Join Early Retirement Today
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?
Old 11-12-2006, 07:49 PM   #21
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 717
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?

Originally Posted by BigMoneyJim
I've met quite a few "non smokers" that will have a cigarette while drinking, after sex or during times of high stress. I have trouble believing only 14% of Californians buy cigarettes.
They may be "non smokers", but they surely weren't "former smokers".

Random Reinforcement is Highly Addictive.
riskadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?
Old 11-13-2006, 09:29 AM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,360
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?

Originally Posted by TromboneAl
I was surprised that these propositions were defeated.

Proposition 86 was defeated 54.6% to 45.4% Prop 86 would have imposed an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs.
14% of people in California smoke. So why wouldn't a non-smoker vote for this?

Proposition 87 was defeated 74.4.6% to 25.6%. Prop 87 would have established a Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California's oil and gasoline consumption through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training. More money was spent on both sides of the Prop 87 campaign than on any proposition in state history.
This proposition would have taxed oil producers in California. It had a provision that didn't allow them to pass on the cost of the tax to consumers. Everyone seems to hate the high profits that oil companies make. So why didn't it pass?
My take on the $2.60/pack smokers tax proposition:

It was defeated as it didn't pass the fairness test. Although I believe that tobacco companies should be sued out of business, The smokers themselves are not to be blamed. Why should smokers have to fund the failing emergency room issue and people without healthcare issue ?

Per the tax on oil companies:

It didn't pass based on three reasons.

Firstly the money was being spent outside traditional oversight and legislative scrutiny. Some believe that the money would go to pie-in-the sky pork-barrel spending with little to show down the road. There were also real questions, revealed by the LA times about the billionaire who bankrolled this initiative and the substantial windfall that he would receive from it. Also it wasn't really pointed out during the campaign, but almost all of the money was going to be spent outside of California.

Secondly, The money paid for extraction taxes would be a legitimate income tax deduction for the oil companies. Therefore their taxable income would go down and their INCOME taxes paid to local, state, and federal governments would decrease based on their tax bracket. So some percentage of the oil-extraction tax would be lost from normal government revinue. So one of the questions becomes do we want to drop funding for schools etc. to fund research much of which was out-of-state and (by some accounts) of questionable value.

Thirdly, Most people (myself included) do not believe that there would truly be no increase at the gas pump for this boondoggle. Even if prices just went up by a small percentage that is too much.

MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?
Old 11-13-2006, 10:01 AM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ronin's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,153
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?

Voted no on every prop for most of the reasons already stated. Guess its my basic rule of thumb, just say no to more laws sponsored by special interests. I do take the time to read the voter guidebook cover to cover looking for that rare gem of a proposal that makes sense.
We are, as I have said, one equation short. Keynes
ronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?
Old 11-13-2006, 03:31 PM   #24
Full time employment: Posting here.
Patrick's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern, Florida
Posts: 925
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?

Robert Redford just stated on CNBC that he thought #2 was defeated because Big Oil spent $100M on advertising to defeat it and his side couldn't buy any air time for commercials - it was all taken. Sounds plausible.
Retired in 2006 at age 49.

"Who among us is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others?" - Voltaire
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?
Old 11-14-2006, 12:47 AM   #25
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 27
Re: Why Were These Propositions Defeated?

I voted no on all. :P I read each prop. description assuming a 'yes vote' until I find something objectionable that would make me vote no.
It's usually a short read. I keep hoping I'll find one worth voting yes on, but it seems unlikely. I don't smoke, but why in the world would I
vote yes on a B.S. tax on smokers simply because it doesn't cost me anything personally? I'm sure I do things that annoy other people,
and I hope the voters don't all decide to tax me for all my annoying habits one day just because it doesn't cost them anything personally.
Did anyone elses B.S. meter peg when they basically said "it's for the children?" How could any decent person vote no after that?

They'll be coming after one of your habits next. Don't worry, I'll vote no on that too.

livnlow is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Self defeated..trying to build a deck thefed Other topics 22 08-17-2006 07:38 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.