November 17, 2014
It was said to be the beginning of a national movement, Proposition 30 proposed to increase taxes of the wealthy. I chose to write about Proposition 30 for many reasons. One being that I am pursuing to become a teacher, the other is because I am still a student. My paper will touch on the background of Prop. 30, and the facts of who, what, where, and why this proposition needed to be passed. Proposition 30 gave Californians a chance and opportunity to take a stand for public education and public safety as you will read in this paper.
Governor Jerry Brown initiated Proposition 30, “Temporary Taxes To Fund Education,” which appeared on the November 6, 2012 state ballot, to increase taxes to fund education. The personal income tax rate would be increased on very high income Californians for seven years and raise the state’s sales tax by onequarter cent for four years. Estimated to raise an average of about $6 billion annually, the money produced would provide further funding of public schools, and of public safety services, including jailing, court security, child abuse prevention and circumvent state spending reductions. The additional state tax revenues of about $6 billion annually from 201213 through 201718 and smaller amounts of additional revenue in 201112,
201718, and 201819. Raised revenues would be deposited into the “Education Protection
Account,” and Prop 30 specified how the money would be distributed. Specifically, 89 percent would go to K12 school districts, county offices, and charter schools. The remaining 11 percent would go directly to community college districts. No school district would receive less than $200 in funds per student and no less than $100 per student at a community college. A “yes vote” on
proposition 30 would mean that the state would increase PIT (personal income taxes) on high income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years, and the new tax earnings would be at disposal to fund programs in the state budget. The revenue made would help the 201213 budget plan and would help balance the budget of the next seven years. A “no vote” would mean that the state would not increase PIT or sales taxes, there would be state spending reductions that would primarily affect education programs and would take effect in 201213.
The California Governor Jerry Brown supported the movement of Prop. 30. He described it as preserving education funding. Proposition 30 was at odds with another tax statute,
Proposition 38 which was also on the November 6, 2012 ballot and was advocated by Molly
Munger who donated over $44 million to the campaign. Proposition 38, “Tax for Education and
Early Childhood Programs,” would have increased state income tax for most Californians resulting with an additional $10 billion a year, and would end after 12 years unless reauthorized.
The revenue made would go to public school districts and early childhood development programs. The Constitution of California specified what would happen if both measures are approved on the same statewide ballot. If proposition 30 received more “yes” votes, then proposition 38 would go into effect since proposition 30 contains a section in the policy manual where it indicates “that its provisions would prevail in their entirety and none of any other measure increasing PIT (personal income taxes) rates.”
Supporters of Proposition 30 believe that after years of school cuts and public safety it was time to take a stand and prevent billions of school cuts, which was essential in balancing the state’s budget. The Los Angeles Mayor said, “ In the last four years we’ve cut education by $20 billion. We need Proposition 30. It will hold the line and prevent additional devastating cuts.”
The California Faculty Association (CFA) endorsed Proposition 30 on the November ballot.
CFA explained why they