In Support of Proposition 39 - Essay Example

13 November In Support of Proposition 39: More Taxes from the Rich to Support Sustainable Development Proposition 39 proposes a single way of computing business taxes in California. It builds on existing business tax policy and expands the use of taxes for the state’s clean energy needs. The Green Party of the U.S.A. supports this proposition because it aims to increase funding for clean and energy efficiency projects. The Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, American Lung Association in California, and Latin Business Association support Proposition 39 too. The organizations against this proposition are the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and Friends for Saving California Jobs. As a supporter of Proposition Number 39, the “Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute,” this proposition is good for the State of California because it will result to significant tax revenues that will fund a sustainable approach to development, a development that will provide additional employment and extra funds for education. Numerous firms, organizations, business people, and individuals are in support of Proposition 39 because they know that its contribution to the increase in tax revenues is fair and will benefit the state in general. At present, California requires additional funds to finance its increasing public costs. Lawrence reports that California’s tax revenues primarily go to the “Big Three,” specifically education, human rights, and corrections (235). With a high number of school-age population, California needs more funds, without necessarily burdening ordinary taxpayers. This proposition taxes the rich, where the money will benefit the entire state, including the taxed large businesses. State law presently allows the majority of multistate businesses to choose one of two methods to determine the amount of their income associated with California and taxable by the state: “1) Three-Factor Method and 2) Single-Sales Method” (“Analysis by the Legislative Analyst” 68-69). Multistate businesses are normally allowed to select the method that is most beneficial to them for tax purposes. Proposition 39 decrees that multistate businesses would no longer choose the method for determining their state taxable income that is most beneficial for them (“Analysis” 69). Instead, many multistate businesses would have to establish their California taxable income using the single sales factor method. Businesses that operate only in California would not be affected (“Analysis” 69). According to “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst,” this policy measure would raise $1 billion of additional tax revenues from 2013 (70). Around fifty percent of the revenues would then fund clean and energy efficiency programs: “For a five-year period (2013–14 through 2017–18), about half of the additional revenues—$500 million to $550 million annually—would be transferred to the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund to support energy efficiency and alternative energy projects” (“Analysis” 71). With significant funds for clean and green energy, the state will experience a cleaner atmosphere and more efficient public facilities. Aside from funding clean and green projects, the tax revenues will go to education budget increases. As the analyst of the proposition said: “For 2018–19 and beyond, the guarantee likely would be higher by at least $500 million…The exact portion of the revenue raised that would go to schools in any particular year would depend upon various factors” (“Analysis” 71). Lawrence reminds Californians that the state needs to build more schools and hire more teachers, while improving the curriculum (235). It cannot do so without an injection of additional funds that will not hurt common taxpayers. Proposition 39 will tax the rich companies, but these taxes will not go to waste because they will fund the long-term educational needs of Californians. While education is important, Proposition 39 supports additional jobs for Californians. According to the state’s Legislative Analyst's Office, this proposition will add 40,000 new jobs in California (Belsie part. 3). More jobs mean a better quality of life to the state. These jobs are also good jobs, since they promote a clean and green approach to development. The morale of these workers is assured, when they know that they work for the public good, and not merely to enrich the rich even more. With more jobs, a cleaner environment, and greater support for education, diverse groups and organizations support Proposition 39. Because of the “green” and educational aims of the proposition, numerous sectors support it. See Figure 1 for the Chart of Parties/Organizations Funding the Support for or Against Proposition 39. Bluegreen Alliance, Inc. Committee provided $100,000 worth of funds on October 25, 2012 (“Campaign Finance”). The CA Teachers Union gave $50,000 as of October 21, 2012. Thomas Steyer, Chairman of the Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, donated around $6.4 million since October 21, 2012. Belsie reports that Steyer already invested almost $30 million, in support of Proposition 39 (par.4). She notes that Steyer is one of the many business people who believe in the urgency of “energy efficiency and clean energy projects in California schools and other public buildings” (par.2). Steyer and many others agree that Proposition 39 closes the loophole that allows large companies to escape paying higher taxes. In “Proposition 39: Arguments and Rebuttals,” supporters of Proposition 39 stresses: “Prop. 39 …ends this manipulation of our tax system—and requires that all corporations doing business in California pay taxes determined by their sales here, no matter where they are based” (“Proposition 39”). Furthermore, without preferences given to