Bill to give counties income taxing power OK'd

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(06-10) 16:47 PDT Sacramento --

Counties, school districts and community colleges would have broad authority to seek taxes on income and products like cigarettes and alcohol under a bill approved by the California Senate this afternoon.

The bill gives local entities power over taxes that currently only the state Legislature can impose. The Senate passed the bill after Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, refused to support a measure sought by Gov. Jerry Brown to place taxes on a special election ballot. That measure needed a two-thirds majority vote from the Senate.

The special election measure would have asked voters this fall to extend and increase taxes through June 2016. But if voters rejected the measure, the taxes still would have been imposed for the remainder of 2011-2012 fiscal year, that ends in June 2012.

Republicans charged that such a move would have been a clear violation of Brown's promise to put tax increases before a vote of the people.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/10/BACI1JSIFK.DTL

[CreekDog]

1. if my county wants to raise funds through taxes so that we can have better schools

and parks, health care, roads and transit, then the democratic thing is to let us do so.

if the other counties want to be Oklahoma, so be it, if ours wants to be more like Germany, then let us.

[demosincebirth]

2. I agree with you. Many want that too, plus safe and clean streets. Problem is

that they don't want to pay for it.

[CreekDog]

10. what state are you in? are you in CA? my county continually votes for higher taxes for schools

not "that many" disagree with it. unfortunately, it requires a 2/3rds vote to pass them, so 65% vote in favor, then the taxes actually lose.

which is undemocratic.

[demosincebirth]

11. Calif. it is. We've had elections upon elections over raising the prop

tax 1/2% and lose every time by one or two percentage points. Those 34% who vote against them are basically republicans, libertarians and independents. It's very hard to get that 63%.

[CreekDog]

12. we can change the passage level to a simple majority

it doesn't have to be 66.7% until the end of time.

[demosincebirth]

13. Easier said than done. Two thirds of the electorate have to vote it down, no small

[CreekDog]

14. no, it can be changed with a majority vote

school bond passage is now at 55%, that was changed by simple majority vote when Prop. 39 passed, 53-47.

right?

[demosincebirth]

15. You are, absolutely, correct.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Court decisions will limit what a locality can do in terms of schools

The rest is fair game, and already happens. It is why some counties have different sales tax rates.

IIRC any new tax will need a popular vote and perhaps a super majority as well

[WhiteTara]

9. Our county raised taxes for our schools and

the state then came and took it and said, it had to be shared. So now we don't have the funds to build the school that we need and the money is now is some politician's hands.
:grr:

[SoapBox]

3. Hey...RushThugs and T.HaterBaggers,

"Republicans charged that such a move would have been a clear violation of Brown's promise to put tax increases before a vote of the people."

If the sun comes up tomorrow, you are going to call it a tax increase...When the sun sets, you will call it a tax increase. I'm sick of hearing this.

So, Thugs, here is my response to you: FINGER!

Just keep on pushing yourselves out of existence.

[bemildred]

4. I'm Ok with a punt to local control. nt

[happyslug]

5. Advice to CA, Local Income taxes are counterproductive

I grew up in the City of Pittsburgh, which had a 4% wage tax (2% for the City, 2% for the Pittsburgh School District). It is considered the Number one reason for people to move out of the City. Unlike Real Estate Taxes, which has a direct relationship with real estate value, local income tax rate has no affect on income.

With Real Estate taxes, if you have two local governments, one with higher real estate taxes then the other, the real estate value of the local Government unit with the higher tax rate, will drop to compensate for the higher real estate taxes. Thus net tax paid in both local government will be about the same over the long haul.

Income taxes, on the other hand, has no affect on one's income, i.e. no matter how high the tax is, you have to pay it, and the only way to reduce your tax rate is to move to the local government with the lower income tax rate.

Thus the Pittsburgh combined wage tax of 4%, while the surrounding suburbs have only a 2% combined rate, drives people out of the City into the Suburbs. Real estate taxes do NOT do that, for if the rate is to high, property value drops, and with the lower property value comes less tax due. This had been seen over the last 30-40 years in the City of Pittsburgh, and has been listed as the number one reason people move out of the City proper.

You do NOT have that problem on the National or State Level, for the distance to move to avoid the higher Income taxes exceed the cost of commuting, but on the local level the savings of moving to a law income tax area in many cases, is more then the cost of commuting.

Now one of the problems with the City of Pittsburgh is that by State Law, Wage tax is only paid to the local Government you live in, NOT where your work (Philadelphia is the Sole exception to this rule, its wage tax applies to people who work in the City of Philadelphia but lives elsewhere, but only to the extent the Philadelphia rate is higher then the local government unit where the worker in the city of Philadelphia lives).

Just pointing out local income tax does more harm then good when compared to real estate taxes. I know California has A ban on local real estate rates, but maybe someone will get around to taking that ban to the US Supreme Court and get it stricken as unconstitutional given it taxes people differently depending on when their purchased their home. The Court has hinted that it would make such a ruling, even the conservative justices have made that hint, but no case has come up to it to do so, but that is getting off the subject, the subject is local income/wage taxes are a bad idea, just because such taxes work on the Federal and State Levels does not mean it works at the state level.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Tax dry cleaning too. No one "needs" it.

[JDPriestly]

8. How do you clean clothes with nonwashable linings? That's the problem.

Do you have a method. I have some things I would rather not have to dry clean.