Here’s the deal – In the post below we addressed the issue of taxing every person in the state to get more money for the parks. Actually it was a bait and switch. More money for parks really meant “only” money for parks and the $130 million that goes to parks now will be flushed down into the general fund to cover other problems.
I suggest you carefully read this article written by a very perceptive Sylvia Cochran for Yahoo News. The money graphs are:
This showcases the painful truth about throwing good money after bad: without a serious curtailing of wasteful spending, any added revenues merely go to waste as well. Moreover, while Prop 21 claims to ensure oversight, cash-strapped California has a long history of raiding funds that were set up for specific purposes.
I propose that rather than allowing the state to nickel and dime the taxpayer, it is in the electorate’s best interest to demand full accountability and a termination of wastefulness. Revenue shortfalls that are then identified may be plugged with unanticipated overages, such as Los Angeles’ parking meter windfall.
Of course, it is a lot simpler to just have the voters agree to another fee increase at the ballot box.
Wow, couldn’t have put it better myself…
JVH
3 Responses
hmmm… it doesn’t really affect the central point you’re making, but “taxing every person in the state” isn’t quite the right description here. It’s a vehicle fee for cars. In the city where I live (Los Angeles) there are more than a half-million people without cars. Don’t assume that every person in the state has a car.
Sooo, does this mean that if I walk to the park (or take the bus) I have to pay and entry fee? See that’s my problem with all this…people who don’t use the park (or parking) pay for people who do. And it becomes impossible to restrict entry (like today at Yosemite).
JVH
“people who don’t use the park (or parking) pay for people who do.”
Correct, but that’s the same situation we have now when public functions that are restricted in use (parking, parks, sports and entertainment venues, etc) are subsidized from the general fund. The only difference between the current situation and the proposed concept is that you are narrowing the field of “people” to a more defined group that is at least more likely to be a user of the particular venue (only people with cars will be driving into a parking lot/garage).
I agree 100% that it’s still not a fair or equitable way of paying for anything, it’s just a little bit more fair. It would have an even greater appeal if they were to either identify where the general fund savings would then be allocated (education, storm water retention, etc), or even better if they were to simply reduce the general fund spending by that amount and apply the savings to reduce the tax rates (but we all know that won’t happen).
The concept/theory is OK as a starting point for discussion, but it needs to be thought thru to address the issues you have brought up (and many other issues as well) before it’s put into action. The proposed application is the bigger concern as it only puts more money into the hands of the politicians, money that will never be seen again as it gets engulfed in the blackhole known as the general fund.