¼% state wide tax increase & increased personal income tax for incomes greater then $250,000
Increase sales tax statewide by 1/4% for 4 years and increase personal income tax rates on a sliding scale for incomes greater then $250,000 for 7 years.
- Some people believe that if this proposition passes money will not go to the schools and the rich people will move out of the state making the proposition ineffective. However, our research has not shown this to be true.
- According to Gov. Brown $56 billion has been cut from education, public safety and health care in the State budget in the last 4 years, and the budget proposed for next year will continue to reduce spending. However this is not accurate. State revenues have decreased and budgets have been shrunk accordingly. The 2013 fiscal budget proposed by Brown INCLUDES the money from this proposition so when he says that there will be reduced spending if the proposition doesn’t pass it is because he was already planning on this money and has accounted for it.
- If proposition 30 doesn’t pass it will not significantly change current spending on education. State law requires 40% which is where we are at.
- Do you want to have a ¼% increase in sales tax( for 4 years ) as well as subject those with incomes higher than 250,000 to a higher tax rate(for 7 years) to generate additional funds for California’s public schools and safety services?
The state would increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget.
The state would not increase personal income taxes or sales taxes. State spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would take effect in 2012–13.
- The Legislature of our State has passed a budget dependent upon the passing of this proposition and its $6 billion of anticipated revenue. The spin is that without this proposition passing, schools will face a $6 billion cut next year. The $6 billion never existed in the first place, and now voters are being told that this Proposition will protect our schools from further cuts. They never had it to begin with. It was never given to them. The law requires that public schools receive 40% of general fund revenues. Education will still get what’s due. It can’t be cut. The $6 billion was additional money when the proposition passes. This is the Governors fear message to get his proposition passed.
- Public safety meets a very wide definition per section 36(a). It’s not what most people think (hiring more cops, although that is permitted), but rather encompasses a broad spectrum of social benefits programs and tangential causes.
- If there was no other choice in this election then this would be considered somewhat reasonable to benefit education however it’s not the only choice.
- This proposition lacks the clear funding criteria of Prop 38. According to pages 82-83 item (B), 89% of these funds will be given to local school authorities to be spent as they see fit with the exception of administrative costs and administrators’ salaries. Teachers’ salaries and pensions are not exempt (page 83 item 6). Passage of this prop will lead to an imminent demand for increased compensation from the California Teachers Union, and yes, they are a leading proponent of this prop.