multistate businesses, the business playing field is fairer because it is more level and applies equally to all. Thus, it is not true that Proposition 39 is bad for business; in reality, it will improve the fairness of business dealings in California. Figure 1: Chart of Parties/Organizations Funding the Support For or Against Proposition 39 Name of Ballot Measure Committee Receiving Contributions $5,000 Reports Filed 10/21/2012 thru 11/4/2012 Contributions Received From (& FPPC ID#) Yes on 39 - Californians to Close the Out-of-State Corporate Tax Loophole 6,400,000 Steyer, Thomas F. CA for Informed Voting - Yes on 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 39 & No on 31 & 32 Sponsored by Ballot Initiative Strategy Center 50,000 CA State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee #960895 50,000 CA Teachers Union #880873 25,000 Delaney, Quinn 35,304 National Education Assn 50,000 United Food & Commercial Workers 10,000 Working Families Issues Committee, Sponsored by the CA Labor Federation, AFL-CIO #1277670 29,895 Yes on 34, A Coalition of Justice Orgs #1341187 25,000 Yes on 39 - Californians to Close the Out-of-State Corporate Tax Loophole #1344009 BlueGreen Alliance, Inc. Committee for Prop 39 Supported by Environmentalists & Labor Unions, The $100,000 Yes on 39 - Californians to Close the Out-of-State Corporate Tax Loophole #1344009 Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) Action’s Yes on 30 & 39, No on 32 Committee $53,362 APEN Action 85,000 Californians for Clean Energy Jobs #1288513 25,000 PowerPAC.org Voter Fund TOTAL FOR PROPOSITION 39 6,938,561   CA Manufacturers & Technology Assn (CMTA) Issues Political Action Committee (PAC) No on 39 $0 No donors of $10,000 or more TOTAL AGAINST PROPOSITION 39 $0   Source: “2012 Who is Funding the Ballot Measures?” The California Manufacturers & Technology Association and Friends for Saving California Jobs are against Proposition 39 because they claim that it will breed waste and corruption. They say: “It spends up to $22 million on a new bureaucracy and special interest commission. It gives Sacramento politicians a blank check to spend billions without real accountability or taxpayer protections against conflicts of interest” (“Proposition 39: Arguments”). In addition, these detractors assert: “Our state budget deficit today is nearly $16 billion and Prop. 39 makes things worse by wasting money on a new unnecessary bureaucracy” (“Proposition 39: Arguments”). For them, the state does not need more taxes because it can maximize existing tax revenues. The response to this is that the additional committees ensure oversight of the funds. Supporters stress: “Prop. 39 creates a Citizens Oversight Board to ensure funds dedicated to job creation and energy efficiency are properly spent, including yearly independent audits” (“Proposition 39: Arguments”). The Board is an independent committee that enhances transparency and accountability in handling these funds. The idea of corruption is not valid when this board serves these purposes. In addition, the waste that the opponents claim is not true: “Schools will receive hundreds of millions in dedicated funding from closing the loophole” (“Proposition 39: Arguments”). When money is not being spent on clean and efficient energy projects, it will be invested in the education of Californian children. Where is the waste in that? Opponents of Proposition 39 argue that it will be bad for businesses that are giving jobs to the middle-class of California. Instead of creating jobs, Proposition 39 will cut off jobs: “The $1 billion Prop. 39 tax increase changes tax laws that have been in effect for more than 40 years and will cost more union and non-union workers their jobs” (“Proposition 39: Arguments”). If companies will transfer their business elsewhere because they will not pay their rightful share of taxes, other companies will enter and invest in California. In addition, it is doubtful that these firms will relocate businesses because California is a lucrative market. Losing it to competitors will not benefit them. These opponents seem to be blind to the direct benefits of Proposition 39 to business. This proposition will improve and not decelerate businesses. Proposition 39 will significantly increase tax revenues that will be directly used to fund energy efficiency and clean energy projects in California schools and other public buildings, which will increase the number of jobs for Californians and promote sustainable development for the state. To not support it means that these opponents have their own self-interests that do not include the people of California. Numerous organizations from different sectors already made it their interest to support Proposition 396 because it is good for the state and their welfare. Californians should support Proposition 39. It is a vote for their children’s education, a cleaner environment, and sustainable development. Works Cited “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst.” Attorney General, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. . “Campaign Finance: Proposition 039.” Secretary of State Debra Bowen, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. . Belsie, Laurent. “California Proposition 39 Results In $2.5 Billion For Energy Efficiency.” The Christian Science Monitor, 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. . Lawrence, David G. California: The Politics of Diversity. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print. “Proposition 39: Arguments and Rebuttals.” California Secretary of State, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. . “2012 Who is Funding the Ballot Measures?” Fair Political Practices Commission, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. . “Welcome to the Greens/Green Party USA.” Green Party USA, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. . Read More