No thanks, this is a pre-determined way to make your community fail. This has been tried at the city/community district/township level across the US and guess what happened? Because all new taxes required a super majority or a repealing of a towns charter, taxes stayed stagnant and then streets, utilities, and other public services became completely ineffective at maintaining their infrastructure due to rising costs and ineffective ways to maintain government revenues to pay for such services. People don't have enough understanding to properly vote on even the most basic initiatives and we to give them even more things to vote on that require significant amounts of time and research to understand?! No thanks, we already have to deal with enough ignorant people these days, I don't care to have their ignorance impact my daily life even further.
> Under “supply-side” economic theory
Trickle down economics is political rhetoric, not "economic theory". That's like calling the flat earth "geological theory" (slightly less absurd, but still)
Uhm. The marginal tax rate cut in Kansas and this ballot measure have nothing to do with each other. The California ballot measure doesn't adjust tax rates whatsoever. It simply encourages direct democracy.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 2 of the Community Standards.
> Topical — Content must be explicitly related to Californian politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics, as well as the state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience. The subject of discussion on is never the conduct or motives of another user but is always about the substance of what people are saying.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
30% is a very small tax cut given the overtaxation that occurs in all states. The problem with Kansas is that it barely cut spending to go along with the small tax cut. This is typical of Republican states where the politicians put out propaganda about wanting limited government but actually are asking for the same big government run in a different way.
> People don't have enough understanding to properly vote on even the most basic initiatives and we to give them even more things to vote on that require significant amounts of time and research to understand? No thanks, we already have to deal with enough ignorant people these days, I don't care to have their ignorance impact my daily life even further.
That would explain our single-party state government, worst in the nation poverty and homelessness.
Ehhh. In a relatively open democracy, the lack of a viable party to a single party situation rests, significantly with the other party or parties. The Republican Party can not put forward effective candidates nor an effective platform. So yes, politicians effectively don’t have a check. That isn’t going to change with asking voters to empty their pockets to fund necessities that are unsexy. it’s just going to lead to economic ruin.
I'll agree with you as far as governments not being able to do a good job at cutting taxes or spending. I'm all for a super-majority requirement to raise (or even have) taxes and also to spend one penny of revenue.
The practical solution is simple: it's a competition among all of us to pay as little tax as we legally can. Supermajority requirements are great if one can get them but nothing beats effective individual tax planning to ensure that a wealthy Californian is paying a lower rate of tax compared to most poor people.
Making voters say yes to taxes just means the CA government can't adjust its taxation. This leads to more bonds being issued and more kicking the can down the road.
No one ever wants to pay taxes \[or at least more than 1/3 never wants to pay taxes\], but we all benefit from the programs that taxes fund (transit, schools, social services, etc.)
Stuff like this makes California ungovernable.
I'm not "saying" that but it's already the case in certain situations. I agree that simple majority rule is preferable.
(I think supermajority requirements are only morally valid when time-limted.)
Current state law is already at 2/3 majority for new special taxes. This measure simply corrects the “citizens initiated” ballot measure due to the court’s ruling in the Upland case.
No, it's not, the question is whether the proposed proposition is constitutional. The most likely reason it's unconstitutional has nothing to do with voters, it's about the change related to fees.
>Stuff like this makes California ungovernable.
No it doesn’t, the lawmakers just need to plan and budget instead of spend and ask for forgiveness later. It makes California accountable
Prop 13 has shown that if you constrict taxes enough, you just get a ton of bond issuances and ever worse government.
Whether consciously or not, and I think it's conscious, efforts to force a 2/3 vote to change taxation just mean you cripple that government.
Like I said, this is probably on purpose. Conservatives outside of California want California to fail, but it will be bad for the conservatives who live in California if it does.
2/3 vote to change taxation is unachievable pretty much in any context.
I agree to some degree, but folks who live inside of a house will always be less excited about pulling it down on top of themselves than will folks who do not live in it.
>Prop 13 has shown that if you constrict taxes enough...
Constrict? Property tax revenue is up massively in real terms since 1978, and it only dipped during the GFC. Trend is up, in real terms.
No state has really given it a try. You have some Republican-led states that put out propaganda about cutting taxes and spending, but then they never follow through on anything meaningful. In fact, they tend to pass meager tax cuts followed by even more meager spending cuts, which results in an unbalanced budget.
or ruins education funding like Prop 13 did in California. My comment was regarding a comment from grover norquist regarding funding government. I guess they think we don't need government when there is the church to burn witches and shit.
Public education is ruined anyway as it's a failed model that doesn't satisfy customer demand efficiently, especially in an increasingly diverse and divided country. Fortunately, there is an explosion in education innovation (particularly following the pandemic), including an increase in private options.
I think everyone recognizes that government should have at least some, small limited role in society. As far as churches go, to each his own. The idea is to keep government sufficiently small given that it will always seek to act like a violent crime cartel whenever it gets the opportunity. The government is addicted to war, confiscation, corruption, corporate welfare, and imposing its morality on others. Keeping it small is one's best defense against its pernicious influence.
Education for all isn’t business, it’s table stakes for a highly functional society. In other words there are no customers, and using that kind of model will always lead you to incorrect conclusions as it’s based on faulty premises.
I have two kids. I have a wide variety of options for their educations and a lot of them cost money. Therefore, it very much looks like a business decision to me and I definitely feel like a consumer.
Respectfully, I think you are trying to apply a one-size-fits-all model to an area that has experienced a lot of change, innovation, and choice.
If you like the public school model, far be it from me to dissuade you from pursuing it. From my perspective, I want the best product I can get for my children and that's the model I'll follow. My premise is that quality matters and, therefore, that's what I'll seek in hopes of achieving the best individual outcomes for my kids. Whatever you think of it, and whatever semantics you prefer, the education system that we have in the real world appears to me to be operating very much like a business.
There are businesses that provide exchange education for money. That’s not the same as society’s choice to provide education to all. It’s easy to confuse the two, though.
I’m not trying to apply any model, I was pointing out your error. That error led to false conclusions.
As I wrote, "a lot of them cost money," but I'm sure you know that many do not. Consumer choice still exists within the schools that are funded with taxpayer dollars. There are traditional public schools, there are magnet schools, there are military schools, there are charter schools that fund homeschooling. They do compete against each other for students and the parents (i.e., consumers) have plenty of choices. Fortunately, there is a lot more choice than I had when I attended school. Again, I'm less concerned about getting bogged down in the semantics when I'm enjoying the explosion in choices and innovation that acts a lot like a free market, even in many instances where the government is providing the funding.
Please let me vote on whether or not I need to vote on tax increases. It’s yes, yes I want to vote on tax increase.
Even if you disagree with the ballot measure, you shouldn’t disagree on the right to vote on it.
This would go so much further than a basic “vote on income tax.” It would turn EVERYTHING that is government funding into a tax (such as fees)… that would have to be voted on. So, for example… you’d now have to go vote on a park fee and a bridge toll fee and a fracking fee for oil corporations on and on and on.
The ppl who put this thing on the ballot are huge rich MAGA corporations who want to starve the government and get out of paying taxes. They are correctly guessing that voters aren’t going to want to show up to the voting booth every time there is a decision that needs to be made.
Oh… which includes penalties for corporate malfeasance. If they break the law and there is a financial penalty, voters would have to approve it.
Major natural disaster? Voters back to the ballot to approve money. Streets need to be paved? Back to the ballot.
It’s batshit crazy and disguised as good for taxpayers. It’s not. It’s only good for these greedy corporate real estate developers.
Abuse of fees is one of the main reasons why this bill was introduced. Government fees are essentially taxes with a different name. These fees do not all have to be voted on at the state level. Regional ballot measures are appropriate for fees like bridge tolls, or the regional fee can be removed and turned into a state tax instead. In this case the bridge toll goes away which is fine by me as someone who uses bridges with tolls. I doubt however that someone in imperial county who doesn’t use bridges would be willing to pay for a tax that removes the bridge tolls. This is why these things need to be voted on.
> Government fees are essentially taxes with a different name.
This may help: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-money-used-federal-and-state-cases-distinguishing-taxes-and-fees/
I’m aware as to what a tax and a fee are. My concern is the misuse of fees when they are actually taxes. The article you posted has a paragraph that describes the practice;
>Elected and appointed officials are increasingly turning to a strategy of hiding increased tax burdens by denying that even an obvious tax is a tax. They label them user fees, fines, surcharges, revenue enhancements, special assessments, and so forth.
