WEATHER »

Tax Bill Threatens Homes


Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

It did not take long for Hannah-Beth Jackson, your representative for the 19th State Senate District, to get on board with a bill to raise your taxes. Here she is, promoting and supporting Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow all local city and county tax increases to be approved by a simple majority of 55% instead of the two-thirds now required.

This bill was pushed through the Assembly by Jackson’s sidekick Das Williams, 37th District assemblyman, by a 54 to 25 vote. You may remember that Williams was Jackson’s assistant during her previous term in the State Assembly, when she thoroughly brainwashed him in her socialist agenda. Now he has pushed through the Assembly this heinous bill to open holes in the tax fabric so we all can be easily taxed and these taxes can be added to our property tax bills.

Everything is on the table. The county supervisors and city councils can hit us with all kinds of new taxes that can easily be put through by a simple 55% vote by you gullible taxpayers. You all fell for the last round of these propositions by voting for passage of the state budget on a 55% vote so here it is to do it again on all new taxes at the local level.

Now that ACA 8 has passed the Assembly, Ms. Jackson will be pushing it through the State Senate for a vote, which the Democratic majority will probably approve, and then on the governor to sign.

ACA 8 is an effort by the Democrats to circumvent Proposition 13, which is a Constitutional amendment. With the supermajority you voters gave them since the last election, the Democrats will seek out any avenue to get more taxes to pay their union supporters for their lavish life styles.

In the long run, senior citizens on fixed incomes will suffer with from the higher taxes that may result from ACA 8. Your homes may be at risk from Taxin’ Jackson’s efforts.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Someday California will wake up .. Just not sure when that will be..

loneranger (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Justin, your spew is paranoid delusion and un-democratic. A simple majority should be all that it takes. 55% is more than 51%. 54-25 vote, oh the horror! Love that you think union supporters will get tax money to support their 'lavish life styles' lol! Seriously, what country do you live in cuz you describe some type of reverse fantasy island for conservatives where the dems have you all in cages, taking your money and taunting you with the tax stick. Look out! the sky is falling! Enjoy the opinion pages son.

spacey (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Justin's so worried because this is gonna pass and then we can finally start spending the $ we need on public education: tremble oh ye who dwell in Lompoc.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ironically Dan, Lompoc is still affordable for the working-class the Democrats claim to represent. Can't say that about Santa Barbara.

By the way, if businesses were not being run out of California by regulations and taxes, they'd be providing us with more revenue for the programs those who impose the regulations on them support.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Rughe doesn't put "Concerned Taxpayers, Inc." after his name anymore.

Did they discorporate? After all, "Inc" implies a gubmint charter...can't have none a that!

Or am I confusing him with Ron Fink? Oh well, probably the same guy.

Walter (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

it's all bipolar.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have teacher friends who live in Lompoc for that very reason, Bill, so it's not ironic, it's pretty sad. Are you implying that most of Lompoc is really just a place for us lower-class worker bee types, and ol massa gets to live in SB (even on the scrawny Westside) in the upper class zone??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can tell you this Dan: I tried to move back to S.B. after my dad died, but there is no way I can afford it. I work in S.B., so the cost of gas....

Lompoc is the only thing in the area that I can afford, even with the cost of commuting so I have set my sights on that area.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

12g property tax for a modest tract home on the Mesa. One could say "well it's less than rent" BUT most people have a house payment as well. No wonder they rent out garages.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear DrDan

RE: CA education spending
1. In real dollars it is up 225% per pupil since 1955. Outcomes are the same or worse though in terms of student achievement, grades, test scores, etc. In fact the dropout rate is much higher.

So where did all that doubling of spending go to? Hmmm... I wonder... oh here it is >>>

2. Since 1955, the student population has doubled but the non-teaching staff is up between 200% and 400% (look it up) across California. That's what they call a "growing bureaucracy DrDan. So what happens is very simple: these non-teaching pencil pushers (for the most part) gobble up classroom funds which creates a crisis for our kids but a GREAT benefit for expanding government unions (and union dues collections) that run TV ads with sad faced kids that don't have school books or supplies unless we just keep jacking up the taxes on productive, working Californians to pay not for classroom funding but for non-classroom funding. Get it?

3. The average salary of teachers that have been teaching for more than 3 years in California is: base: $67,000, benefits: $34,000 and pension paid by the state/district: $17,000. Total: $118K. Look it up.

4. So why exactly do we need MORE money for a failing system?

You can insert 2/3rds of California lib-dem projects of the past 50 years and come up with a similar list of idiotic wasteful spending with almost no long-term measurable benefit other than increased dependency on a welfare state and people becoming more and more attached to voting for nanny-state lib-dems.

Eventually they will run out of other people's money to pay for all this waste, fraud and abuse. See: Greece.

willy88 (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's just so easy for most people to vote for taxes that only someone else has to pay. But when the "greedy" landlord or merchant passes those costs on the people that voted for these tax increases, it's their fault, so we must increase taxes again to make them pay for their "greed".

Botany (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Willy, the Calif. State Dept. of Finance estimates it will take at least eight [8] years for public school financing to reach 2007-2008 levels...that is why. This was reported yesterday in Noozhawk: http://www.noozhawk.com/article/schoo...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan you have avoided the point.

The 2007-2008 spending levels had almost the same ratios I quoted for student population increases and real dollar spending increases for non-teaching staff.

Bringing us "back to 2007-2008" doesn't address the problem and it absolutely avoids all of my points.

The spending increases since 1955 are going to non-teaching staff at the expense of the kids in the classroom - and there is no end in sight to either restraining the problem or stopping the endless series of continuous tax increases for the poor children - who are "poor" because government unions massively growing the size of their non-classroom/non-teaching ranks.

Sigh...

willy88 (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vaud and the Villains

This 19 piece 1930s New Orleans orchestra and cabaret will ... Read More