Tom Steyer strongly argues for a Yes Vote on 39 from all Californian voters. This is not news to all those following this story closely. This is the man that started the ball rolling with the proposition in the first place. Some Californian citizens perhaps don’t follow politics or have a few concerns over the issue, that may not understand the full argument. This is where it is important to look at the finer details of his argument in favor of this amendment.
The main issue here is that idea of closing a tax loophole.
This is something that some voters may not have even realized existed until the matter came to light with this ballot. The problem here is that there is a tax break in effect for companies that place their headquarters out-of-state. This, in turn, damages the local economy by offering incentives to those that don’t invest in California.
Job prospects for workers suffer across many industries. Steyer insists that the best solution here is simply to close that loophole altogether. This will force companies to act in a fairer manner and readdress the balance of employment equality in the state.
The other issue is the revenue gained from closing this loophole.
This is the factor that many families may be more aware of. There is this idea of money coming into the state for a variety of measures that will benefit families and taxpayers – beyond the simple changes to the tax law. There are two proposals to consider here. The first is the fact that half of the $1 billion per year fund will go directly to public services, predominantly education, health and social services.
Steyer says that this can only mean good things for the future development and prosperity of the region. The other half will go towards green initiatives, such as the creation of new jobs in the green energy industry. There is also the chance to improve energy efficiency in public buildings. Again, this is nothing but a positive step forward for locals in the eyes of many supporters like Steyer.
Are there any issues to this venture, as opponents would suggest?
The problem is that there are also opponents of this measure – mostly those benefiting from tax breaks or in the pocket of large companies. They try and discredit the ideas of funding on these major projects as a purely political idea. However, Steyer and other supporters point out that this is a measure in-line with Californian laws that ensure a fair split of the money.
Therefore it has to go to real causes for the first five years alone. There is also the fact that this is far from a novel idea, as California is far behind other states such as Texas and New Jersey. A similar ballot passed there with a Yes vote in a total of twenty-three other states. California is merely playing catch up.
Steyer and his supporters insist that this is the only sensible option for voters that want to punish lawmakers. It is vital for those that want to provide more stability and equality in the Californian job market. The benefits outweigh any negatives for everyday voters, which is why his argument for Proposition 39 makes a lot of sense.