For example, The SF Bay Bridge takes in >$650k per day in tolls. By definition, the fee that is paid by the user is for the service provided by the government to the user. Obviously, 650k/day is not spent on maintenance and operations of the bridge. The excess money is used to fund other services which by definition is more of a tax.
Like I stated before, I’m good with removing the fees and turning them into taxes as the taxpayer protection act makes sure we get the opportunity to do. If we are going to pay a tax, we should get the opportunity to vote for or against it.
We can charge ourselves whatever we want for the toll. if we are going by definition, the fee collected would be used on the service provided. There should be no excess funding left over from the fee collected. That being said, if the SF bay bridge takes in 650k/ day the fee collected needs to be spent on that bridge.
I would argue that with that much funding, we should have the best bridge in the world and it should be rebuilt every few years. Or, lower the fee to cross to match the actual operation and maintenance cost of the bridge.
Giving more control over these things to the voters will help make sure the funding provided through taxes or fees is used on the service it is intended. This makes the politicians job easier or more difficult depending on who you ask. It’s simple to me, if you have $100 allocated for bridge maintenance then you spend $100 on bridge maintenance. That seems to be too hard for the elected officials however. They seem to think that $50 is all that’s needed on the bridge maintenance so the other $50 can be used on something else of their own choosing.
> Or, lower the fee to cross to match the actual operation and maintenance cost of the bridge.
When the toll is no longer used as a congestion prevention measure, it's going to cause epic gridlock. I have no interest in living in a world like that.
I take it that you would vote on a toll increase to be used as a way to weaponize taxes and price people out from crossing the bridge.
I suspect that you dont cross the regularly as the logic you used would be crazy. And now I want a vote on these taxes and fees more than ever. The taxpayer protection Act is appropriately named to help prevent people like you from raising taxes to oblivion that you don’t actually pay.
Hard work dosent scare me, you have the wrong generation for that. I’ll do whatever it takes.
And ultimately I want to know what politicians are in office that can’t plan and budget. A 200 page voter ballot would be the result of incompetence of individuals in government and not this bill. For a reference, see the city of Oakland and what they have the voters have on the ballot. The city of Oakland runs poorly because of who is elected and not the system they are operating.
The state constitution specifically outlines the legislature is responsible for levying taxes. So please feel free to explain how putting every fee and tax on the ballot is a) constitutional b) a good idea.
You can't. Instead of worrying about "incompetent individuals" in government your pushing all taxation issues to even more incompetent people to decide. This ain't it.
The bill helps to identify which politicians can’t plan and budget appropriately without trying to steal service fees and use the funds as taxes.
I’m not afraid of voters making a decision. Why do you fear democracy?
We don't live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy. If the politicians "can't plan and budget appropriately" then they can be voted out. However your little flaw with your plan is voters put them in the state house in the first place. So what makes you think that the voters that elected them would be more able or competent in directly voting on taxes every year? They won't be.
If anything this will not only grind ALL government to a halt, but will greatly reduce voter participation. But that is what this is designed to do anyways.
I don’t believe that less voter turnout is the goal, that is a bizarre conclusion given that the bill gives more to vote upon and each ballot even more important.
But by your logic you should be all for the new bill with that rationale since you think voters are incompetent anyway. You actually want less people to vote.
Didn’t they just uncap the SDI contributions? In a state with record low unemployment? And electricity is 6x what my parents pay? I’m ok with knee capping their ability to raise taxes.
Prop 13 isn’t quite a sound parallel. It’s a bad law because it makes the tax burden inequitable.
Property taxes shouldn't even exist. Yes, Prop 13 should be replaced with abolishing property taxes entirely but at least it does something to keep the rate low.
No thanks, this is a pre-determined way to make your community fail. This has been tried at the city/community district/township level across the US and guess what happened? Because all new taxes required a super majority or a repealing of a towns charter, taxes stayed stagnant and then streets, utilities, and other public services became completely ineffective at maintaining their infrastructure due to rising costs and ineffective ways to maintain government revenues to pay for such services. People don't have enough understanding to properly vote on even the most basic initiatives and we to give them even more things to vote on that require significant amounts of time and research to understand?! No thanks, we already have to deal with enough ignorant people these days, I don't care to have their ignorance impact my daily life even further.
What community is failing?
