With California’s tax rates ranking highest of the 50 states, voters are set to weigh passage of a new increase sponsored by ride share companies that now are required to make 90 percent of travel zero-emissions in the next few years.
“I would say the main message is that taxes are high enough already in California, and there should be no further tax increases,” Susan Shelley, VP, communications with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), told the Northern California Record. “Certainly, the taxpayer-friendly candidates believe the taxes should not be raised in California.”
Shelley noted there are a number of local sales tax increase measures on the Nov. 8 ballot.
“We’re hearing from people all over the state – Sacramento, the Inland Empire, Bay Area – this is really harsh during a time of high inflation,” Shelley said. “It gives you sticker shock in restaurants, in stores, when you get that tax line at the bottom of your receipt.”
HJTA is fighting two tax increases that would apply just in the city of Los Angeles.
“Proposition SP would cost people $84 per 1,000 square-feet of their house every year for 30 years to pay for the Olympics and the L.A. River Project,” Shelley said. “And they're saying it's for parks. But there's really no restriction on how that money can be spent, and what they have said they need money for is the Olympics and the L.A. River Project, so we are fighting that measure.”
Initiative Ordinance ULA aims for a giant tax on real estate sales to fund more of the kind of homeless policies that have already failed, Shelley said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged last week that the billions spent so far have failed to solve the problem.
Shelley noted that Proposition 30 will impact high income taxpayers immediately and all taxpayers eventually.
“California’s progressive tax structure means that people who make the most pay the most revenue into the general fund, which is largely financed through income taxes,” Shelley said.
Prop 30 would raise the income tax from 13.3 to 15.05 percent to pay for electric vehicles.
“If they leave, and they go to another state with lower taxes – and, by the way, 49 other choices – then we will see less revenue coming into the general fund, and at that point the Legislature will start looking elsewhere for tax increases, and they’re going to look at all the rest of us,” Shelley said, adding that amid record inflation, it’s really not a good time to raise taxes.
The measure is being backed by Lyft, whose drivers are required to comply with carbon emissions rules put forth by Gov. Newsom and subsequently enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Lyft first asked the Legislature to help pay for its drivers’ electric vehicles but when that didn’t pass, they spent millions collecting signatures to put Proposition 30 on the ballot to raise taxes to pay for the cars.
“So it would fund subsidies for EV purchases, construction of charging infrastructure, and just enough wildfire fighting to make it look good in the commercials.”
But even though Newsom supports electric vehicle policies, he’s opposing Prop 30.
“The teachers’ union is against it," Shelley said. "Why is the teachers union against it? Because they don't get any of the money from it, and they probably have their eye on taxing those same people for something else two years from now. So they are against this measure, which would allow Lyft to get to them first, and then the Governor is against it, probably just because the teachers’ union is against it.”
Shelley noted that if high taxes fixed problems, we would have no problems.
“Don't believe anybody who tells you that your taxes are already somehow too low and need to be raised,” Shelley said. “This is not the situation in California. People should understand that we already pay enough. We pay enough to fund the schools. We pay enough to pave the roads. We pay enough to pay for health care. We pay enough already, and we need better government stewardship of the taxpayers’ resources.”