Difference between revisions of "Props 2010/24/"
Truekahuna (talk | contribs) m |
Truekahuna (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= PROPOSITION 24 -- CORPORATE TAXES = | = PROPOSITION 24 -- CORPORATE TAXES = | ||
''Repeals recent legislation which lowered corporate taxes by allowing businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years; expanding the time in which losses can be shifted; allowing businesses to share tax credits with affiliated corporations; and allowing multi-state companies to use a sales-based income calculation rather than one based on property, payroll, and sales. Major funding support provided by California Teachers Association ($2.2 million). Major opposition funding provided by Fox Group, Time Warner, CBS, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Amgen, Walt Disney Company, and Genentech, Inc.'' | ''Repeals recent legislation which lowered corporate taxes by allowing businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years; expanding the time in which losses can be shifted; allowing businesses to share tax credits with affiliated corporations; and allowing multi-state companies to use a sales-based income calculation rather than one based on property, payroll, and sales. Major funding support provided by California Teachers Association ($2.2 million). Major opposition funding provided by Fox Group, Time Warner, CBS, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Amgen, Walt Disney Company, and Genentech, Inc.'' | ||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | == Proposed GPCA Position == |
| − | Yes | + | GPCA urges a "Yes" vote on this matter |
| − | [[ | + | == Analysis == |
| + | As part of the back-room dealings for the 2009 budget, conservatives in the Senate and Assembly were given yet another tax break for Big Corporate Money that will take effect next year. | ||
| + | |||
| + | That leaves Greens and Progressives with what might be the biggest no-brainer of this election: why should large multi-state corporations, who already do not contribute their fair share (and who pay less tax as percentage of their income than the average working family does), get still more favorable tax treatment from Sacramento? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The opponents of this measure will argue with one thing: jobs. Listen and you can hear their steady chant of "tickle down, trickle down". They will scream and rant about how California will lose this many or that many jobs because corporations must bear this odious burden of helping to fund our state. Of course, no mention will be made that economists (at least those not hired by Wall Street) all agree that tax cuts are the absolute ''worst'' way to create jobs; infrastructure spending (i.e. schools and bridges and highways) is by far more stimulative to the economy ("more jobs") than cutting taxes on anyone. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Opponents will also scream "Corporations will abandon California". To that we Progressives ask bluntly, "and your point would be what?". None of these tax laws, if we allow them to take effect, are going to help ''small'' business. How is it a bad thing if some locally-owned hardware store or delicatessen (whose owners pay their fair share) gets an edge over Home Depot or Trader Joe's because the latter two have to actually pay their taxes? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Fair share for everyone. Not more accounting tricks available only to the rich and powerful. Vote "Yes" on Proposition 24. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Comments == | ||
| + | Please place all commentary into the [[Talk:Props_2010/24/ | Discussion ]] page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Return to [[Props_2010/]] | ||
Revision as of 16:22, 25 July 2010
PROPOSITION 24 -- CORPORATE TAXES
Repeals recent legislation which lowered corporate taxes by allowing businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years; expanding the time in which losses can be shifted; allowing businesses to share tax credits with affiliated corporations; and allowing multi-state companies to use a sales-based income calculation rather than one based on property, payroll, and sales. Major funding support provided by California Teachers Association ($2.2 million). Major opposition funding provided by Fox Group, Time Warner, CBS, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Amgen, Walt Disney Company, and Genentech, Inc.
Proposed GPCA Position
GPCA urges a "Yes" vote on this matter
Analysis
As part of the back-room dealings for the 2009 budget, conservatives in the Senate and Assembly were given yet another tax break for Big Corporate Money that will take effect next year.
That leaves Greens and Progressives with what might be the biggest no-brainer of this election: why should large multi-state corporations, who already do not contribute their fair share (and who pay less tax as percentage of their income than the average working family does), get still more favorable tax treatment from Sacramento?
The opponents of this measure will argue with one thing: jobs. Listen and you can hear their steady chant of "tickle down, trickle down". They will scream and rant about how California will lose this many or that many jobs because corporations must bear this odious burden of helping to fund our state. Of course, no mention will be made that economists (at least those not hired by Wall Street) all agree that tax cuts are the absolute worst way to create jobs; infrastructure spending (i.e. schools and bridges and highways) is by far more stimulative to the economy ("more jobs") than cutting taxes on anyone.
Opponents will also scream "Corporations will abandon California". To that we Progressives ask bluntly, "and your point would be what?". None of these tax laws, if we allow them to take effect, are going to help small business. How is it a bad thing if some locally-owned hardware store or delicatessen (whose owners pay their fair share) gets an edge over Home Depot or Trader Joe's because the latter two have to actually pay their taxes?
Fair share for everyone. Not more accounting tricks available only to the rich and powerful. Vote "Yes" on Proposition 24.
Comments
Please place all commentary into the Discussion page.
Return to Props_2010/