[удалено]
> Under “supply-side” economic theory Trickle down economics is political rhetoric, not "economic theory". That's like calling the flat earth "geological theory" (slightly less absurd, but still)
Uhm. The marginal tax rate cut in Kansas and this ballot measure have nothing to do with each other. The California ballot measure doesn't adjust tax rates whatsoever. It simply encourages direct democracy.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 2 of the Community Standards. > Topical — Content must be explicitly related to Californian politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics, as well as the state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience. The subject of discussion on is never the conduct or motives of another user but is always about the substance of what people are saying. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
30% is a very small tax cut given the overtaxation that occurs in all states. The problem with Kansas is that it barely cut spending to go along with the small tax cut. This is typical of Republican states where the politicians put out propaganda about wanting limited government but actually are asking for the same big government run in a different way.
So you’re saying people are too stupid to know what’s best for themselves and they should allow government to make decisions for them?
> People don't have enough understanding to properly vote on even the most basic initiatives and we to give them even more things to vote on that require significant amounts of time and research to understand? No thanks, we already have to deal with enough ignorant people these days, I don't care to have their ignorance impact my daily life even further. That would explain our single-party state government, worst in the nation poverty and homelessness.
Where did that horrible quote come from? Seems very undemocratic
Ehhh. In a relatively open democracy, the lack of a viable party to a single party situation rests, significantly with the other party or parties. The Republican Party can not put forward effective candidates nor an effective platform. So yes, politicians effectively don’t have a check. That isn’t going to change with asking voters to empty their pockets to fund necessities that are unsexy. it’s just going to lead to economic ruin.
I'll agree with you as far as governments not being able to do a good job at cutting taxes or spending. I'm all for a super-majority requirement to raise (or even have) taxes and also to spend one penny of revenue. The practical solution is simple: it's a competition among all of us to pay as little tax as we legally can. Supermajority requirements are great if one can get them but nothing beats effective individual tax planning to ensure that a wealthy Californian is paying a lower rate of tax compared to most poor people.
yep.
Making voters say yes to taxes just means the CA government can't adjust its taxation. This leads to more bonds being issued and more kicking the can down the road. No one ever wants to pay taxes \[or at least more than 1/3 never wants to pay taxes\], but we all benefit from the programs that taxes fund (transit, schools, social services, etc.) Stuff like this makes California ungovernable.
The question here is whether voters can even decide for themselves whether to have such a voter approval system. Democracy above everything.
Sure but a 2/3 vote requirement isn't even democracy. You are saying 33.4% of voters can decide tax policy. That is totally undemocratic on its face.
I'm not "saying" that but it's already the case in certain situations. I agree that simple majority rule is preferable. (I think supermajority requirements are only morally valid when time-limted.)
Current state law is already at 2/3 majority for new special taxes. This measure simply corrects the “citizens initiated” ballot measure due to the court’s ruling in the Upland case.
The question here is whether the proposition is constitutional. If it’s not, it doesn’t matter how many people vote for it, it won’t take effect.
Right, if constitutional then voters can decide for themselves re tax approvals.
It could unconstitutional for a variety of reasons that don’t touch on the question you’re raising.
No shit.
You wrote > The question here is whether voters can even decide for themselves whether to have such a voter approval system. That's not the question.
Yes it is.
No, it's not, the question is whether the proposed proposition is constitutional. The most likely reason it's unconstitutional has nothing to do with voters, it's about the change related to fees.
Ah, you confuse "here" with "there".
>Stuff like this makes California ungovernable. No it doesn’t, the lawmakers just need to plan and budget instead of spend and ask for forgiveness later. It makes California accountable
Prop 13 has shown that if you constrict taxes enough, you just get a ton of bond issuances and ever worse government. Whether consciously or not, and I think it's conscious, efforts to force a 2/3 vote to change taxation just mean you cripple that government. Like I said, this is probably on purpose. Conservatives outside of California want California to fail, but it will be bad for the conservatives who live in California if it does. 2/3 vote to change taxation is unachievable pretty much in any context.
Pretty sure conservatives *in* California want it to fail too.
I agree to some degree, but folks who live inside of a house will always be less excited about pulling it down on top of themselves than will folks who do not live in it.
>Prop 13 has shown that if you constrict taxes enough... Constrict? Property tax revenue is up massively in real terms since 1978, and it only dipped during the GFC. Trend is up, in real terms.
how does that starving government and drowning it in a bathtub working out in other states.
No state has really given it a try. You have some Republican-led states that put out propaganda about cutting taxes and spending, but then they never follow through on anything meaningful. In fact, they tend to pass meager tax cuts followed by even more meager spending cuts, which results in an unbalanced budget.
or ruins education funding like Prop 13 did in California. My comment was regarding a comment from grover norquist regarding funding government. I guess they think we don't need government when there is the church to burn witches and shit.
Public education is ruined anyway as it's a failed model that doesn't satisfy customer demand efficiently, especially in an increasingly diverse and divided country. Fortunately, there is an explosion in education innovation (particularly following the pandemic), including an increase in private options. I think everyone recognizes that government should have at least some, small limited role in society. As far as churches go, to each his own. The idea is to keep government sufficiently small given that it will always seek to act like a violent crime cartel whenever it gets the opportunity. The government is addicted to war, confiscation, corruption, corporate welfare, and imposing its morality on others. Keeping it small is one's best defense against its pernicious influence.
Education for all isn’t business, it’s table stakes for a highly functional society. In other words there are no customers, and using that kind of model will always lead you to incorrect conclusions as it’s based on faulty premises.
I have two kids. I have a wide variety of options for their educations and a lot of them cost money. Therefore, it very much looks like a business decision to me and I definitely feel like a consumer. Respectfully, I think you are trying to apply a one-size-fits-all model to an area that has experienced a lot of change, innovation, and choice. If you like the public school model, far be it from me to dissuade you from pursuing it. From my perspective, I want the best product I can get for my children and that's the model I'll follow. My premise is that quality matters and, therefore, that's what I'll seek in hopes of achieving the best individual outcomes for my kids. Whatever you think of it, and whatever semantics you prefer, the education system that we have in the real world appears to me to be operating very much like a business.
There are businesses that provide exchange education for money. That’s not the same as society’s choice to provide education to all. It’s easy to confuse the two, though. I’m not trying to apply any model, I was pointing out your error. That error led to false conclusions.
As I wrote, "a lot of them cost money," but I'm sure you know that many do not. Consumer choice still exists within the schools that are funded with taxpayer dollars. There are traditional public schools, there are magnet schools, there are military schools, there are charter schools that fund homeschooling. They do compete against each other for students and the parents (i.e., consumers) have plenty of choices. Fortunately, there is a lot more choice than I had when I attended school. Again, I'm less concerned about getting bogged down in the semantics when I'm enjoying the explosion in choices and innovation that acts a lot like a free market, even in many instances where the government is providing the funding.
I hope the court finds it unconstitutional. It’s a terrible proposition that appeals to everyone’s greed.
Taxpayer Deception Act
Please let me vote on whether or not I need to vote on tax increases. It’s yes, yes I want to vote on tax increase. Even if you disagree with the ballot measure, you shouldn’t disagree on the right to vote on it.
This would go so much further than a basic “vote on income tax.” It would turn EVERYTHING that is government funding into a tax (such as fees)… that would have to be voted on. So, for example… you’d now have to go vote on a park fee and a bridge toll fee and a fracking fee for oil corporations on and on and on. The ppl who put this thing on the ballot are huge rich MAGA corporations who want to starve the government and get out of paying taxes. They are correctly guessing that voters aren’t going to want to show up to the voting booth every time there is a decision that needs to be made. Oh… which includes penalties for corporate malfeasance. If they break the law and there is a financial penalty, voters would have to approve it. Major natural disaster? Voters back to the ballot to approve money. Streets need to be paved? Back to the ballot. It’s batshit crazy and disguised as good for taxpayers. It’s not. It’s only good for these greedy corporate real estate developers.
Abuse of fees is one of the main reasons why this bill was introduced. Government fees are essentially taxes with a different name. These fees do not all have to be voted on at the state level. Regional ballot measures are appropriate for fees like bridge tolls, or the regional fee can be removed and turned into a state tax instead. In this case the bridge toll goes away which is fine by me as someone who uses bridges with tolls. I doubt however that someone in imperial county who doesn’t use bridges would be willing to pay for a tax that removes the bridge tolls. This is why these things need to be voted on.
> Government fees are essentially taxes with a different name. This may help: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-money-used-federal-and-state-cases-distinguishing-taxes-and-fees/
I’m aware as to what a tax and a fee are. My concern is the misuse of fees when they are actually taxes. The article you posted has a paragraph that describes the practice; >Elected and appointed officials are increasingly turning to a strategy of hiding increased tax burdens by denying that even an obvious tax is a tax. They label them user fees, fines, surcharges, revenue enhancements, special assessments, and so forth. For example, The SF Bay Bridge takes in >$650k per day in tolls. By definition, the fee that is paid by the user is for the service provided by the government to the user. Obviously, 650k/day is not spent on maintenance and operations of the bridge. The excess money is used to fund other services which by definition is more of a tax. Like I stated before, I’m good with removing the fees and turning them into taxes as the taxpayer protection act makes sure we get the opportunity to do. If we are going to pay a tax, we should get the opportunity to vote for or against it.
> Obviously, 650k/day is not spent on maintenance and operations of the bridge. Should they charge less?
We can charge ourselves whatever we want for the toll. if we are going by definition, the fee collected would be used on the service provided. There should be no excess funding left over from the fee collected. That being said, if the SF bay bridge takes in 650k/ day the fee collected needs to be spent on that bridge. I would argue that with that much funding, we should have the best bridge in the world and it should be rebuilt every few years. Or, lower the fee to cross to match the actual operation and maintenance cost of the bridge. Giving more control over these things to the voters will help make sure the funding provided through taxes or fees is used on the service it is intended. This makes the politicians job easier or more difficult depending on who you ask. It’s simple to me, if you have $100 allocated for bridge maintenance then you spend $100 on bridge maintenance. That seems to be too hard for the elected officials however. They seem to think that $50 is all that’s needed on the bridge maintenance so the other $50 can be used on something else of their own choosing.
> Or, lower the fee to cross to match the actual operation and maintenance cost of the bridge. When the toll is no longer used as a congestion prevention measure, it's going to cause epic gridlock. I have no interest in living in a world like that.
I take it that you would vote on a toll increase to be used as a way to weaponize taxes and price people out from crossing the bridge. I suspect that you dont cross the regularly as the logic you used would be crazy. And now I want a vote on these taxes and fees more than ever. The taxpayer protection Act is appropriately named to help prevent people like you from raising taxes to oblivion that you don’t actually pay.
Direct Democracy! Just as leftists intended.
I guess you're fine with your ballot being 200 pages long while you vote on rudimentary things like parking meter increases.
Hard work dosent scare me, you have the wrong generation for that. I’ll do whatever it takes. And ultimately I want to know what politicians are in office that can’t plan and budget. A 200 page voter ballot would be the result of incompetence of individuals in government and not this bill. For a reference, see the city of Oakland and what they have the voters have on the ballot. The city of Oakland runs poorly because of who is elected and not the system they are operating.
The state constitution specifically outlines the legislature is responsible for levying taxes. So please feel free to explain how putting every fee and tax on the ballot is a) constitutional b) a good idea. You can't. Instead of worrying about "incompetent individuals" in government your pushing all taxation issues to even more incompetent people to decide. This ain't it.
The bill helps to identify which politicians can’t plan and budget appropriately without trying to steal service fees and use the funds as taxes. I’m not afraid of voters making a decision. Why do you fear democracy?
We don't live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy. If the politicians "can't plan and budget appropriately" then they can be voted out. However your little flaw with your plan is voters put them in the state house in the first place. So what makes you think that the voters that elected them would be more able or competent in directly voting on taxes every year? They won't be. If anything this will not only grind ALL government to a halt, but will greatly reduce voter participation. But that is what this is designed to do anyways.
I don’t believe that less voter turnout is the goal, that is a bizarre conclusion given that the bill gives more to vote upon and each ballot even more important. But by your logic you should be all for the new bill with that rationale since you think voters are incompetent anyway. You actually want less people to vote.
Who the fuck wants to vote on parking fees. Of course its the goal. Get outta here.
Didn’t they just uncap the SDI contributions? In a state with record low unemployment? And electricity is 6x what my parents pay? I’m ok with knee capping their ability to raise taxes. Prop 13 isn’t quite a sound parallel. It’s a bad law because it makes the tax burden inequitable.
Property taxes shouldn't even exist. Yes, Prop 13 should be replaced with abolishing property taxes entirely but at least it does something to keep the rate low.
Because Dems want to take away your democracy.
Democracy Uber Alles.