California's Prop. 63

[Burnin' oil]

Proposition 63 here in California provides funding for mental health services. The source of the funds? A 1% tax on incomes over one million dollars. I don't think this goes far enough. Since I don't earn a million bucks a year, and probably never will, I think the tax on anything over one million should be 50% or even higher and that the additional revenues should be used to supplement the incomes of those who earn less than a million. Why not? Gotta love the initiative process. . .

[red-beard]

That is called "Stealing"

[Shuie]

Great idea! $1 million is a good round number. I mean, rich people dont do anything to earn their money anyway. Even if they did, they shouldnt be allowed to actually keep it. Either way, they should pay more taxes than everyone else.

[jyl]

Prop 63 = Good intentions + Lousy Law.

Yes, mental health treatment is badly underfunded in CA and we see it on the streets every day. But lots of things are badly underfunded in this state. It is ridiculous for the voters, by a proposition, to mandate that mental health gets a pile of money, which then can't go to other needs, and that this allocation cannot be changed in the future - regardless of changing needs. It is also ridiculous for the voters to create a permanent supplemental income tax that can't be changed no matter how bad the future consequences might be.

I routinely vote against this sort of proposition and urge other CA voters here to do so too. The reason we have these efforts at government by proposition is that the elected government (governor and legislature) are failing to address the toughest problems of the state - i.e. not doing their jobs. It is the governor and legislature's responsibility to tackle these problems, not foist them off on the voters. Rather than voting for Prop 63 and its ilk, vote against a legislator or a governor. Let them be so frightened of the voters that they do their jobs for a change.

(The election season is making me cranky.)

[campbellcj]

I agree with John L. -- mental health is undeniably a worthy cause, but discriminatory taxation or drastic bond-debt measures are seldom the proper "cure" for deep-rooted social problems. If the bureaucrats in power for life could say no to the PAC's and SIG's and focus the existing tax base more effectively, it would go a long way.

Generally speaking, I say "effem" to virtually any bill that proposes selective funding sources and/or does not directly address a broad-based, in-the-present, curable issue. If something is important enough to impose taxes or take on debt, then we all should pay our equal share, and the public benefit should be clearly defined, with a rapid ROI.