So they don’t want more money in education for wages/buildings/supplies?
Depends on the state. Here in Utah schools get money from the state (state constitution says income tax is exclusively for schools), and also have a tax on property in the district. The districts can raise and lower the property tax rates. But in Utah they have to hold what are called “truth in taxation hearings” before they can raise the rate.
They also receive funding from DOE yes?
I’m guessing so, but it’s usually just a small fraction of the operating budget. Why should the fed pay more? Why shouldn’t taxes be raised locally first?
If they can be raised locally that’s fine.
Do you have a source for this?
59% of funding from the state, 32% from local taxes/property taxes 9% from federal government.
LA could raise taxes on the property that is worth the most. Isn’t that the Dem way of wanting things done? Those worth the most/make the most should pay more?
The current highest tax rate is CA is about 13% and the current highest federal marginal rate is 37%. That is only 50%. So for people making over say 5 million dollars make the 13% go to 33% and hence the effective marginal rate on those earners would only be only 70%. Again I just threw in the 5 million number I’m sure you can do that at say 2 million dollars. That’s what I meant by easy.
Look at the post after yours. A link to 9% of california schools budgets from fets and 91% from local sources.
Yes. Like I said if it can be raised through local taxes I dont have a problem with that
The towns they are in do. The schools districts can go to the town people directly and appeal for more funds through higher property taxes. They can also take their case to the Governor to raise state taxes since many school districts rely on state funding as well.
I think you were being asked how much the increase tax would raise and if it would cover the costs. Simply saying 13% + xx% marginal rate doesnt really help. We can do basic arithmetic. The question is, how much revenue would be generated with the increase.
California has more wealthy than any other state, I would have to think that going after those listed with higher tax rates in these two articles could generate quite a bit of money.
Left wing actors are for free choice to use the bathroom you want, not increasing taxes on themselves.
They are for open borders and sanctuary cities, not being taxed to cover the resulting costs.
1 Like
So you’re suggesting Democrats dont want to raise taxes? Bizarre viewpoint coming from a conservative…
Regarding the specific levels the people should petition Governor Newsom, on that level, he would know more about that then you or I.
In California, Democrats can raise them as much as they want.
And?
Not seeing your point
if a person makes over $1,000,000 we should leave their federal tax as is except for any money they earn over $1,000,000 (by 1%). so, for example…
LeBron James makes $35,650,000 per year.
He’d pay exactly what he pays now on the first million per year.
On the next $34,650,000 he makes every year, he’d pay an additional $346,500.
That’s like a person who makes $70k paying 1% extra on any money over $60k (which would be an extra $100).
I’m talking about at the state level. CA marginal tax rates stop at about $1,000,000 and are only 13.3%. Why not have additional higher marginal rates for salaries over $1,000,000? CA has the most wealthy in the nation so wouldn’t the most logical thing be to have higher marginal rates to those individuals to help pay for schooling?
