California Voters Could Be Asked To Impose An Estate Tax

property taxCalifornia voters would consider a state-mandated tax on the assets of wealthy residents, one that could generate as much as $1 billion a year for low-income families, under legislation introduced in the state Legislature on Tuesday.

The bill would ask voters next year to impose an estate tax of a size equal to what was loosened in 2017 by President Trump and Republicans in Congress as part of a broad tax overhaul law. The goal, said the proposal’s author, is to create an overall tax burden for wealthy Californians equal to what existed before the federal tax break was created.

Under Senate Bill 378, the revenues from the tax would be earmarked for programs designed to combat income inequality.

“A California estate tax benefits low-income families by helping them build wealth and end the cycle of intergenerational poverty,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said in a written statement. …

Click here to read the full article from the Los Angeles Times

California Lawmakers Want More Dollars from the Middle Class

TaxesBlue collars in California are once again being targeted by lawmakers with a multitude of new taxes on the energy industry that will trickle into their pocketbooks.

Our current slate of lawmakers are aware from the California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that personal income tax liability is concentrated among its top earners. Shockingly, almost 70% of the general fund comes from less than 5% of the population. The Governor’s budget summary for 2019-2020 reflects this scary trend.

The State has 40 million residents and relies on less than three percent or just over one million of its wage earners for most of the revenue allocated to the general fund. It’s enlightening to know that there are more than one million millionaires in California in the “basket” to help with the funding.

For more dollars and diversity, our lawmakers definitely need to be more creative in procuring attaining a great share of tax revenues from blue collar to support all the government programs. These extra costs on blue collar residents will “ensure” that California continues to suffer the highest percentage of people in poverty, homeless and welfare crisis that’s so acute it shocks the world.

A few of the creative new tax actions by our lawmakers for 2019 and 2020 under serious consideration are:

  • SB-246 Oil and Gas severance tax
  • AB-40 Zero-emission vehicles: comprehensive strategy
  • Property Tax Initiative on “Split Roll” to assess commercial and industrial properties at fair market value while leaving homeowners’ Proposition 13 protections in place

 

The 95% of the residents not contributing significantly to the General Fund, and most likely not able to afford an EV, will start picking up a higher percentage of the revenue directed to the General Fund and help subsidize grid infrastructure, charging technology, and the endless list of government programs that are now principally funded by the 5%.

The California Energy Island is a huge energy user requiring 60 million gallons of fuel manufactured daily in-state to meet the energy consumption demands of airlines, trucks and cars.

The extra costs imposed on the manufacturers are ultimately passed on to the consumers, a major reason that Californians already pay almost a dollar more for fuel than the rest of America, and more for the cost of electricity, that are both increasing with each new “tax “and additional regulation.

To manufacture those fuels out-of-state or out-of-the-country and ship them into California ports would be even more expensive to the consumer, and increase emissions to the world as no other location on earth has the same environmental controls than California.

Our lawmakers are getting votes by constantly attacking the energy industry, but the industry is not going anywhere. The industry’s just passing those additional costs onto the consumer, and wrongly absorbing the heat for raising the cost of fuel!

The unintended consequences of more taxes on energy is that the lifestyles of all 40 million residents of California that rely on the fuels and the products manufactured from those deep earth mineral/fuels, would result in blue collar folks contributing a greater portion to the General Fund than they now do. On the contrary, with no new taxes on the energy sector, the State can ensure that the top earning 5% continue to contribute 70% of the dollars to the General Fund.

ounder and ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure of PTS Advance, headquartered in Irvine, California.

Is it time for California’s taxpayers to go on strike?

Tax reformAround California, public school teachers are on strike seeking more pay, better benefits and less competition from charter schools. They are also demanding that the rest of us pay higher taxes. Indeed, as part of the agreement that ended the strike in Los Angeles, teachers forced a concession out of the school district to officially support the partial repeal of Proposition 13 as it applies to business properties. That would have the effect of raising California property taxes as much as $11 billion annually and would surely accelerate the well-documented business flight out of California.

It’s not as though Californians are currently under-taxed. With the highest income tax rate, the highest state sales tax rate and second highest gas tax in America, it’s tough to make that argument.

So, I’m curious as to what would happen if, in reaction to the teachers’ strikes in L.A., Oakland and Sacramento, taxpayers decided to go on strike? The media seems obsessed with large, public demonstrations of crowds wracked with angst and victimhood. School districts lose millions of dollars when teachers go on strike because it impacts the Average Daily Attendance figures that provide the basis for disbursing tax dollars. But if taxpayers went on strike, how much more would they lose?

The reaction to a taxpayer strike would surely invoke claims that taxpayers are greedy, anti-education heathens. But, in reality, the vast majority of taxpayers are very much pro-education. They just don’t like the product they’re forced to pay for.

Let’s first dispel the urban legend that Proposition 13 “starved” education in the Golden State.

To read the entire column, please click here.

California lawmakers seek tax, other limits on sugary drinks

Soda pourSACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — State lawmakers are trying again to discourage the consumption of sugary beverages, proposing a tax, warning labels, and a ban on soda displays near checkout lines among other measures on Wednesday.

The five bills address what the Democratic lawmakers call a public health crisis leading to an increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other ills.

“The soda industry is the new tobacco industry,” said Assemblyman David Chiu of San Francisco as he promoted his measure that would bar restaurants from selling soda in cups larger than 16 ounces (.5 liters). “This is an industry that has used marketing and sales tactics to victimize low income communities, communities of color throughout our country.”

One of four California adults is now obese, he said, a 40-percent increase over two decades. More than half of Californians are overweight and more than half have either diabetes or pre-diabetes. The average American drinks nearly 50 gallons (190 liters) of sugary beverages a year, he said, consuming 39 pounds (17.5 kilograms) of extra sugar. …

Click here to read the full article from the Associated Press

California’s Supreme Court has thrown cities—and citizens—into chaos over local taxes

taxesThe California Supreme Court has some explaining to do.

Late last year, the city of Oakland put a new land parcel tax on the books, after 62 percent of voters turned out to boost funding for public education. Now a local business group is suing the city, arguing that the new tax needed two-thirds of the vote — just over 66 percent — to pass.

San Francisco faces a similar problem, only twice as big. The city recently began collecting two new taxes: a gross receipts levy on commercial landlords to fund childcare services, and a land parcel tax to increase teacher pay. Last June, each received 51 and 61 percent of the vote respectively. The city is being sued twice.

And then there’s Fresno. After 52 percent of voters there opted to increase the city’s sales tax to fund park improvements, city leaders decided to play it safe and do nothing, noting that 52 percent is clearly less than 66. A local nonprofit took them to court for not collecting the new tax.

Sued if you do, sued if you don’t. The reason for all this fiscal confusion: the state’s highest court. …

Click here to read the full article from CalMatters

New Tax Proposals Hurt the Middle-Class

TaxesNo one disputes that California has a big budget surplus. According to the Office of the Legislative Analyst, California has budget reserves in excess of $18 billion. Our budget reserves exceed the entire state budget of eighteen other states.

One would think that the funds available for discretionary spending would chill any appetite for higher taxes. But this is California.

Despite the highest income tax rate, the highest state sales tax rate and the second highest gas tax, both our newly elected governor and our extremely progressive legislature desire to impose yet even higher taxes.

The most surprising thing about two of the new tax proposals is that they hurt the very groups the majority party claims that it is trying to help.

During his tenure as governor, Jerry Brown succeeded in shepherding through several tax hikes. However, he was unsuccessful in pushing a new 911 surcharge and a precedent-setting tax on water.

But as is common in California, new tax proposals never really die and these two have been resurrected in Gov. Newsom’s proposed budget.

To read the entire column, please click here.

Gov. Newsom Pushing For New Taxes on Water and Phones

Water Drought SprinklerGov. Gavin Newsom’s has called for a first-ever water tax and an added fee on phone bills at a time when the state is enjoying what recently departed state Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor called “extraordinary” budget health. Newsom said last week that experts now forecast a $21.5 billion budget windfall in 2019-20. Until recent years, the optics of asking the public to pay more with an overflowing budget would have seemed impossible to overcome.

Specific details have not yet emerged on Newsom’s plan, but it’s expected to be similar to a rejected 2018 proposal from state Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, to tax residential customers 95 cents a month to help fund water improvements in rural farming communities in the Central Valley and throughout the state.

