The Bottom Line on Prop 30. (San Diego, Sacramento: tax, law, train)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Youthanasia

Jerry is no union puppet, it doesn't matter what unions contributed to his campaign he still cut salaries and increased what employees contribute to pensions so you have to give the guy credit in that respect.

Which actually benefits unions, because their pension funds are a great deal of "where the money is kept".

[Youthanasia]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Which actually benefits unions, because their pension funds are a great deal of "where the money is kept".

By increasing what employees contribute he has decreased what the state contributes..

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

You're comparing a state with not even a million people to one with over 37 million? How many languages are spoken in Billings, MT? How many are spoken in greater Los Angeles? Do you know how many ESL students there are in this state? Do you know how expensive it is to educate them?

I've lived about equal time in both, so, yeah, I'm aware of the differences. However, that still doesn't explain how 5x the money amounted to 1/2 the education. And maybe we wouldn't have the language problem if the requirements for being a legal resident were enforced, but that's another argument.

This is interesting... NEA rankings and estimates of salaries and expenses
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...yM5NgEOtouk-Aw
[C-D won't post the link correctly, but this should go to the PDF]

and goes to support what I said.. expenditures and results bear little correlation. In fact, the closest correlation with expenditures was actually tax levels, particularly property tax.

See also
Investing in education: States that spend the most, least per student - Las Vegas Sun News
Cost per student graduated is all over the place. No correlation at all.

[spotlesseden]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Which actually benefits unions, because their pension funds are a great deal of "where the money is kept".

yeah,

California Teachers Association union spent like 11millions on this. I woudn't believe they don't have any benefits for spent this amount of money.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

It looks like 30 passed, that Californians still care about their children's education, and the wing nuts will no doubt cry but never wonder why they always lose. That would require hard self reflection and that's just not something the wing nuts like to do.

One good thing is once and for all... the voters of California, led by the governor, passed the Governor's ballot measure ensuring a bright future for California Public Education and the issue is finally put to rest.

Most at work didn't realize the tax is retro-active... things should get interesting around April 15th.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

One good thing is once and for all... the voters of California, led by the governor, passed the Governor's ballot measure ensuring a bright future for California Public Education and the issue is finally put to rest.

Most at work didn't realize the tax is retro-active... things should get interesting around April 15th.

Do you really believe that? You just handed the Governor and Legislature about $6B with no guarantee it will go to education, just that the cuts won't be triggered.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by spotlesseden

yeah,

California Teachers Association union spent like 11millions on this. I woudn't believe they don't have any benefits for spent this amount of money.

Just go to the US Census Bureau Website and check out the Employee Benefits amount Current Spending of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems by State: 2009–2010

CA's cost: 4,234,477

New York's cost: 2,537,591

Texas cost: 1,448,684

[crescent22]

Preposterous. A 12.3% income tax rate, easily the highest statewide rate in the country. They should have raised the sales tax 1% instead of 0.25% and killed Prop 13.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by crescent22

Preposterous. A 12.3% income tax rate, easily the highest statewide rate in the country. They should have raised the sales tax 1% instead of 0.25% and killed Prop 13.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by crescent22

Preposterous. A 12.3% income tax rate, easily the highest statewide rate in the country. They should have raised the sales tax 1% instead of 0.25% and killed Prop 13.

Without Prop13, the tax on my CA property (which is nothing special, small older house out in the desert) would have gone from $2100/year (based on what I paid for it, tho HALF of that is "special assessments") to $24,000/year (assuming the "special assessments" would grow at the same rate) at the peak of the real estate spike. This is somewhat more than I make in a year; I'd have lost my home.

Which is exactly what used to happen to CA residents before Prop13, and is presently happening to MT residents, where there is no such protection against property-tax inflation. It primarily hits retired people living in older houses.

The real problem isn't that taxes are too low; it's that gov't spends too much, largely wasting it, then blames us for not paying enough taxes.