California Democrats got their legislative supermajorities
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 08:06:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  California Democrats got their legislative supermajorities
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: California Democrats got their legislative supermajorities  (Read 1842 times)
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,068
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2016, 11:46:15 AM »

Reminder that the 2/3 to raise taxes law is stupid.
Yep.
While we are at it why not we require a 2/3 to cut taxes to be fair?
*conservative Republicans go insane upon hearing this*

Because most people would consider a tax cut a good thing and raising taxes to be a bad thing?
There is nothing inheritly evil about a tax increase, or a tax cut. Reducing federal tax revenue is a morally neutral concept.

Well I didn't necessarily disagree, I just provided insight into why a bunch of representatives elected by a bunch of people would never go for a two-thirds threshold for lowering taxes. Smiley
To be fair, I was satirizing the idea of a two-thirds requirement for cutting taxes. It was never a serious suggestion, placing the same requirement on tax cuts. It would be a terrible one as well. Increases and decreases in tax levels should be treated the same in this order of things.

I think, all things considered, the burden should be on the politicians to convince the voters that a given tax increase would provide benefits for them that would outweigh the reduction in their income, but I suppose I agree in concept.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2016, 12:39:35 PM »

I think, all things considered, the burden should be on the politicians to convince the voters that a given tax increase would provide benefits for them that would outweigh the reduction in their income, but I suppose I agree in concept.

i would say, on the other hand, politicans should need to convince voters, that the specific public good they want to abolish doesn't help them in their daily lives and it's disappearance wouldn't hurt anyone.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,374
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2016, 05:16:14 PM »

Reminder that the 2/3 to raise taxes law is stupid.
Yep.
While we are at it why not we require a 2/3 to cut taxes to be fair?
*conservative Republicans go insane upon hearing this*

Because most people would consider a tax cut a good thing and raising taxes to be a bad thing?

California's fiscal woes of yesteryear are an example of what happens when you have unchecked direct democracy and the widespread voter attitude of "I want all these state services and I don't want to pay for them!" Prop 13 is responsible for most of the problems they had.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.217 seconds with 12 queries.