It would raise about $110 million to get clean water to what the McClatchy News Service estimated last year to be 360,000 people without such access. Others looking at the problem see it as much worse. Newsom said 1 million residents face health risks from their own water supplies.

Newsom emphasized what a priority the water tax would be for him on Friday by taking his cabinet on a “surprise” tour of affected Central Valley communities.

The dairy industry would also face $30 million in new fees. The $140 million annually that Newsom hopes to get from his plan is dwarfed by money already available from a $7.5 billion 2014 state water bond. While the largest chunk of the bond – $2.7 billion – was reserved for water storage projects, one of its listed priorities for the remaining $4.8 billion was providing access to clean water.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal saw Newsom’s water tax plan as part of a historical continuum. He told the Sacramento Bee it was only the latest example “of California’s knee-jerk reaction to default to a new tax whenever there’s a new problem.”

But Newsom depicted his 2019-20 budget as reflecting discipline, touting its emphasis on continuing to add to the state’s rainy day fund and because of commitments to prepay some of CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ unfunded long-term liabilities. Finance officials say every $1 billion prepaid now saves more than $2 billion in the long haul.

Governor cites urgent need to upgrade 911 system

Newsom also confirmed that he wants to add a 20- to 80-cent fee on monthly cellphone and landline bills to upgrade the 911 emergency notification system. That would take a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

A similar proposal died late in the legislative session amid fears that it was a regressive tax that could cause headaches for incumbents on the November ballot.

But Newsom depicts the fee as a vital part of upgrading a 911 system that has outdated technology and is not up to the challenge of keeping safe a state facing devastating wildfires on a yearly basis.

The 911 fee was part of a larger wildfire-response program Newsom announced last week in the aftermath of last fall’s Camp fire in Butte County that killed at least 86 people and destroyed about 14,000 homes and the Woolsey Fire in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties that caused three deaths and torched 1,500 homes.

The governor wants to add $105 million to the $200 million already earmarked for improved wildfire response efforts in fiscal 2019-20. The extra money would be used to boost forest clearing efforts, to expand emergency fire rescue crews and more.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

California Legislature Shouldn’t Tax Innovation

TaxesWhen it comes to innovation and job creation, let’s keep the gold in the Golden State.

The role of private equity in funding the growth of many bread-and-butter, consumer-based firms that call California home – companies such as Peet’s Coffee and El Pollo Loco – is in serious jeopardy due to the possible re-emergence of faulty legislation in 2019.

Last year in the Legislature there was a proposal (Assembly Bill 2731), borne of understandable but misguided frustration over federal tax policy, that would have pushed the private funds financial services industry to other states. Fortunately, that proposal did not advance. Lest California lawmakers think again about cutting off an economic engine in a self-destructive over-reaction, the idea should be permanently shelved.

California is the earth’s epicenter for innovation, attracting entrepreneurs and talent from across our state and around the globe.  It’s blessed with world-class universities, robust markets, and it’s been a pace-setter in emerging industries. All of this is made possible by one essential element – access to capital.

Data from 2016 shows that the Bay Area is the number one market in the nation for venture capital, generating an impressive $23 billion in investment; more than three times that of New York sitting at number two.

A proposal like AB 2731 would put a chokehold on venture capital in the state by creating a 17 percent add-on income tax on the private funds financial services industry. The tax would apply to so-called “carried interest income” earnings – but interestingly enough only in the financial services sector, not in other sectors such as real estate, oil and gas development in which such earnings are also common.

An economic impact analysis of the proposal conducted by a professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business understandably concluded that the tax would be “so impactful that the industry will likely move out of state.”

The consequences of such a flight from California would be devastating. The industry directly employs more than 100,000 workers and pays a combined $2 billion a year in state and local taxes.

The American Investment Council estimates that private equity companies invested $66 billion in 583 California companies in 2017 alone. Those companies combined provided more than 400,000 jobs. In addition, an estimated 5,200 California-based companies now with more than 250,000 workers relied on venture capital funding to get off the ground.

