California is gonna

[Harry Dresden]

Compared to most states California was rolling along pretty well, then-----then in 1978 California:
A) blew a hole in their revenue stream by putting a cap on property taxes while simultaneously,
B) instituting minority rule in both houses of their legislature.


California has been slip, sliding and struggling ever since.

The claim that the people of California aren't taxed enough is too absurd for words. California is one of the most heavily taxed states in the union. The problem with California is liberal Democrats who never saw a spending program they didn't like.

they try to figure out ways to tax you on everything out here......a few years back one of our "Legislators" tried to get a bill passed to fine people for under inflated tires......people like TM's at work....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well, the tax has to be voted on.

My mailbox has been full of lit from Philip Morris, telling me to vote against the tax.

ill be voting against it......do you really think they will use the extra money for what they say they will?......

 

[Harry Dresden]

The problem with the cigarette taxes is they were touted as necessary for the raise in health care costs that cancer created. But the funds never made it to health care causes. It's just an excuse for the politicians to burden one group of people to get money for their public union backers.

which is why i will vote no....

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, the funding behind the for and against campaigns are hilarious!

Prop 29: Imposes additional tax on cigarettes for cancer research. | MapLight - Money and Politics

Top spenders FOR raising CA cigarette tax:

1 AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY $7,402,488
2 LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION $1,500,000
3 AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION $546,256
4 MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG $500,000
5 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION $412,086

Top spenders AGAINST raising cigarette tax:

1 PHILIP MORRIS (ALTRIA) $24,029,416
2 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) $9,574,755
3 U.S. SMOKELESS TOBACCO (ALTRIA) $2,639,018
4 AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) $1,500,000
5 CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY $1,140,909

Hmmmm, that right there tells me all I need to know. I'll be voting on it today...I think I'll be voting for the tax.

California smoking rate reaches lowest level on record

 

[naturegirl]

Smoking is bad, most people that smoke are adults. Putting another industry that employes people out of business is a good thing?? Yea, that makes perfect sense.

 

[Harry Dresden]

As an ex-smoker, I really do hate cigarette taxes. For the most part, it is a tax on the poor. That being said, it is a proven fact that the more expensive they are the less people smoke. The biggest benefit or raising the price is not so much in getting people who already smoke to quit but in preventing young people from starting. When a pack costs more than a minimum wage worker makes in an hour, they are highly unlikely to start smoking in the first place. In the long run, that reduces the number of people who smoke.

Parents are responsible for teaching their children.
Nanny state laws/taxes have proved to be ineffective.

Totally untrue....every time ciggies go up down here, the number of people who smoke decreases...
Fuck it, up the tax by $6...not $1...

i would be all for it Doc.....but when they tell you one thing and do another with the extra money.....they can go fuck themselves.....if they get 100 million out of this and only 10 goes to what they say,so they can say they did what they said it was for,but 90 goes to their little pet projects.....then screw them....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I disagree with social engineering taxes meant to change behavior. If smokers want to kill themselves, let them. They don't need to be babied, and I guarantee the vast majority of people who smoke now understand the risks involved.

yes they do know......and many people have quit because of what we know about the effects of smoking....or have cut way down.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Parents are responsible for teaching their children.
Nanny state laws/taxes have proved to be ineffective.

Totally untrue....every time ciggies go up down here, the number of people who smoke decreases...
Fuck it, up the tax by $6...not $1...

Untrue? Perhaps down under...Cali is not down under.
Most of the problem is that 'tax' revenue doesn't arrive at it's promoted destination.
Remember the lottery in Cali that was supposed to 'save education/schools/children'?
It went to unfunded pension liabilities...ie 'saving education'.

what i was told was that if the Lottery gives the schools 50 million one year they take 50 million out of the schools budget and use it elsewhere....so basically....nothing changes for the schools....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Wow, the funding behind the for and against campaigns are hilarious!

Prop 29: Imposes additional tax on cigarettes for cancer research. | MapLight - Money and Politics

Top spenders FOR raising CA cigarette tax:

1 AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY $7,402,488
2 LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION $1,500,000
3 AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION $546,256
4 MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG $500,000
5 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION $412,086

Top spenders AGAINST raising cigarette tax:

1 PHILIP MORRIS (ALTRIA) $24,029,416
2 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) $9,574,755
3 U.S. SMOKELESS TOBACCO (ALTRIA) $2,639,018
4 AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) $1,500,000
5 CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY $1,140,909

And your point? Nobody is saying cigarette smoking is good for you. But why legislate morality? And if you do, shouldn't the people that are paying the taxes be the benificiaries? That money won't be going into a public health fund. It'll be going towards the pension of do nothing fat cats.

We've seen this movie a thousand times. We know how it goes.

and it will be replaying again June 5th.....

 

[Seawytch]

Smoking is bad, most people that smoke are adults. Putting another industry that employes people out of business is a good thing?? Yea, that makes perfect sense.

Sorry, but putting the tobacco companies out of business isn't a bad thing. It would be worth it in health care costs alone. Smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity. (according to the CDC)

 

[WillowTree]

But smoking pot is fun!!!!

California born and raised, proud of it. Cali gettin stuff done.

 

[WillowTree]

tax cigarettes another $1.00 per pack.. supposedly to get smokers to stop smoking.. and then they want ya to amoke some pot. California is nutzoid.

it has to be voted on Willow.....and the people i have talked to Smoker or not....are tired of these guys trying to tax everything you do.....and when the tax gets voted down they try another way....."fees".........California for the past 15 years or so have had a Legislature with people with a mindset like Dean,Chris,Franco and "TruthMatters" running the show up in Sacramento....does that explain why this State has gone down the shitter so fast?...

Now Harry,, the last time they allowed you to vote in California the Ninth circuit overturned yer vote.. think about that.

 

[Star]

Are you saying CA Dems have a ⅔ majority in both the state Assembly and the state Senate?

Pretty dang close. Which has absolutely nothing to do with voting for higher taxes.
California Democratic Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I am sick of revenue issues being blamed on Prop 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

Cali needs to learn to spend within its means.

LOL - "pretty dang close" [to a ⅔ majority].
You do understand it takes a ⅔ majority in both houses to raise taxes in CA don't you? Pretty dang close counts in hand grenades and horseshoes but-----but doesn't improve revenues one iota in the State of CA.


You can choose to be sick of Prop 13 being blamed for revenue issues in CA, but I see you also chose not to post any evidence to refute Prop 13's role in CA's slide into revenue shortfalls -- why not?

 

[Vel]

Smoking is bad, most people that smoke are adults. Putting another industry that employes people out of business is a good thing?? Yea, that makes perfect sense.

Sorry, but putting the tobacco companies out of business isn't a bad thing. It would be worth it in health care costs alone. Smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity. (according to the CDC)

How much do fat people cost? How about alcoholics? Do you draw the line at the behavior you personally find distasteful or do you believe that the government should have the right, through use of penalties (taxes) to engineer the behavior of citizens?

 

[Katzndogz]

All an increase in taxes will do is make it profitable for the cartels to diversify into cigarettes.

 

[Trajan]

Well, the tax has to be voted on.

My mailbox has been full of lit from Philip Morris, telling me to vote against the tax.

I too am deluged with flyers etc., phone calls etc.

look, the temporary tax enacted 4 years ago ran out last year, brown wants to keep that or that is resurrect it, a sales tax increase for five years and the higher income taxes for seven.

Now we just did 3 years, fees for DMV like car registrations etc.....now I don't know about anyone else, but 8 and 10 year are not temporary in any language, its dishonest.
California gov. spending went UP over the last 3 years since the downturn started, I am not in any mood to pay more.

On California's November ballot, he wants a bump on incomes of $250,000 that would raise the top rate to 13.3% from 10.3%, now since you are out here now, and like any reasonable person, one realizes that 250k per family does not put you in the 1% out here. AND 'saoking' the rich doesn't work, take a look at Marylands taxes on same and a third of those rich were vaporized in the space of 2 years, there by never realizing the funds the gov. thought they would get there by again just blowing another whole in their budget.

We ( not me) stupidly approved the high speed rail initiative committing us to $9 billion in bonds, under the pretense that the train would cost only $33 billion, its now at $68 Bn and claiming and, the completion time is now measured in decades, plural. His obstinacy in going forward with this boondoggle is hard to square with his demand for more and more and more fees, taxes etc.

And add to that I have zero confidence in Browns and Sacramento’s ability to prioritize, coordinate and realize a sane budget, I mean look here, the Cali. Controller reported 2 weeks ago that April tax collections were a 20.2%, or $2.44 billion, below 2012-13 budget projections. TWENTY %...seriously? wtf are they smoking ?

 

[Trajan]

Are you saying CA Dems have a ⅔ majority in both the state Assembly and the state Senate?

Pretty dang close. Which has absolutely nothing to do with voting for higher taxes.
California Democratic Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I am sick of revenue issues being blamed on Prop 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

Cali needs to learn to spend within its means.

LOL - "pretty dang close" [to a ⅔ majority].
You do understand it takes a ⅔ majority in both houses to raise taxes in CA don't you? Pretty dang close counts in hand grenades and horseshoes but-----but doesn't improve revenues one iota in the State of CA.


You can choose to be sick of Prop 13 being blamed for revenue issues in CA, but I see you also chose not to post any evidence to refute Prop 13's role in CA's slide into revenue shortfalls -- why not?

I can only conclude you are willfully stupid, you are regurgitating the same tired bullshit. I posted the link for you, go read it, thats a smoke screen, nothing more.

 

[Meister]

But smoking pot is fun!!!!

California born and raised, proud of it. Cali gettin stuff done.

At what cost? Higher state income tax, higher sales tax, higher property taxes, more fees, and more spending.
Yes, Cali is getting it done...I guess you can feel proud about that.

 

[Trajan]

Wow, the funding behind the for and against campaigns are hilarious!

Prop 29: Imposes additional tax on cigarettes for cancer research. | MapLight - Money and Politics

Top spenders FOR raising CA cigarette tax:

1 AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY $7,402,488
2 LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION $1,500,000
3 AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION $546,256
4 MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG $500,000
5 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION $412,086

Top spenders AGAINST raising cigarette tax:

1 PHILIP MORRIS (ALTRIA) $24,029,416
2 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) $9,574,755
3 U.S. SMOKELESS TOBACCO (ALTRIA) $2,639,018
4 AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) $1,500,000
5 CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY $1,140,909

you are I take it familiar with the 'ghoul defense' where will tobacco get the money to pay all these settlements?

....in a twisted way this benefits the gov.....as I posted already gray davis diverted tobacco settlement money to the general fund treasury, and instituted higher and I might add regressive tobacco taxes all the same....it was a slight of hand. enough already, its just a $$ grab, nothing more.

 

[Trajan]

Parents are responsible for teaching their children.
Nanny state laws/taxes have proved to be ineffective.

Totally untrue....every time ciggies go up down here, the number of people who smoke decreases...
Fuck it, up the tax by $6...not $1...

Untrue? Perhaps down under...Cali is not down under.
Most of the problem is that 'tax' revenue doesn't arrive at it's promoted destination.
Remember the lottery in Cali that was supposed to 'save education/schools/children'?
It went to unfunded pension liabilities...ie 'saving education'.

yup, see my post above....

and from post #14


California.

California’s allocation of MSA funds has been largely controlled by the governor’s priorities, which were influenced by the state’s massive budget deficit. The legislature has had little influence on this issue, and health interest groups at the state level have been reactive rather than proactive. Gov. Gray Davis (D) dominated California’s initial allocation process for MSA funds; only after placing FY 2000 and FY 2001 MSA payments in the general fund did Davis designate $20 million from the MSA for California’s tobacco control program in FY 2002.8 He cut tobacco control funding while securitizing MSA funds for budget deficit reduction in FY 2003.9