as well as a 2,000-acre ranch in the coastal town of Pescadero.

Political giving

2012
Steyer is the main financial backer behind a proposed initiative, the Income Tax Payments by Multistate Businesses With Revenues Going to Clean Energy Initiative. He views the initiative as closing a loophole. His initiative will require multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. He says, "We have a loophole. It is worth over $1 billion a year. We should close the loophole, and that is what we are doing."

He has also given $200,000 to support the Insurance Companies Required to Justify Their Rates to the Public Initiative/

2010

In 2010, Steyer contributed over $5 million to the campaign for a "no" vote on California Proposition 23 and $1 million to the campaign to defeat Proposition 26. According to MapLight, Steyer together with his wife, Kathryn Taylor, were the 3rd largest donors to the ballot proposition campaigns for the November 2, 2010 ballot.

2004

In 2004, Steyer was among the country's top five donors to the presidential campaign of Democratic candidate John Kerry. He was a delegate to the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nominating convention. In 2008, he preferred Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, but once Obama secured the Democratic Party's nomination, Steyer donated and fundraised for the Obama campaign.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Thomas_Steyer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 12:44 PM

4. Nice work!



edit: Is it possible that Mr. Steyer's hedge fund has large investments in clean energy companies? Could that be why that's where all the money goes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:43 PM

5. Thanks. I've no clue about his fund's investments.



(aside) Prop 30 seems to address general budget shortfalls, fwiw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:19 PM

7. You can bet it does. From their website:

"We pursue multiple investment strategies on an opportunistic basis, which include five core investment strategies: Credit Investments, Value Investments, Merger Arbitrage, Real Estate-related Investments, and Direct Investments."

Credit Investments: This category includes investments in companies experiencing financial distress or whose credit is viewed as marginal but improving, or whose debt Farallon believes is inexpensive relative to its underlying risk, or delivers an attractive return, including non-investment grade debt in leveraged or underperforming companies; or in companies experiencing a liquidity crisis, defaulting on their debt obligations, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection or undergoing liquidation or undergoing another corporate event, such as a merger, recapitalization, reorganization or restructuring ...

This category consists of “value” investments (and short sales) in securities that we believe are underpriced (or overpriced) relative to their intrinsic or fundamental value or relative to other securities, instruments or indices that may provide a hedge, or which are expected to appreciate (or depreciate) in value due to a catalyzing event or a change in circumstances, including regulatory or legislative change, changing business models, competition, significant corporate events such as spin-offs, recapitalizations, litigation events, strategic realignments and other major changes.


http://www.faralloncapital.com/core-strategies/

A steady infusion of capital; just what a lot of struggling Green Companies and their owners/investors could be looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 07:12 PM

8. I agree, another little pot of dedicated public money for "investors" is not what we need. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread