Monday, October 22, 2012

U P D A T E D: An EdSource Infographic: COMPARING PROPOSITIONS 30 + 38

The Question Asked: Can I vote YES on Both?

And Answered: YES!

….and you should because voting for both increases the likelihood that one of the initiatives will pass. A divided vote will make it more difficult to achieve the simple majority (more than 50%) needed for passage of either initiative.

from EdSource |

An EdSource InfoGraphic: COMPARING PROPS 30 + 38

2cents smf smf: The choice is not Either/Or!   It is notDo you want Arts +Music Education or Health Education and School Nurses and Clean Restrooms? It isn’t even Safety or Test Scores? – though there are some who would choose the second over the first.

You know you want all-of-the-above:



30+38: VOTE4BOTH!



Responses to EdSource infographic comparing Props. 30 and 38

October 23rd, 2012 | By Brent Zupp

After publishing our infographic that compares Prop. 30 and Prop. 38, we received the following responses from the campaigns and others knowledgeable about the propositions and the issues involved

Response from Brad Williams, Prop. 38 campaign

  1. The infographic indicates that Prop 38 raises taxes on single filers with incomes above $7,300 or so. It is true that Prop 38 raises tax RATES on taxable income above that amount.  But it doesn’t start actually raising taxes for anyone with incomes below roughly $12,000, and many taxpayers won’t pay additional taxes until their incomes get in the $30,000 to $50,000 range. The reason is the unused personal, dependent, renters’ and other credits allowed under current law, which wipes out all tax liabilities in California for many low and moderate income filers. These filers would continue to pay no taxes even if Prop 38 passes. According to testimony by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, about 6 out of the 15 million personal income tax filers would pay no new taxes under Prop. 38. Most of them are in the less-than-$50,000 income level.
  2. On the charts showing where the money goes, the EdSource infographic states that 30% in the first four years goes to pay off state debt. That is true, but what doesn’t come through is that the purpose of the debt payments is to free up money currently being spent from the General Fund for that purpose so it can be redirected to higher ed and other non-K-12 portions of the budget. It’s the counterpart to the roughly 50% of revenues in Prop 30 that is used to support non-Prop. 98 programs.

Response from Carol Kocivar, president of the California State PTA

  1. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, under Prop. 38, higher tax rates would result in higher tax liabilities on roughly 60 percent of state personal income tax returns. Personal, dependent, senior, and other tax credits, among other factors, would continue to eliminate all tax liabilities for many lower-income tax filers, even if they have income in a bracket affected by the measure’s rate increases. Here is the link to the analysis:
  2. What if Prop. 30 fails and Prop. 38 passes?  The budget is not premised on this scenario and many have said that this would be a game changer. The legislature could revise the budget, knowing billions of dollars would be available for schools within a very short time and that bond debt payments would start, changing the trigger cut projections considerably.

Response from John Mockler, a supporter of Prop. 30

  1. Revenues Gained from Proposition 30 also increase Proposition 98 requirements in the 2011-12 year. The K-12 gain is $1.4 billion or, put another way, the loss of Proposition 30 means a loss to K-12 schools of $1.4 billion for that year. This is because in California we accrue revenues so that part of revenues for the 2012 calender year are booked to the 2011-12 year.
  2. 2012-13 is a Test 1 and a Maintenance Factor restoration year. That is because, should Proposition 30 pass, State General Fund Revenues increase more than the growth in Personal Income. So Proposition 98 receives 40% of these new revenues and then adds more than 50% of the same revenues or more than 90% of all increased revenues.

No comments: