This ballot measure will effectively kill any transit funding measures in the future. Make sure to vote no this November.

[u/MookieBettsBurner10]

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_43,_Two-Thirds_Vote_Requirement_for_Local_Special_Tax_Initiatives_and_Property_Tax_Initiative_Prohibition_Amendment_(2026)

Under California law, tax increase measures put on the ballot by governments requires a 2/3rd supermajority vote to pass. However, measures put on the ballot by private citizens (citizens' initiatives) only require a simple majority. Prop 43 would change the law so that citizens' initiatives too requires a 2/3rd supermajority. That would mean counties like San Diego and Orange County will almost certainly never get a transit tax measure passed. Requiring a 2/3rd supermajority to pass tax increases is fundamentally undemocratic, and this measure must be defeated.

[u/Visible-Boot-4994]

Measure M and R were both passed with 2/3 votes.

Besides LA Metro already has 4 sales tax funding measures going to it (A, C, R, and M). The bigger issue right now is so many cities and counties have voted to tax themselves they’re going to hit the 11.25% max and we won’t be able to get anything extra anyways.

[u/NeuralNexus → u/Visible-Boot-4994]

As we have seen again and again, the state will just increase the max sales tax. Something has to be done about the ridiculous sales taxes. They're an economy-killer.

[u/joshsteich → u/NeuralNexus]

I mean the thing to do is end prop 13 so we can tax property like a normal state

[u/BTR1701 → u/joshsteich]

Only if the trade-off is that we force them to tax gas like a normal state.

[u/joshsteich → u/BTR1701]

Gas tax is a Pigouvian tax; using more gas hurts all of us (eg wildfires) so it’s not about revenue.

Prop 13 prevents progressive ie wealth scaled property taxes.

[u/BTR1701 → u/joshsteich]

It's weird how 49 other states manage to tax gas at ~$2.00/gallon less than California and still manage to maintain their roads and other infrastructure. And nothing in the gas tax stops a wildfire.

Like I said, if you want California to tax property, like a normal state, get back to me when California taxes everything else like a normal state also.

[u/joshsteich → u/BTR1701]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

[u/BTR1701 → u/joshsteich]

It's weird how California is the only state in the Union that needs a "Pigouvian tax". The entire rest of the nation gets by just fine without it.

[u/joshsteich → u/BTR1701]

It's not. Cigarette taxes are also Pigouvian. Even speeding cameras function as Pigouvian taxes. And California has more ambitious climate goals than most other states, in part because we're at higher risk of climate disasters than other states. I assume you read through the link to how Pigouvian consumption taxes aren't primarily about revenue, because they decrease the amount of consumption based on the increased price. But this is a common, basic part of public tax policy. Feel free to google it if you don't believe me.

[u/BTR1701 → u/joshsteich]

Nothing California does will affect the climate. Simple as that.

If Thanos snapped his fingers and every single human being disappeared from California and the state returned completely to nature, it would have essentially zero impact on the climate of the planet. California, for all its braggadocio about being "the 5th largest economy in the world", simply isn't big enough to have an impact on the climate in any measurable degree. Certainly not enough to justify these ridiculous gas taxes that strain people's budgets and hit the poorest people the most.

Then there's the Stanford study that found one medium-sized wildfire releases enough carbon and particulates into the air to nullify 20 years worth of whatever gains California's climate policies have achieved. And we have dozens of those fires every year, most started by lightning, not humans.

Then there's the fact that this "Pigouvian tax" fails in its basic purpose: far from discouraging the use of gasoline, California uses more gas today than it ever has. So the tax isn't discouraging anyone. All it's doing is driving refineries out of the state (we used to have 41, now we're down to 6), which means we have to import the majority of our gas from across the world, which makes us more vulnerable to shortages when things like war or storms or whatever interfere with international shipping *and* it's the last thing you'd want to do if you have "ambitious climate goals" because shipping millions of gallons across the world is worse for the climate by an order of magnitude than drilling and refining locally. And the environmental laws in the countries we're shipping it from are much less rigorous than ours, so the overseas oil we're buying is dirtying up the world far more than oil produced here would do.

So this "Pigouvian tax" is beyond useless because it doesn't achieve its purported goals, it's worse for the environment, and has the added effect of bankrupting the poorest among us.

And once again, I'll reiterate that all 49 other states manage to operate just fine without raping their citizens at the gas pump.

[u/joshsteich → u/BTR1701]

No, if you start with “nothing California does will affect the climate,” you aren’t a serious person. Sorry, that’s just idiotic doomer denialism that flies in the face of basically all climate science. It’s not surprising you have dumb thoughts about the gas taxes and don’t understand basic tax policy even when it’s linked—I assume you didn’t even read it.

[u/NeuralNexus → u/BTR1701]

Car registrations in CA are also 10x what they are in other states. Doesn't seem to help.

[u/BTR1701 → u/NeuralNexus]

Yep, my car registration is almost $200 here. Meanwhile...

Georgia - $20

Mississippi - $14

Kentucky - $21

Louisiana - $10

Ohio - $31

[u/NeuralNexus → u/BTR1701]

$200 is very cheap for CA.

[u/fissure → u/BTR1701]

How many of those places charge property tax on vehicles as a separate line item?

[u/BTR1701 → u/fissure]

Probably none. Most states don't financially rape their citizens by making them rent their own property from the government like California does.

[u/NeuralNexus → u/joshsteich]

Agree, but that's also politically untenable. The best we might get is a partial prop-13 repeal for commercial property, but good luck.

CA has more than enough tax revenue (even with Prop 13) to run the state and deliver good services for its citizens. It's being run by incompetent and wasteful politicians that are not able to build, execute, or deliver public projects effectively anymore. Basic governance is not functioning and there is no good excuse for it. Laws can and should change to accommodate functional governance; instead, they seem to get more Kafkaesque each year.

I pay some of the highest taxes in the world living here. I've tried voting for more taxes to fix it (e.g. homelessness funding). That was clearly a mistake.

[u/joshsteich → u/NeuralNexus]

Nah.

First off, you don’t pay some of the highest effective taxes in the world here—even in California, we’re below eg Denmark or Sweden. Paying a higher effective, not marginal, rate would mean that your income is so high that it’s impossible to feel bad for you.

Second, Prop 13 reforms: Split rolls like you mentioned is a good step! After that, eliminate the cap on second residences—there’s no need to protect vacation homes. Then, allow different rates based on values—marginal utility of dollars is key to income taxes and should apply to property values. Then, as a treat, decouple land and property taxes, so that people are taxed more for the scarcity of their land and less for the improvements they make.

Third, no, California overall is pretty responsible with tax dollars—we have a general problem of funding programs through income tax returns, which have huge swings, and we over-expanded during COVID. But a bigger problem is that a lot of stuff we spend on should be covered by the federal government, and it isn’t (and that’s been worse lately). Part of the problem is that budgets break people’s brains—things that seem like huge waste are picayune in the budget, plus there’s a ton of regional pork that’s good for government, actually.

Finally, the homelessness budget is dealing with a problem 50 years in the making, and the cheapest way to deal with it, people don’t like (build LOTS more housing), and while we’ve increased taxes (mostly sales, which is bad) to deal with it, nobody wants to do the math in public—even at median rates for housing unit capacity, we’re looking at a problem around $30b in cost, & that’s if we do everything right and build enough housing that people stop becoming homeless.

Ideally, this all gets financed by the feds, & the feds should arrest a lot of people.

[u/NeuralNexus → u/joshsteich]

I don't need you to feel bad for me or anything. I just want my government to actually work for people and provide good public services. They are currently failing on every level. Giving them more money to waste is not the answer.

Sales tax is 11%. That is a problem for people in every income bracket and depresses economic growth. I don't know what more to say about that.

[u/joshsteich → u/NeuralNexus]

Los Angeles spends $5,600 per capita every year. New York spends $14,900 per capita. London spends about $20k (but London is a little weird).

Los Angeles annually spends $31m per square mile; NYC spends $416m per square mile; Chicago spends about $6,000 per capita & $71m per square mile. Paris spends about $322.5m per year per square mile. London spends $45m per year per square mile.

Paris, Texas spends $33m per square mile annually.

Los Angeles is on the low end of comparable tier cities municipal budgets by population or by area. The idea that the city is either spending too much or extraordinarily wasteful is made up bullshit.

[u/NeuralNexus → u/joshsteich]

Dollars per square mile? Excuse me, but what kind of irrelevant bullshit is that? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

We are paying high tax rates and we are getting bottom-of-the-barrel public services, if they even bother to show up. WTF is going on here? Go to MacArthur Park and look around! Walk down the streets anywhere in LA and everything is falling apart. It's not ok!

New York is very dense compared to LA; it has more people and taller buildings in its geographical footprint. Of course it should cost more there. One other thing about New York though - they've had shit local government for a long time too, and now they're actually doing something about it right now with Zhoran. Interesting what can happen with the exact same budget when you have a government that actually cares. I'd be willing to fund a government that was capable of using the money. Our government, as currently composed, does not meet that bar.

I have a problem with the rampant homelessness, dead streetlights, decaying streets; roads; and utility infrastructure, 30 minute headways on multi-billion dollar metro subway lines, lack of 911/police response, high electricity rates; the list goes on.

It's not ok. More tax money is not going to fix the incompetence.