Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(CA) Gov. Brown presents tax hike proposal to voters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:13 PM
Original message
(CA) Gov. Brown presents tax hike proposal to voters
Source: SF Chron

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday unveiled his plan to raise billions of dollars in new tax revenue to aid public education and guarantee funding for local law enforcement agencies that have taken over some state public safety duties.

The governor filed a ballot initiative with the attorney general that would raise taxes on the top income earners in the state as well as raise the state sales tax by half a cent. Both would expire in January 2017, and Brown warned of further cuts to state services if voters reject the proposal in the election in November.

"The stark truth is that without new tax revenues, we will have no other choice but to make deeper and more damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety and our courts," Brown wrote in an "open letter to the people of California" that was posted on his website and e-mailed to supporters.

He recounted some of the events of his first year in office, including his coming into office facing a $26 billion deficit, significant budget cuts and his inability to persuade Republicans to put a tax measure on the ballot earlier this year.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/1...
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
RandySF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. He can do a lot better than this and get it passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. He could have supported to legalize Marijana
But he wants to do it the hard way I guess. This will probably go down in flames. We already pay 9% I believe, or close to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. You've got to be law-and-order if you want to win in politics
That's why Ron Paul doesn't have much mainstream support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Well Ca does have
"Legal" Marijuana sometimes. LOL! So he wouldn't have looked too ridiculous if he had supported it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. that's because it was a ballot initiative for MEDICAL uses only
and look at how the broader Prop. 19 failed last year, shows that the voters are buying into the anti-MJ scare tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Shoe Horn Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. 'Law-and-order' is usually just applied to the poor.
Nixon never saw the inside of a court, for instance.



Glen Greenwald did a FANTASTIC talk about this on Link.

One small clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLbGJtLGEuA

LinkLink:
http://www.linktv.org/programs/glenn-greenwald-liberty-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Marijuana is decriminalized in Cali
You can possess up to an ounce. You are not supposed to cultivate or sell and distribute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. This will be interesting
I'm quite curious to see if he can actually get the voters to approve any new tax hikes.

I've become so cynical that I seriously question the ability to average voter to see beyond their own wallet for a minute.

My cynical side is telling me they'll reject the ballot initiative and then bitch like mad when their roads aren't paved. I hope I'm wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. LOL!
You're probably right. If they had legalized MJ we wouldn't be talking about raising taxes basically for the poor like this. They should also tax lottery tickets by 10 cents per dollar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. we have a winner. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oh, this is rich
"If he really cares about protecting schools and our most vulnerable, he will stop whining and get back to the negotiating table so we can hammer out a bipartisan budget deal in time to avoid additional harm to our economy. No one ever said that leadership would be easy," said Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo.

Blakeslee is considered a moderate repuke, one of a handful who has not signed Grover Norquist's odious "No Tax Pledge". Thus, he was considered key to the passage of, you guessed it, a bipartisan budget deal last session. To absolutely no one's surprise, he toed the repuke no-tax party line. Hence, no deal; instead, massive budfget cuts falling particularly heavily on Medi-Cal (our version of Medicaid). Not even Gov. Brown appears intested in restoring those. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. What does this mean?
He wants to increase income taxes on the wealthy which is a progressive concept, and increase sales taxes, which are considered regressive. If one implements policies with progressive and regressive components, then don't the two tend to cancel each other to some relative degree?

My intuitive guess is this will allow some portion of the middle class, near the point of the increase in income tax bracket (250K?), to receive the least tax increase. Why not instead give the poorest the least tax increase?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC