Gotta love those Californians. Tax the rich some more and make it more expensive to buy shit and then hand it over to government union workers. This proposition won easily. The best part is that a tax increase passed on November 6 is being retroactively implemented as of January 1. I wonder how many more productive people will leave the State so the parasites and free shit army can wallow in their putrid socialist swamp of diversity and delusion.
- Raises California’s sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the Brown Tax Hike, the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)
- Creates four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.
- Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000–a percentage increase of 10.6% over current policy of 9.3%. The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.
- Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000–a percentage increase of 21.5% over current policy of 9.3%.
- Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000–a percentage increase of 32.26% over current policy of 9.3%.
- Imposes a 13.3% tax rate on taxable income over $1,000,000–a percentage increase of 29.13% over current “millionaires tax” policy of 10.3%.
- If this proposition is passed in November, 2012, the income tax will apply retroactively to all income earned or received since the first of the year (1 January, 2012).
- Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009, the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.
Prop 30: Supporters say passage of Jerry Brown tax measure signals end of Prop 13′s tax revolt
By Lisa M. Krieger firstname.lastname@example.org San Jose Mercury News
In passing Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax increase, California voters signaled a symbolic end to the tax revolt of 1978, when they adopted Proposition 13′s limits on property taxes, supporters said Wednesday.
Proposition 30, a $6 billion-a-year package of tax increases that the governor campaigned furiously for in the final weeks of the campaign, passed with a 54 percent majority, averting major cuts to public education.
The tax package raises income taxes on the wealthy and sales taxes for everyone else.
Most of the money is earmarked for K-12 schools and community colleges, which have suffered due to lack of stable financial support. Brown had warned that failure of the measure would have triggered immediate cuts to schools.
“Californians looked at the state of our schools and said: ‘They are fundamental to who we are, and our future. We need to support public education, because it is a huge driver of our progress,’ ” said UC-Los Angeles history professor Jon Christensen, former director of Stanford’s Bill Lane Center for the American West. “That is a very, very heartening change.”
Rival measure Proposition 38, backed by millionaire civil rights attorney Molly Munger, was rejected. She spent more than $47 million to promote this measure, which would have increased income taxes on most Californians to raise an estimated $10 billion a year for schools and to pay down state debt.
Proposition 30 raises money through a quarter-cent sales tax increase, along with an income tax surcharge on people earning more than $250,000 per year.
The tax measure won its strongest support among voters in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. It passed in Santa Clara County with 62 percent of the vote; Alameda, 73 percent; Contra Costa County, 59 percent; Santa Cruz, 73 percent; Marin, 68 percent and San Francisco, 76.8 percent.
The tax measure held a precarious position in hours leading up to the election, with support below 50 percent, which typically dooms tax initiatives. Brown lobbied hard on Monday to boost support for the measure, traveling to five cities, from San Francisco to San Diego.
Its surprising victory shows that undecided voters made a last minute decision to boost taxes, defying conventional wisdom, noted Christensen. Undecided voters usually vote no on tax measures.
The measure faced opposition funding from outside the state, when an Arizona group called Americans for Responsible Leadership donated millions to fight against it.
But the No on 30 campaign lacked the funding, organization and platform of Proposition 30, said opponents.
“It had several factors working in its favor,” said Aaron McLear of the No on 30 campaign. “One was the five-to-one fundraising advantage — the ‘yes’ had $57 million, while the ‘no’ had $13 million. Also, there was the power of a very effective bully pulpit by the governor, that controlled the narrative. And the infrastructure of the Democratic Party and public employee unions was a completely unmatched political machine. We don’t have anything like that on our side.”
The passage of Proposition 30 represents a rebuke to 1978′s Proposition 13, which capped property taxes and required a two-thirds vote to pass any future tax increases. This created financial stress for schools, due to funding cutbacks.
Supporters of Brown’s measure said they have grown distressed over the deteriorating condition of public education in California, which many supporters trace to the passage of Proposition 13.
“We have seen the bitter fruits that Prop. 13 has visited on our land. I voted for it because education is clearly the best thing we do as a community,” said Charles Ogle, a Menlo Park tool maker. “When I was growing up, the schools were great, and it seems very unfair that today’s kids haven’t had that advantage. The promise of the Master Plan was broken. For me, that was a ‘wake up’ call.”
Kit Miller of Palo Alto, another supporter of Prop. 30, said “Paying taxes to fund education is basic logic — it’s sad we have lost so many years of revenue for the schools. But now we can make California a leader in education again.”
University of California President Mark G. Yudof welcomed the vote, saying “The passage of Proposition 30 represents an opportunity for California and its political leadership to put public higher education back on a pathway toward fiscal stability. This is an opportunity of great importance, not only to the University of California and other higher education segments, but also to the state as a whole.”
“The majority of Californians decided that the collective interests of the state outweigh one’s own immediate interests,” said SJSU’s Linguistics and Language Development professor Stefan Frazier.
“In the long run, of course, we all benefit. Investing in education during a recession is the best way of getting out of it.”