Connect with us

Politics

Trickle-up-Taxation: My plan to bring local control to California

Published

on

California is one of the highest taxed states in the union, and we have very little to show for it. We have crumbling and inadequate infrastructure. Our roads seem to never get repaired yet Sacramento keeps raising our gas and car tax saying they need more money.

California is also one of the largest agricultural states in the nation and produces fruits and vegetables that not only benefits the entire country but the world. Yet, politicians in Sacramento are singlehandedly destroying a multi-billion dollar industry that we depend on by not building adequate water reservoir systems.

We have an unfunded pension crisis in California that desperately needs to be fixed. Because of unrealistic promises, lavish pensions, and incompetent investments based on ideological reasons instead of sound fiscal policy we will see a pension crisis that will most certainly bankrupt the state.

We have a housing crisis, and we are in desperate need of affordable housing. Yet, Sacramento puts so many regulations that the cost of a new home build costs about 40% more due to government regulations.

California is a mess and Californians on both sides of the political aisle want a change. Some want CalExit. A move to secede from the United States and become a separate nation. Others want to split the state into three smaller states; Northern California, Southern California, and California, or create a new state called “New California.” These proposals illustrate the frustration of Californians, but these proposals will do little if anything, and thus will further Californians’ frustration.

My Solution

My solution to the problem begins with a plan I call Trickle-up-taxation.

Trickle-up-taxation is about building a community, not a bureaucracy. It’s about protecting our fundamental rights, while at the same time allowing people to shape their towns and communities in a way which would best serve the people. It’s about freedom.

People want local control, but they are not sure how we can move from the dysfunction and division we currently see ourselves in, to actual freedom and local control.

The beginnings of an answer may lie in fundamentally restructuring our tax system and implementing a new form of taxation called trickle-up-taxation.

Currently, the majority of all state taxes go to Sacramento, and then to our local municipalities. Even though most of us don’t live in Sacramento, our money flows up first to those centers of government, and then they trickle back down to our communities. This form of taxation has resulted in higher taxes, government waste, corruption, fewer freedoms, and less representation.

Therefore, instead of the current form of taxation, which I call, trickle-down-taxation we reverse the flow of taxation and implement trickle-up-taxation. Rather than paying state taxes, we would only pay county and city taxes.

How it works

So here is how it works. Let us say my local city and county tax me at a combined rate of 10% income tax rate. The state government wouldn’t tax me personally but in a sense would tax my city and county. If I make $100,000 a year that would mean I would pay $10,000 in taxes. The state government may take 30%. Meaning from my $10,000 my local city and county would keep $7,000, and the state government would get $3,000. (Percentage and no deductions are only for illustrative purposes only, deductions would still exist. Q&A Section covers this).

This form of taxation wouldn’t just apply to personal income taxes. There are taxes like property taxes (Prop. 13 protection will remain), sales taxes, gasoline taxes, transient occupancy taxes, business license taxes, and so forth. The state wouldn’t take a bulk of these taxes and then trickle the taxes down to the local municipalities. They would just take a percentage of tax dollars generated.

You see, what I’m advocating with trickle-up-taxation is a way to achieve authentic local control. California has 58 counties and 482 municipalities, yet 70% of state employees work in the Sacramento region. It is impossible for politicians and the state government to govern so many municipalities effectively, especially when they are so far removed from your community.

The state government duties should be to establish the general blueprint for the state, yet implementation would be done locally to allow local communities greater flexibility to meet the unique demands of their local community. (FYI: Before our current overbearing centralized system we have today, the state had limited responsibilities for programs and narrow tax authority. Counties were the most prominent level of government and they had the greatest budgetary responsibility and revenue streams – Source CA Controller’s Office).

Why change the tax system?

The question you may be asking is, why do we have to change the flow of taxation to achieve this? The reason is simple to understand. It doesn’t matter whether you live in a progressive or conservative area, when your state legislator comes to you and says that they need 40% instead of 30%, what will be at stake? Less money locally for your progressive or conservative policies.

“You mean to tell me, my state senator wants more money, and we can’t afford to provide after school programs for our children? Replace him; he is trying to destroy our progressive utopia.”

“My state assemblymember wants more money for corporate bailouts? Fire her.”

If more taxes are needed for the state government, it will be for a purpose that a vast majority of Californians agree with. Thus, it will help limit corruption, reduce waste, and also limit partisanism because most of the money and decisions will be decentralized to the local level.

The benefit of trickle-up-taxation is whether you want to live in a progressive city and county like San Francisco which might want to keep a top marginal tax rate of 13.3% and provide you with extensive social programs like free college and community health centers, or Placer County with an income tax rate of 0% and fewer social programs, the beauty of trickle-up-taxation is that you can pick the community which most aligns with your political views and wants. Shouldn’t the community you live in best fit your needs and wants? Isn’t this what the people want, true local control?

Trickle-up-taxation isn’t about progressive or conservative policies. It’s about creating a genuinely representative government; where the day-to-day decisions that affect our community are decided at the local level. While still maintaining state and federal governments to regulate commerce, establish laws, courts, as well as protecting our fundamental human rights.


