Proposition 67


My take on Proposition 67 - NO

This is part of my ongoing series of posts on each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my scorecard and links to each of my arguments.

Proposition 67 - No

I know I didn't have it in the ground rules, but I'm always suspicious of any new taxes. This stems from the belief that we already pay enough in taxes already. Think about it - over 50% of your income goes to some form of government at some point - income tax, sales tax, tax surcharges on electricity, water, phone, etc. And with all of this money, government can never seem to provide what it promises. Usually this is due to the fact that they fund their pet projects first to pay off their campaign donors, and then leave popular things (like emergency services) under funded. This gives them a reason to turn to the people and bemoan the lack of funding for important things, so that they can convince everyone to pass an additional tax.

But in addition to all new taxes being bad policy, this Prop has other problems. First of all, there is no cap on how much they can charge small businesses (there is a cap on residential phone lines). This comes at a time when we are desperately trying to keep businesses (i.e. job-creators) here in CA. We cannot afford to pile our lack of fiscal discipline on the people who create jobs. Second, there is no cap on cell phone taxes. If you're anything like me, you probably use your cell phone more than your land line - I have a number friends who don't even have a land line. Lastly, the 911 operators who actually run the system this is supposed to fund oppose this Prop. They are the people who should know best, and they believe they won't end up seeing the money applied to 911.

Bottom line: New taxes for vague promises, when they haven't delivered on current promises despite how overtaxed we are.

Posted: Mon - November 1, 2004 at 07:48 PM | | | | | | |

©