Californians Appear Likely to Turn Down a Chance to Soak the Rich to Subsidize My Kid’s Preschool
Our child is about to turn four. If Proposition 82 passes, it’s free preschool for him. Whoopee!
Never mind that we’d pay for it anyway. Why do that, when we could soak the rich?!
What a stupid idea. Luckily, it probably isn’t going to pass.
UPDATE: The wife tells me she thinks it would have been phased in over several years anyway, so our kid wouldn’t have gotten the benefit in any event.
That takes care of what tiny bit of appeal it might have had.
Oh how I was hoping you’d get around to this. My first look was to determine if this would be mandatory preschool. When relieved of anxiety on that point, my next thought was about the unmitigated gall of taxing only a segment of the population for something most of them probably won’t use. Then my thoughts spazzed out on the whole public education system, as they always do when I stray too far down that path. I have a preschool visit tomorrow, trying to decide where to send my son, with fear and trembling.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/6/2006 @ 9:52 pmHeh. I’m a liberal democrat, and I voted against; the revenue stream would be too variable to reliably fund a program on, and the program wouldn’t change preschool enrollment by enough to make it worthwhile.
aphrael (6b0647) — 6/6/2006 @ 9:58 pmOh yeah, and that was my next thought after that: people would still take their kids to private preschools–no consistency in how the money would be spent.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/6/2006 @ 10:01 pmMORE BUREAUCRACY is what California needs.
After all, the K-12 public schools are failing, so let’s allow the Democrats and the teachers’ unions to make a mess out of our 4 year olds, too.
See, that way, the 4 year olds will be acclimated to the failure which awaits them from age 5-18.
I think when Archie Bunker referred to Rob Reiner’s character as “Meathead,” he was on to something.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 6/6/2006 @ 11:37 pmHow much does it ‘soak’ the rich?
actus (6234ee) — 6/7/2006 @ 5:42 amIt only takes a quick visit to the Secretary of State website to find the answer.
It would impose an annual income tax increase of 1.7%.
While this does not seem like a lot, keep in mind that California’s tax rate for the top bracket is already nearly 15%, on top of the top federal income tax rate, and not mentioning other payroll taxes, such as medicare, social security, California unemployment and California disability.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 6/7/2006 @ 6:33 amAlso, what the heck is with the Democrat primaries?
“Hi, I’d like to trade jobs, please” – talk about blasts from the past with Cruz Bustamante and Bill Lockyer and Jerry Brown all running for different (and usually lower) statewide office.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 6/7/2006 @ 6:40 am“While this does not seem like a lot, keep in mind that California’s tax rate for the top bracket is already nearly 15%,”
Sounds like they’re totally soaked by that 1.7%
actus (ebc508) — 6/7/2006 @ 6:49 amThanks for the link at #6, Angry Clam. I tried to read the darn thing and quickly came to the conclusion that, if I were voting on it, the only safe course would be to vote “no”. My respect for the people of California has risen immensely.
nk (bfc26a) — 6/7/2006 @ 7:35 amIt’s $7,000 more per year, at a minimum. To pay for public preschool that they won’t use.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 6/7/2006 @ 8:14 amAngry Clam — everyone seems to want to stay in politics, so they’re running for different jobs. It’s a rearranging deck chairs kind of scenario.
That said, I voted against Garamendi and Brown, and I didn’t vote in the race where Lockyer was running unopposed: while i’m not surprised by it, I don’t like it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/7/2006 @ 8:52 amThis proposal was nothing more than a “free” (i.e. taxpayer supported) babysitting service so that mommy could go shopping every day. Daytime tv is just so horrid anymore.
Of course, Meathead saw it as a means to start indoctrinating the li’l chillun at an earlier age, while the teachers’ union looked upon it as a job-growth opportunity.
It’s too early to tell, but this vote might be an indication of a swing in attitudes in the electorate.
Bill Schumm (33ab73) — 6/7/2006 @ 9:02 amThey won’t even get to use the parents that are now free to go work.
Is that what your mommy does?
actus (ebc508) — 6/7/2006 @ 9:11 amI guess the old Dem whine, “but, but what about the chill-drrren” isn’t working anymore.
actus,
The LAUSD is awaiting your personal check.
Tom (bdcac1) — 6/7/2006 @ 10:02 ami’m not averse to soaking the rich for something that makes sense, but this proposition was insane. k-12 public education in california is in critical condition, you cure what you got first before you add to your problems.
assistant devil's advocate (9746e0) — 6/7/2006 @ 10:36 am“Sounds like they’re totally soaked by that 1.7%” –Actus.
Well that 1.7% could represent an additional 14% or so tax paid. Now we’re getting wet.
PaulC14 (98b75e) — 6/7/2006 @ 10:59 amBill Schumm:
given that most of the women I have ever known in my life who had kids also worked, I find #12 absurd: the parents who desperately need daycare are either single parents or couples in which both parent works.
It’s stuff like your comment that leave liberals and moderates convinced that conservatives live in a different world than the rest of us.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/7/2006 @ 11:09 amIt wasn’t a 1.7% increase. It was an 18% increase re: the Meathead tax.
It would have moved the tax rate from about 9% to about 11%. 2 divided by 11 = 18%.
“It’s stuff like your comment that leave liberals and moderates convinced that conservatives live in a different world than the rest of us.”
Yeah, in our world, we believe that people should pay their own way instead of having the state take care of them.
Ralf Nadir (127557) — 6/7/2006 @ 2:18 pmWhat this was really all about was killing _private_ preschool, i.e. it was about pushing your kid into government preschool.
No wonder the voters killed this thing.
PrestoPundit (9c6332) — 6/7/2006 @ 2:29 pmI realize a lot of lefties such as reader “actus” are resentful of wealthy Californians, however, the aspect of “economics 101” which the lefties do not understand, is that there’s a tipping point at which a consumer ‘bails out.’
For example, some people may be willing to pay $8 for a beer at the ballgame. But there’s a point for every consumer where one says, “I’m no longer going to buy that beer—that’s too expensive.”
So where someone may be willing to pay $7 for a beer at Dodger Stadium, but not $8—the concession stand goes from receiving $7 to $0.
And with California’s punitive stance toward the wealthy, that’s why there’s a big exodus of wealthy California residents to low/no income tax states, such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida.
If prop 82 had passed, it would have possibly been a “last straw” for a lot of wealthy CA residents. They have the option of moving out-of-state, or remaining in CA yet switching their ‘permanent’ residence to an income-tax friendlier state.
When that happens, California loses all of that person’s taxable income, and ironically, the state is risking generating LESS revenue than before they raised the income tax yet again.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 6/7/2006 @ 2:33 pmRalf – I have no problem with the idea that people should pay for things themselves rather than expecting others to take care of them; and that isn’t what bugged me about the original comment.
What bugged me about the original comment was the presumption that people who would take advantage of the preschools provided under the initiative would do so for essentially lazy and malingering purposes.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/7/2006 @ 2:43 pmAs so often happens when Actus is invited to spend his own money instead of everyone else’s, he has vanished. Big surprise.
McGehee (5664e1) — 6/7/2006 @ 3:23 pmThey can have 1.7% of my 400K.
actus (6234ee) — 6/7/2006 @ 3:50 pmA few years back we Californians raised taxes on the very same rich folks to fund a mental health initiative of dubious merit. Yesterday it was raising taxes on the rich to fund preschool; next time around it would probably be raising taxes on the rich to re-open emergency rooms and the next cycle after that it would be raising taxes on the rich to expand public parks. Pretty soon we will wonder why so many rich folks have decided to declare their winter houses in Arizona and Nevada as their primary residences.
The one thing that Gray Davis understood is that the more we rely upon the higher income earners to carry the tax load, the more state revenue will be subject to fluctuations on a year by year basis. In the late 90s when everyone was cashing in on their stock options we were awash in money, but after the dot-com bust and market crash we suddenly found ourselves with a $30 billion shortfall. Expecting the rich to foot the bill for everything may strike some as perfectly progressive, but it is very shaky economic theory.
JVW (f8154a) — 6/7/2006 @ 5:23 pmHmm. I would vote for a dedicated revenue tax to fund reopening emergency rooms in areas where they can’t pay to keep them open.
It isn’t going to help, though, until a more rational way of dealing with uninsured patients is found than requiring the ER to foot the bill.
aphrael (6b0647) — 6/7/2006 @ 8:16 pmWhatever happened to Head Start? Didn’t that provide child care for the lower income levels?
paul from FL (464e99) — 6/7/2006 @ 9:36 pmWhy “soak the rich” at all. If this is something that is offered to all children, the rich as well as the poor, and will benefit everyone, why not raise sales taxes an appropriate amount to cover the funding? If it is a program designed to benefit every family, the costs should affect every family as well. If the funding is provided only by an increase to the taxes of the rich, then it is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:33 amThat was my point exactly. Aphrael asks why not have a dedicated tax for keeping emergency rooms open. I am not necessarily against this, I just think it is bad economics to expect that a supplementary tax only on the top income earners will accomplish this.
JVW (13e161) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:20 amJWV – ah! note that I said only ‘dedicated revenue tax’, without specifying that it be supplementary and imposed only on the top earners.
The ‘dedicated revenue tax’ is intented to provide the best available assurance that the money raised by the tax will go to the specified purpose and naught else. You are correct that a general tax would be better than a supplementary tax on top of the top income earners; however, if the supplementary tax were presented to me and I were asked to vote for it, and there were njo competing general tax measure, i’d vote for it.
Basically, I have a preference hierarchy:
* dedicated general tax
* dedicated supplementary tax
* non-dedicated general tax
* non-dedicated supplementary tax
that last one I would basically never vote for. The other three, it depends on the issue.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/8/2006 @ 4:12 pm