From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's Fiscal Crisis
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:46:50 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <183031@pyramid.pyramid.com>
 by rtener@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (Rex Tener):

: In article mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

:> Fine. Let's eliminate property tax altogether and move to a user fee
:> system. You want gold plated sewers, you pay for them.
:
: If their is any group of people in Califonia that can afford to pay taxes,
: it's property owners.  How are you going to pay for the schools?
: User fees?

You mean >>gasp!<< tuition?

Sounds like a fine idea to me.

Or an even better idea.  Most voters seem to feel we have an obligation
to educate everybody, whether they are willing, able, or not.  This
translates into truancy laws which chain kids to school seats, so they
are at least graduated, if not educated.

Therefore, since total elimination of public support for schools will
likely never pass a general vote, let's set up some kind of "food stamp"
program for education.  People STOP paying property tax entirely, and
simply pay their own tuition.  Ie, instead of paying taxes, you pay 
tuition.

Funding for the poor who can not afford tuition can come out some other
tax, perhaps a lowered property tax, or an accelerated tax deduction for
charitible contributions to education.

:> Also, there is another thing the local governments can do:
:> stop spending so much. The problem is not with revenue, the
:> problem is with an out-of-control legislature and governor.
:
: The problem is an unfair property tax system.  Why do you assume
: that fair property taxes == more revenue?  A fair property tax system
: and how much money the state should spend are two different debates.

This is 100% true.  However, the point is that any new scheme for
scuttling Prop 13 is ALMOST CERTAINLY going to mean increased tax 
revenue.  This is basically because prop 13, for MOST people, keeps 
taxes pretty damned low.  Compared to nearly any other tax (short of 
the 5 cents they take off the electric bill) makes for a substantial 
fraction of worth.

Since the tax is low, legistators are looking at all that "excess 
wealth" to tap into.  I give odds of 10 to 1 that any ideas that anybody 
comes up with to increase the "fairness" is probably going to increase 
revenue.

The history of govt in these United States, and in this State of 
California, is that increasing revenue will almost certainly increase 
govt spending.  Ie, it's always advertised as a way to cover current
spending, but always ends up allowing even more spending.  Vicious
cycle.

Given the choice between a "fair" tax system that increases revenue from
higher taxes, and an "unfair" one that is predictable and unusually low, 
I'll take the latter any day of the week.

:> Michael Thomas (mike@gordian.com)
:> "I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  

A box of grenades, an M16 with a Nite-Scope, maybe.  Who needs a flame
thrower on Usenet anyway?

: Rex Tener rtener@pyramid.com

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
Advertisement: The most truthful part of a newspaper
    -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6983 ba.politics:4703