The Wall Street Journal reports on a ballot initiative here in the Golden State that would make it harder to raise taxes:
The businesses have gathered enough signatures to put a measure on November’s ballot that would require two-thirds of voters to approve most local tax increases and roll back some recently enacted ones.... Backers say it is necessary to stop continued tax hikes that are making it too expensive to operate in California and pushing companies to leave the state.
California is not the highest tax state in the union, but it's a high tax state. That said, our total tax take hasn't changed much over the past quarter century:
In 2023 total tax collections came to 1.85% of total personal income, almost exactly the same as its pre-pandemic average.
But what about corporate taxes? Businesses are the ones behind this ballot initiative, after all. Let's take a look:
The average corporate tax rate in California has steadily declined since 2000 and is now less than 5%. That compares to nearly 10% in 1980.
California has added some new taxes recently. One of them, a "mansion tax" in Los Angeles, seems to have especially peeved rich people. Overall, though, it's just not true that we suffer from "continued tax hikes." The tax burden in California has gone up on the rich (I think) but not on anyone else and not on businesses. A brand new ballot initiative to fix a nonexistent problem hardly seems necessary.
A long history of high taxes in California has done little to prevent its economic growth. Hmmm...
The Law of Seven Cs
Correlation in Confirmation is Cause
Correlation in Contradiction is Coincidence
Clearly
It's extra leverage in the "one-way winch" that Grover Norquist pushed, because you'll still need only 50% to lower taxes but 66.7% to raise them.
And the ballot measure can be passed with only 50.1%, I presume? Seems like the businesses and wealthy might want to consider unintended consequences here. Only taxes that are limited to the wealthy will be popular enough to pass if this takes hold.
Actually there is an initiative on the November ballot to require any initiative requiring a super majority to pass by the that same super majority.
But isn't that too late for THIS one? They're both on the ballot in November?
The damage will be done.
Taxes are ALWAYS going up.
Crime is ALWAYS increasing.
Food prices are STILL rising.
I just KNOW it.
You forgot "Revenue cuts increase Revenue"
I think the mansion tax is awesome and have no interest in the whining of people who own property over 5 million.
I see a lot of crying that the tax has "frozen" the high end real estate market (crying from real estate professionals, mostly). Interest rates are what's keeping a lot of homes off market, nobody wants to go from a 3% mortgage to a 7% one. Also, a lot of middle class people aren't moving because they have adult kids still living with them (because the adult children can't afford the vastly increased rents).
Good points.
I'm always reading news articles in the LA Times and elsewhere that say that some proposal or event is going to cost taxpayers umpteen gazillion dollars. If taxes are never raised, then it's not going to cost taxpayers anything (directly). It will just mean more cutbacks in other areas, or that the subject proposal or event will not take place (like accommodations for climate change, to take the most recent example).
Isn't this already the law in the state of California as a result of Proposition 13? Which has been around for 45 years?