To push back against federal tax policy by even considering a large, state-only tax increase on an industry that fuels economic growth and job production is destructive folly. Jobs would be lost, economic growth would be diminished and there would be a net loss in state and local tax revenue as a result of industry flight from California.  This proposal failed last year, and should not be reconsidered this year.  There is never a good time for a bad idea.

resident & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group

This column previously appeared in the Sacramento Bee

A Crackdown on Misuse of Taxpayer Money

TaxesAlthough state law specifically prohibits public officials from using taxpayers’ money for political campaigning, they have been doing exactly that throughout California.

Local governments hire “consultants” to poll voters on what tax and bond measures they would find acceptable, to draft those proposals accordingly and, finally, to run so-called “information” campaigns to persuade voters to approve them.

It’s so blatant that firms seeking lucrative contracts openly boast of their successful campaigns, eliminating any doubt that they are truly political operatives.

The practice has ballooned because local prosecutors and the state attorney general’s office ignore complaints about its illegality. Indeed, local district attorneys often benefit from the higher taxes.

Finally, however, we may be seeing some effort to sanitize this very stinky phenomenon which, if left unchecked, will only become more commonplace.

Last month, the state Fair Political Practices Commission took a potentially significant action against the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for doing what it and other local governments have been doing.

The FPPC voted unanimously to impose a $7,500 fine on BART for failing to report its spending on a bond issue as a campaign contribution. It also asked the attorney general and Bay Area district attorneys to prosecute the transit district for violating the law prohibiting the use of public funds for political campaigns.

“It’s not the total (amount) of what was used; it’s the concept of misusing public funds,” FPPC chairwoman Alice Germond said at the commission’s December meeting. “We want to send a warning and not create a precedent that it’s a minor, ‘slap on the wrist’ kind of thing.”

The action stems from a proposed $3.5 billion bond issue, Measure RR, that voters in the three-county district approved two years ago by a 70 percent margin. The “information campaign” for the bond included a video, featuring Golden State Warriors player Draymond Green, that the FPPC said was acceptable, while concluding that two other videos and text messages to voters were clearly advocacy.

BART paid a public relations firm, Clifford Moss LLC, $99,000 to craft its measure before the item was placed on the ballot, and the same firm then directed the supposedly independent campaign for the bond measure.

The FPPC acted on a complaint from Jason Bezis, a Lafayette attorney. It’s similar to complaints that have been filed about other local bond and tax measures, including those in Los Angeles County, by taxpayer advocacy groups.

After the FPPC acted, a BART spokeswoman, Alicia Trost, told the Bay Area News Group that the campaign errors were “accidental.”

“We have been and will continue to be committed to following the law,” Trost told BANG. “We accept their finding.”

While state law allows agencies to publish accurate information about their proposals, they are not allowed to advocate their passage, and that’s the line that BART and other agencies have obviously and arrogantly been crossing.

If they use public money for campaigns, they will, the FPPC implies, be treated like other financiers of political campaigns and be required to file reports. If they file such reports, however, they will be admitting, in effect, that they are violating the law prohibiting such spending.

That’s where the prosecutors should come into the picture. They should do their duty, enforce the law and seek personal fines from the officials involved. And the Legislature could, and should, invalidate any local measure that’s passed when those officials ignore the law.

olumnist for CALmatters. 

California Legislators Want to Tax Text Messages

Text messageA California regulator’s plan to tax texts in order to fund cellphones for the poor hit a snag Wednesday after a Federal Communications Commission ruled text messages aren’t subject to the utility agency’s authority.

The decision by the FCC, which categorized text messages as “information services” on par with emails and not “telecommunications services,” came in an effort to combat robo-texts and spam messages. The California Public Utilities Commission now faces an uphill battle ahead of a scheduled vote on the measure next month.

Those opposed to the planned tax hailed the FCC decision a victory.

“We hope that the CPUC recognizes that taxing text messages is bad for consumers,” Jamie Hastings, senior vice president of external and state affairs for CTIA, which represents the U.S. wireless communications industry, told The Mercury News. “Taxing this service would burden those who rely on and use this service each and every day.”

The CPUC has not yet commented on the FCC’s decision. The group is scheduled to meet next on Jan. 10 in San Francisco. …

Click here to read the full article from Fox News