State Voters Don't Want Tax Hikes

DEC. 8, 2010

Rebuttal to Dan Walters


Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters is calling for a $20 billion tax increase to permanently plug the structural budget deficit in California on the grounds that it would have virtually no impact on the state’s $1.9 trillion economy – (“California’s Budget Gap is Political, Not Economic”) But what Walters advocates would nullify the recent California social contract made by voters of both major parties on Nov. 2.

California voters sent a message loud and clear at the recent past election that they want politicians in all statewide and district offices that were up for re-election to be from the Democratic Party, but they also want no new taxes or fees – per Prop. 26 (“Supermajority Vote for New Fees & Taxes”). A coalition of both Democrats and Republicans voted for Prop. 26, as at least about 1,250,000 Democrats voted for Prop 26.

The only exception to this social contract is that Prop. 25 (“Majority Vote for Legislature to Pass Budget”), which  provides for the state legislature to pass the state budget by simple majority rather than the former two-thirds rule under Proposition 13.

You can balance a budget two ways: high or low.  The picture that emerges from the recent state vote on political offices and propositions is that the electorate wants the budget balanced low, not high as contended by Walters. But if the majority Democratic Legislature and governor balance it high by passing a new bill to raise $20 billion in taxes it would have to be ratified by the voters who just gave a clear message “no more new taxes.”  So the only interpretation that seems to make sense is that the electorate wants the budget balanced low – more specifically $20 billion lower.

Walters writes:

“Closing the budget deficit, then, is not an economic issue, the propaganda from left and right notwithstanding. It is a political issue that reflects not only the ideological polarization of the Capitol but (also) the apparent inability of ordinary Californians to comprehend public finance.”

The notion that ordinary Californians don’t “comprehend public finance” is not indicated by the new social contract that has emerged. Maybe the voters intuitively know something that Walters doesn’t, such as the total tax burden on Californians.

Walters fails to mention that California already has the highest gasoline tax and capital gains tax on real estate, the next highest sales tax, and a utility user’s tax and a redundant school parcel tax not found in other states.  The only places to look for new taxes would be to raise corporate income taxes or property taxes.  But the home voter coalition just sent a message on Nov. 2 that they don’t want new taxes, especially fees or taxes imposed on real property.

Property Tax Sales Tax Corporate Income Tax Capital Gains Tax on Real Estate Gasoline Tax Utility User’s Tax School Parcel Tax Overall Rank by author
18th 49th 33rd 50th 50th 50th







Source: Tax Foundation and author

Abolishing Prop. 13 protections for commercial properties would only cause even more retail property vacancies than today and cause an unintended wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures of small businesses with SBA loans collateralized by the equity in their homes. The budget deficit may be “political not economic” as Walters says. But what politician or party in their right mind is going to risk triggering a wave of commercial foreclosures in what now appears to be a long-term economic deflation like what happened from 1929 to 1949? And the recent jobs report shows that two-thirds of newly created jobs are part-time in food service and retail sales, etc. that would be vulnerable if commercial property taxes were increased.

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office did a study in 2008 indicating that the assessment ratio for commercial-industrial properties was 60 percent. This study is widely cited as evidence that commercial properties are 40 percent under-taxed.  But the Moody’s Commercial Property Index shows a decline of 45 percent to 50 percent since 2007 after the bursting of the financial bubble.

So commercial properties today are likely to be at near parity with their current market values and are less likely to be under-taxed.

Another issue with raising $20 billion on the backs of commercial properties is that logistically it would take about two years to realize any tax collections, as county assessors would have to hire a small army of appraisers to mark commercial properties to market prices.  Moreover, it is not feasible to shift to online computer valuation services for commercial properties as it is for residential properties (Zillow), if for no other reason than commercial properties have many potential uses and residential properties do not.  This doesn’t even take into consideration that any split commercial-residential property tax roll would result in the market adjusting commercial property prices downward accordingly in a zero sum game of de-capitalization.

A tentative analysis by this writer of school funding reforms under Assembly Bill ABX-4-2 (2009) indicated that eliminating many “categorical” (i.e., “politically protected”) job categories resulted in saving about 34 percent of the unrestricted state general fund budget for K-12 public schools for the 2010-11 school year.

By this writer’s estimate elimination of this “job bloat” on school taxes equated to almost $11 billion. Without ABX-4-2 the state budget deficit for 2020 would have ballooned from about $20 billion to $31 billion by this writer’s calculation.

Which begs the question: How much of state government is still loaded with similar “bloat?” If the non-education portion of the state budget 60 percent of about $90 billion, and 34 percent of that also is “bloat,” that reflects about $18 billion.  This is close to closure of the state structural budget deficit.

But you say, “Wait a minute, what are we going to do with all those laid off former categorical protected state employees? The state’s unemployment and welfare funds are already running in the red. And I thought we had a deal on Nov. 2: fiscal conservatism but social liberalism?”

But this presumes that government workers get to go to the head of the line and keep their jobs over the private sector.  This is an undisclosed presumption that undermines Walters’ argument.  He wants a $20 billion tax increase on the backs of the private sector only.  That wasn’t part of California’s “new deal” of Nov. 2.

We’re going to have to further eliminate categorical jobs bloat, reduce lucrative state employee benefits packages, and find a way to control the costs of rogue environmental lawsuits if we’re going to close a $20 billion budget gap.  And if we don’t, we will have to cut services on the backs of people who are arguably more deserving and needy.

State budgets and taxes require the legitimate “consent of the governed” (i.e., legitimacy, or the belief in another’s right to rule). Like it or not the voters have devised their own new social contract of liberal representation but fiscally conservative taxation. Those journalists, opinion pollsters and politicians who now want to renegotiate or reinterpret California’s “new deal” of Nov. 2 for a permanent $20 billion tax increase because it was made by those who purportedly are “unable to understand public finance” should tread carefully.  The gods of political legitimacy often find ways to punish those who violate the social contract.

No comments

Write a comment
  1. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 8 December, 2010, 12:19

    Pity the poor corporations. When we bend over backwards to help them, here’s what we get in return: The shaft!

    Check out the recent announcement by the parent of Genentech, the big Bay Area biotech company, that it will be laying off 840 employees in San Francisco and Vacaville, Calif.

    Now the folks at CalWatchdog will, of course, chalk up the announcement to California’s supposedly hostile atmosphere for business, its unforgiving corporate tax system, etc., etc.

    What makes it a lesson of a different sort, however, is that it came two weeks after the state’s voters went out of their way to preserve a handsome corporate tax break that Genentech insisted would save jobs.

    Gov.-elect Jerry Brown and his legislative colleagues should take this as a warning. There’s nothing inherently wrong with handing out tax cuts to business to spur growth. But they should be tied to specific performance by the beneficiaries.

    You say corporate taxes hurt job growth? Fine — we’ll give you a tax break for net new hires. After all, tax breaks aren’t free — every dollar cut for one class of taxpayers increases the burden on everyone else. Instead, California consistently awards tax breaks to business and gets nothing in return.

    We don’t impose a severance tax on oil producers, unlike every other major oil state (yet we have some of the highest gasoline prices in the country); and we give commercial real estate owners a huge property tax break relative to homeowners.

    Reply this comment
  2. Steven Greenhut
    Steven Greenhut 8 December, 2010, 12:58

    I don’t like these targeted tax breaks either, given that companies — usually the most politically active rent seekers — take them and run. Instead, California should offer a competitive tax climate for everyone. If it did, though, it would have to cut way back on the absurd pay and benefit levels for public employees and folks such as StevefromSacto would have none of that! By the way, California has no oil severance tax, but its overall taxes on oil are high by national standards. I know it’s a Democratic talking point to find the few taxes in California that are low and then call for higher ones, but the main point is to look at the overall tax and regulatory climate.

    Reply this comment
  3. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 8 December, 2010, 14:06

    Another cheap shot. I am not a public employee and do not support “absurd” pay and benefit levels for them–even though the number of folks who actually have these huge salaries and benefit packages is much smaller than Brother Greenhut would have you believe. What I object to is the b.s. that only the public sector–and the people it serves–should have to sacrifice to help solve the state’s budget crisis.

    Reply this comment
  4. Steven Greenhut
    Steven Greenhut 8 December, 2010, 14:31

    I really didn’t mean it as a cheap shot. I didn’t say you are a public employee. But you have defended public employees, and their pay and pension packages, on this site. But I do agree with your points about targeted tax breaks. But it is the private sector that pays the bills. The public sector only spends the money.

    Reply this comment
  5. John Seiler
    John Seiler 8 December, 2010, 19:41

    Dueling Steves!

    Seriously, what’s important to note is the MARGINAL tax burden. It’s like the straw that breaks the camel’s back. One straw under the breaking point and the camel is OK and can walk to to the caravanserai. One straw too many and its back breaks.

    On taxes, regulations, etc., California’s camel’s back is broken badly. Which means it can’t carry the loads it must bear. And the AB 32/SB 375 implementation will add more straws to the camel’s back. More tax increases only would add even more straw to the camel’s back.

    So spending will have to be cut sharply. The cuts are just beginning. The cuts will be big. Then more big cuts will be needed.

    There also will be no national recovery. The Bush tax-cut extension of 2 years, agreed to by Obama, is not long enough to encourage businesses to invest and create jobs again. The future remains uncertain. No national recovery means no national help for California.

    Reply this comment
  6. Wayne Lusvardi
    Wayne Lusvardi 8 December, 2010, 21:27

    Disclosure: As the author of the above article I should disclose that I am a 20-year public employee and that the policies I am advocating above would NOT be in my best interest.

    Reply this comment
  7. joe desilva
    joe desilva 9 December, 2010, 21:07

    As a former public employee, our understanding was that we traded lower comparative wages for more security and benefits…and it seemed generally true many years ago. But in the last decade or more, public employees have enriched themselves, with the abundant help from the political left, and mostly at the expense of the private sector.

    Reply this comment
  8. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 15 December, 2010, 12:09

    YOu mean SOME public employees (like the prison guards) enriched themselves. But please stop the b.s. that ALL state employees are now pulling down huge salaries and extravagant pension benefits. How come you never use the average state employee, or for that matter the clerk at DMV or the janitor at CalTrans for your blanket exaggerations? Maybe you don’t want to confuse people with the FACTS?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Special Series: Bond Holders Seek Governmental Transparency

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a Special Series of 12 in-depth articles on municipal bankruptcy. MARCH 20,

Cop and Fire Pensions Tick Off Public

Note: This first appeared in City Journal California. JULY 1, 2011 TOM GRAY Motherhood, the flag, and firemen — they

Bill removing tampon sales tax advances in Legislature

A bill to eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products came one step closer to becoming law on Thursday, ok’d