8 ms·

While your points may be entirely true, in my opinion they are no excuse for failing to make clear the retroactivity of the proposition.

by cdellin 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mturmon 14y ago
The real WTF (that you, me, and the OP probably agree on) is the California initiative process, which forces/allows citizens to act as legislators. But to your point, the first substantive link off the official Prop. 30 summary page (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm) makes clear in several places that the increases will take effect starting Jan. 1, 2012. ("Because the rate increase would apply as of January 1, 2012, affected taxpayers likely would have to make larger payments in the coming months to account for the full-year effect of the rate increase.") If the OP was worried about taxes, he should feel lucky that 38 failed ;-).
- cdellin 14y ago
  "The real WTF (that you, me, and the OP probably agree on) is the California initiative process, which forces/allows citizens to act as legislators." I definitely agree with this (-: You're right, in that a reasonably informed voter should have known the nature of the proposition. Unfortunately, due to the broken initiative process, those weighing the options tend not to be sufficiently informed. In my opinion (though not that of the US Supreme Court, see Calder v Bull), such ex-post-facto tax laws should be as prohibited as similar laws are in criminal circumstances.
  - mturmon 14y ago
    We're continuing to digress, but I have to imagine that the framers of the (generally successful) US constitution must be having a laugh at the expense of the framers of the (less successful) California constitution regarding the initiative process.
tzs 14y ago
It was pretty clear in the voter's pamphlet. See the bottom of page 29 and the top of page 30.

While your points may be entirely true, in my opinion they are no excuse for failing to make clear the retroactivity of the proposition.

by cdellin 14y ago

While your points may be entirely true, in my opinion they are no excuse for failing to make clear the retroactivity of the proposition.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mturmon 14y ago

The real WTF (that you, me, and the OP probably agree on) is the California initiative process, which forces/allows citizens to act as legislators. But to your point, the first substantive link off the official Prop. 30 summary page (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm) makes clear in several places that the increases will take effect starting Jan. 1, 2012. ("Because the rate increase would apply as of January 1, 2012, affected taxpayers likely would have to make larger payments in the coming months to account for the full-year effect of the rate increase.") If the OP was worried about taxes, he should feel lucky that 38 failed ;-).

cdellin 14y ago
"The real WTF (that you, me, and the OP probably agree on) is the California initiative process, which forces/allows citizens to act as legislators." I definitely agree with this (-: You're right, in that a reasonably informed voter should have known the nature of the proposition. Unfortunately, due to the broken initiative process, those weighing the options tend not to be sufficiently informed. In my opinion (though not that of the US Supreme Court, see Calder v Bull), such ex-post-facto tax laws should be as prohibited as similar laws are in criminal circumstances.
- mturmon 14y ago
  We're continuing to digress, but I have to imagine that the framers of the (generally successful) US constitution must be having a laugh at the expense of the framers of the (less successful) California constitution regarding the initiative process.

tzs 14y ago

It was pretty clear in the voter's pamphlet. See the bottom of page 29 and the top of page 30.