Tax Increases; Who should vote?

11/8/12: Should there be a qualification to vote on tax increases?  In California a proposition previously turned down by the legislature was put on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.  Therefore the entire electorate voted.  It was approved.  Here are the reported facts.

The measure creates three new personal income tax brackets.  It now is 12.3% for single filers making $250,000 and up and married taxpayers earning at least $500,000. The top tax rate of 13.3% for filers earning $500,000 and above, or $1 million per couple. It is effective starting with the 2012 tax year.  This will last for seven years.

It raised the sales tax a quarter-cent to 7.5% which starts Jan. 1 and lasts for four years.

The wealthiest 1% of Californians with annual incomes of $533,000 or more will shoulder nearly 79% of the tax increase.

This is the new normal definition of FAIR.  Those in the electorate that pay no taxes certainly were among those favoring the tax increase.  Those not effected by the tax increase were certainly among those favoring the increase.  It was a clever “slam dunk”.

It raised the question in my mind, whether FAIR would allow only those affected by this or any similar measure (little above 1% in this case) to vote on a proposal?  It brings up the 99% language of the last election.  However in this case the numbers are reversed considering advantaged/disadvantaged.

The deceitfulness was manifest in the promotional effort saying the money was going to the schools.  The answer is yes, BUT it will fund the pensions of the teacher’s union.  This is another example of money moving two directions at once.  The union financially supported Mr. Brown.  He sends money to the “schools”.

Then I thought, “Get used to it and move on”.