Have more questions about Trickle-up-Taxation? Visit our Question and Answer page to see if your question has been answered. Otherwise, contact us and we’ll get you an answer right away.

 

Opinions

Trump, GOP will work with Dems to add global warming legislation to infrastructure spending

Published

on

Trump GOP will work with Dems to add global warming legislation to infrastructure spending

As 2018 winds to a close and the failed two-year experiment giving Trump, McConnell, and Ryan complete control of Washington breathes its last, Democrats have been busy charting a course correction after having their agenda temporarily knocked off course in 2016.

I wrote last week about how Democrats would be placing a new focus on their Democratic Socialist-inspired agenda in a host of areas from gun control to global warming. In that piece, I introduced you to the Green New Deal, a plan being promoted by Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist from New York.

The goal of the Green New Deal is to pass laws in Washington forcing the United States to become 100 percent dependent on so-called green energy. And while it’s tempting to write-off Ocasio-Cortez’s plan to create an environmental Xanadu as nothing more than the naïve rantings of a textbook left-wing loon — which she is, by the way — the reality is that Al Gore’s Church of Global Warming is about to experience a revival.

Since the Democrats will control the House, it’s a given that the global warming agenda will be advanced under Nancy Pelosi’s “leadership.” But what about the Senate?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote in an open letter to Donald Trump on Friday that the United States’ transition to renewable energy “must” be included in the infrastructure spending debate expected to take place in 2019.

“It is crucial that we immediately enact legislation to combat climate change and create millions of jobs. Therefore, any clean infrastructure package considered in 2019 must include policies and funding to transition to a clean energy economy and mitigate risks that the United States is already facing due to climate change.”

So, who cares? Right? After all, the Senate is still under GOP control and Trump could always veto the bill even if it makes it through the Senate.

Well, besides the fact that Trump has NEVER used his veto pen — probably because he’s been busy using his executive order pen to destroy the Second Amendment — he and the GOP love big-government spending as much as the Democrats.

You may recall that Trump announced in his first State of the Union address — and repeated in his second — plans to spend $1 trillion or more on infrastructure. On top of that, Republicans in the House released an infrastructure-spending plan back in July when they were busy trying to buy votes in the hope that it would save their majority.

By the way, the GOP would pay for their Obama-esque infrastructure plan by raising gasoline taxes by 15-cents-a-gallon and diesel taxes by 20-cents-a-gallon. It would also raise taxes on a host of “green transportation” alternatives, such as: bikes, bicycle tires, and car batteries. All of these tax increases are supported by Trump.

I can hear the cult now; “Trump said last week that he doesn’t believe in global warming, and he called on the world to end the ‘ridiculous‘ Paris climate agreement that he withdrew the U.S. from last summer.”

As is usually the case when it comes to Donald Trump, nothing he says can be counted on.

First, Trump has pretty much made Ivanka his climate czar and she’s a devotee to Al Gore’s global warming religion. Second, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement was in-name-only. In the same speech where he announced the withdrawal, Trump made a commitment to negotiate a way to get back in it. Third, to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, we have the “inconvenient truth” that only days after his 2016 victory, Trump said in an interview that he believes there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate change.

The Democrats will control the agenda in 2019. And when you add Trump’s lack of any firm convictions, his past commitment to work with “Chuck and Nancy,” his 2020 aspirations, and his love of big government, then a budget-busting infrastructure bill that includes some or all of the Green New Deal is pretty much a done deal.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Politics

Mark Meadows on term limits

Published

on

Mark Meadows on term limits

Around 80% of Americans support term limits for members of Capitol Hill. Despite this super-majority, lawmakers have been reluctant to even discuss the possibility of such a move. It goes against the nature of career politicians which make up the lion’s share of people in the House and Senate.

House Freedom Caucus co-founder Mark Meadows (R-NC) has been a proponent of term limits. His push to limit members of Congress to three two-year terms and Senators to two six-year terms has been widely praised by voters, yet still remains a tough sell to lawmakers.

“Our founders never intended Congress to be a career–part of why Washington has become so dysfunctional is the shift away from this principle. Congressional term limits would do wonders toward addressing the problem.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

SNL cold open wasn’t funny and Robert De Niro shouldn’t do live TV

Published

on

SNL cold open wasnt funny and Robert De Niro shouldnt do live TV

There are plenty of people who do not agree with Saturday Night Live’s political satire who still find some of their skits funny. They often lampoon the President, and even though I don’t think they should they still make me laugh. The latest installment of the SNL cold open was another attempt at going after the President’s family.

It failed. Miserably. It wasn’t funny. The only thing worse than the premise of the skit and the failed jokes was guest star Robert De Niro’s performance as special counsel Robert Mueller. It was embarrassing. His trouble reading the lines on the teleprompter magnified his lack of humor.

You can watch it if you want, but I wouldn’t. It was the bad. Take my word on it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report