Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/27/2011 10:12:34 PM PDT by Deo volente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Deo volente

no worries...the lottery has the schools covered (rolling eyes)

2 posted on 04/27/2011 10:22:15 PM PDT by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente
Sixty-two percent of the respondents rejected the idea of increasing the state personal income tax to fund K-12 education.

Sixty-one percent opposed extending the sales tax increase, which expires in July.

Good news for long-suffering California taxpayers!

3 posted on 04/27/2011 10:29:43 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

Cut aide to illegals .

With the savings increase spending on schools and roads.

We will still have e surplus!


4 posted on 04/27/2011 11:18:21 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Impeach Obama & try him for treason / Homosexuals reject diversity / Unions finally caught for theft)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

This poll is a crock. A State Legislative Analyst Office report indicated that if funding mandates for K-12 schools were deregulated further that $7.4 billion in expenses could be avoided. A key question the poll should have asked is “would you prefer raising taxes or the legislature deregulating school funding mandates at no expense to local taxpayers?”

A first round of deregulating funding mandates of $4.5 billion in 2009 saved K-12 school districts from having to lay off core teachers. If the legislature would authorize another round of deregulation of “categorical” jobs programs $7.4 billion in costs could be avoided and again no core teachers would have to be laid off.

If a rich or poor school district votes to raise school parcel taxes the taxpayers could end up being double duped by having to pay more taxes while the school district would have lower funding mandates and could reap a double windfall.


5 posted on 04/27/2011 11:31:59 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

It is interesting that “taxes on us” get voted down, no matter how small. A few years ago a small but uniformly applied phone tax was voted down (less than a $5 a month) but taxes on the rich passed. Voters only want to tax someone else.

Tax the rich schemes pass in the polls, as the vast majority of Californians think they will never be impacted by tax increases on the rich.


6 posted on 04/27/2011 11:32:09 PM PDT by srajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

Don’t cut operating costs increase taxes,yep that sounds like a progressive system.Pure california all right.


9 posted on 04/28/2011 3:24:33 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente
Most favor Brown's budget plan to close the budget gap – about half through spending cuts and half through temporary tax increases

source

10 posted on 04/28/2011 3:52:52 AM PDT by South40 (Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

This is silly. How many new schools are they going to need to build and staff?


11 posted on 04/28/2011 4:05:51 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

I am so looking forward to the instantaneous implosion - POOF! - of California..... /s =.=


12 posted on 04/28/2011 5:06:20 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente
have cake or eat it... which???
13 posted on 04/28/2011 5:21:06 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente
The survey found large support - 68 percent - for raising the personal income tax for wealthy Californians

Where is the divide between wealthy and not wealthy?

Any commentator or politician who fails to note the exact minimum income requirement to be wealthy should be caned. Ten strokes first offence.

14 posted on 04/28/2011 5:52:22 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (The best is the enemy of the good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

This article appears to me as more Leftist Socialist Democrat sleight of hand to create an optimistic attitude in the public of tax increases. A common tactic, strategy of the Left is to plant such notions.

In this case the teachers, but it’s actually the teacher’s union(s) that donate heavily to the Democrat Party that benefit from the sleight of hand.


15 posted on 04/28/2011 6:23:17 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente
LOLOL

And we don't need hydro-electric dams or nuclear plants either!!!

Elves! Yes, Elves with magic wands will give us all the power we need. Like in Harry Potter!!! And they will pay for brazellian dollar pensions for our public employees!!! And our schools are great!!!!

And anal sex is healthy!!!

We have nothing to fear, so shut up you narrow-minded conservative bigots!!!

16 posted on 04/28/2011 9:08:25 AM PDT by Tribune7 (We're flat broke, but he thinks these solar shingles and really fast trains will magically save us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson