From February:
Teachers union backs Angelides for governor Treasurer says he'd raise taxes to fund education
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571142/posts
Standing beside the head of the powerful California Teachers Association, Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides vowed Thursday to pump more money into education if he is elected governor, even if he has to raise taxes to do it.
While California ranks near the national average in per-pupil spending, that isn't good enough, said Angelides, who was in San Francisco to receive the endorsement of the 335,000-member teachers union.
The billions of dollars needed to pay for that boost in school spending will come from closing tax loopholes for big corporations, cracking down on tax scofflaws and boosting taxes on the richest Californians.
The state's wealthiest taxpayers already have received billions in tax breaks from the Bush administration, Angelides said.
"We can ask them to give some of that back," he said.
No politician in California talks about the millions that are wasted by the educational establishment and that's not counting the other millions that are sucked up by graft and corruption. And, by the way, I know teachers here in California that are very adequately paid for the few days they work per year. Angelides-what a joke!
"We can ask them to give some of that back," he said.
"Ask"? Sounds a hell of a lot like "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" to me. Besides, higher taxes is not "asking to give some of that back", it's telling those who already pay a bulk of the taxes to bend over, grab the ankles and...you get the idea.
If Arnold is smart, and I think he is, he would mention how the tax cuts have actually INCREASED tax revenue, not decreased it. These barely masked communists/socialists play the same game: class warfare, misdirection, and preying upon the ignorance of the voter base.
"Vote for me! I'll raise taxes and take things away from you!" No politician would say it like that. (Well, Hillary did, indirectly, but I digress.) Instead, they couch it in terms like "funding education", or "funding childcare" or "providing preschool for everyone".
What happens when those who pay the majority of taxes feel that it is no longer profitable to do the extra work, take the extra risks, and to strengthen the economy by providing jobs, because the government is jacking them on taxes?
Who will suffer if governments keep taking? It won't be the rich. After all, reduced to its basic element, how do you accumulate wealth? Spend less than you earn, and continue to do so.If government continues to take, then the entrepreneur will also take...take less risks, invest less money, offer less jobs.
They will still have their money, and it's not because they're greedy. It's because they are practicing good economic policy. It's the "little guy", that the Left so claims to cherish, that gets screwed.
I'm just a high school graduate, and no MBA, CPA, or financial planner. But I do know basic economics, and my basic knowledge tells me that when you lower taxes, you increase the amount of money that a person has available to spend on other (taxable) items. The consumer gets product, the producer gets income, the government gets money (that they will mostly spend unwisely). Everyone's happy. Then some yahoo comes along and decides that he should be the arbiter of what is "fair share" and what is not, and that he should be given your vote, so he can take away from one, and give to another.