The Water Cooler – Tax Measures On The November Ballot – Yes Or No?

Hell No !

No on taxes! The Governor is responsible for the mess we are in…Recall!

I’m looking on the ballot and not seeing too many items that would increase property taxes. I am THRILLED to see an item here for rent control.

That politicians would even try for more money in the middle of a pandemic tells us all we need to know. They do nothing but scheme for more of our money. NO on new taxes – all government is theft!

No. I think every agency and entity in the State, County, and City needs to cut the waste and trim the fat. The County could start by printing the Voter Information Pamphlet on recycled newsprint instead if 20 lb. bond paper, and not including three languages other than English except on request.

There must be a hundred other ways they could save a nickel here, or a dime there. Just as we’ve heard of late about all the people not getting their Unemployment Insurance checks, it seems some are getting other people’s checks or didn’t even apply and started getting checks. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. It would likely be positively shocking to discover how much taxpayer funds these agencies waste every year.

No new taxes. No on 15! Don’t fall for the propaganda.

NO to any new or additional taxes. Currently, I won’t purchase a big ticket item here because of the tax levels and am waiting until we move out of state.
The financial problems have a multitude of reasons, however throwing more money at them, doesn’t resolve anything except kicking the can down the road. Address the problems and figure out a resolution, but this is beyond a politician’s abilities.

Rob, you should pay a tool tax and be careful Karma is a (you know). No on 15 and 21. No on any tax increase.

I look forward to the looming bankruptcy facing this state. We deserve it for allowing incompetent / crooked politicians to squander our money unchecked.

I will be voting for Joe Biden in order to dump Donald Trump, the most incompetent and corrupt president in the history of the United States. And I will be voting NO on all tax measures. Unfunded pensions are the hidden story behind all of these tax measures.

Giving money away, aka raising taxes, is much easier if you know where it is going, why it is needed and how long it needs to be paid. In this case, the proposed County increase in sales tax, 1/2 percent, goes for 30 years. The proposed Concord increase in sales tax, also 1/2 percent, is unending unless the taxpayers end it by petitioning the City Council. These new measures if passed will raise our Concord sales tax to 9.75% which will tie us with El Cerrito among the 19 cities and towns in Contra Costa County for the time being anyway. Before we get into why and where it is going, let’s break down our present sales taxes (by the way, I am not giving a thumbs up or thumbs down yet): 6% State sales tax plus 2.25% County sales tax plus .50% Concord City sales tax = 8.75% total sales tax presently. The .50% Concord sales tax is our Measure Q. I would like if someone could break down the 2.25% County sales tax more if possible.

If you are interested. Prop 15 is geared towards people who own business property worth more than 3 million. We definitely need to pay our teachers more. We need quality teachers.

Here is an article from ballotpedia:.

What would Proposition 15 change about how properties are taxed in California?
Proposition 15 would amend the California State Constitution to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, is known as split roll. The change from the purchase price to market value would be phased-in beginning in fiscal year 2022-2023. Properties, such as retail centers, whose occupants are 50 percent or more small businesses would be taxed based on market value beginning in fiscal year 2025-2026 (or at a later date that the legislature decides on). Proposition 15 would define small businesses as those that that are independently owned and operated, own California property, and have 50 or fewer employees.

The ballot initiative would make an exception for properties whose business owners have $3 million or less in holdings in California; these properties would continue to be taxed based on their purchase price. The ballot initiative would exempt a small business’s tangible personal property from taxes and $500,000 in value for a non-small business’s tangible personal property.[1]

The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year.[2]

Proposition 15 would make the California State Legislature responsible for passing laws for a phase-in of the market value-based tax on commercial and industrial properties, how often reassessments would occur (no less than three years between reassessments), and an appeals process for challenging reassessments.[1]

Where did the current tax assessment formula, based on purchase price, come from?
See also: California Proposition 13 (1978)
In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties are taxed based on their purchase price. The tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, market values in California tend to increase faster than 2 percent per year, meaning the taxable value of commercial and industrial properties is often lower than the market value.[2]

How would revenue from the change in taxation be distributed?
Proposition 15 would create a process in the state constitution for distributing revenue from the revised tax on commercial and industrial properties. The ballot initiative would distribute the revenue to specific areas, rather than the General Fund. First, the revenue would be distributed to (a) the state to supplement decreases in revenue from the state’s personal income tax and corporation tax due to increased tax deductions and (b) counties to cover the costs of implementing the measure. Second, 60 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed to local governments and special districts, and 40 percent would be distributed to school districts and community colleges (via a new Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund). Revenue appropriated for education would be divided as follows: 11% for community colleges and 89% for public schools, charter schools, and county education offices. There would also be a requirement that schools and colleges receive an annual minimum of $100 (adjusted each year) per full-time student.[1][2

What would Proposition 15 change about how properties are taxed in California?
Proposition 15 would amend the California State Constitution to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, is known as split roll. The change from the purchase price to market value would be phased-in beginning in fiscal year 2022-2023. Properties, such as retail centers, whose occupants are 50 percent or more small businesses would be taxed based on market value beginning in fiscal year 2025-2026 (or at a later date that the legislature decides on). Proposition 15 would define small businesses as those that that are independently owned and operated, own California property, and have 50 or fewer employees.

The ballot initiative would make an exception for properties whose business owners have $3 million or less in holdings in California; these properties would continue to be taxed based on their purchase price. The ballot initiative would exempt a small business’s tangible personal property from taxes and $500,000 in value for a non-small business’s tangible personal property.[1]

The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year.[2]

Proposition 15 would make the California State Legislature responsible for passing laws for a phase-in of the market value-based tax on commercial and industrial properties, how often reassessments would occur (no less than three years between reassessments), and an appeals process for challenging reassessments.[1]

Where did the current tax assessment formula, based on purchase price, come from?
See also: California Proposition 13 (1978)
In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties are taxed based on their purchase price. The tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, market values in California tend to increase faster than 2 percent per year, meaning the taxable value of commercial and industrial properties is often lower than the market value.[2]

How would revenue from the change in taxation be distributed?
Proposition 15 would create a process in the state constitution for distributing revenue from the revised tax on commercial and industrial properties. The ballot initiative would distribute the revenue to specific areas, rather than the General Fund. First, the revenue would be distributed to (a) the state to supplement decreases in revenue from the state’s personal income tax and corporation tax due to increased tax deductions and (b) counties to cover the costs of implementing the measure. Second, 60 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed to local governments and special districts, and 40 percent would be distributed to school districts and community colleges (via a new Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund). Revenue appropriated for education would be divided as follows: 11% for community colleges and 89% for public schools, charter schools, and county education offices. There would also be a requirement that schools and colleges receive an annual minimum of $100 (adjusted each year) per full-time student.[1][2
What would Proposition 15 change about how properties are taxed in California?
Proposition 15 would amend the California State Constitution to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, is known as split roll. The change from the purchase price to market value would be phased-in beginning in fiscal year 2022-2023. Properties, such as retail centers, whose occupants are 50 percent or more small businesses would be taxed based on market value beginning in fiscal year 2025-2026 (or at a later date that the legislature decides on). Proposition 15 would define small businesses as those that that are independently owned and operated, own California property, and have 50 or fewer employees.

The ballot initiative would make an exception for properties whose business owners have $3 million or less in holdings in California; these properties would continue to be taxed based on their purchase price. The ballot initiative would exempt a small business’s tangible personal property from taxes and $500,000 in value for a non-small business’s tangible personal property.[1]

The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year.[2]

Proposition 15 would make the California State Legislature responsible for passing laws for a phase-in of the market value-based tax on commercial and industrial properties, how often reassessments would occur (no less than three years between reassessments), and an appeals process for challenging reassessments.[1]

Where did the current tax assessment formula, based on purchase price, come from?
See also: California Proposition 13 (1978)
In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties are taxed based on their purchase price. The tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, market values in California tend to increase faster than 2 percent per year, meaning the taxable value of commercial and industrial properties is often lower than the market value.[2]

How would revenue from the change in taxation be distributed?
Proposition 15 would create a process in the state constitution for distributing revenue from the revised tax on commercial and industrial properties. The ballot initiative would distribute the revenue to specific areas, rather than the General Fund. First, the revenue would be distributed to (a) the state to supplement decreases in revenue from the state’s personal income tax and corporation tax due to increased tax deductions and (b) counties to cover the costs of implementing the measure. Second, 60 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed to local governments and special districts, and 40 percent would be distributed to school districts and community colleges (via a new Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund). Revenue appropriated for education would be divided as follows: 11% for community colleges and 89% for public schools, charter schools, and county education offices. There would also be a requirement that schools and colleges receive an annual minimum of $100 (adjusted each year) per full-time student.[1][2

Vote No on props:
19
14
18
17
24
25
16
23
21
15
And anything Scott Wiener ever proposes.

Absolutely no on any new taxes especially after seeing how our ‘leaders’ are ‘managing’ the funds…and especially NO on anything coming from the Wiener, aka Scott