Boutique Taxes

Reading through the Sac Bee article that Andy pointed me to today a singular thought crossed my mind: An immoral taxation without representation.

These are ballot measures that are voted on by the public, so how can it be without representation (much less immoral)? I find the proposed 1% tax on million dollar earners to fund mental health initiatives to be terrible and reprehensible. The article confirms my initial suspicions: there are only about 25,000 people who earn a million dollars a year and they will be taxed $10,000 to fund mental health initiatives that the rest of the 30 million Californians will benefit from. 25,000 people out of 35 million are being asked to pony up a minimum of $250,000,000 for the rest of us.

Clearly because these wage earners are in the minority, it is very likely that they will lose the vote at the ballot box. Regardless of the ability of these people to pay up, this sort of taxation is immoral. It is taking advantage of our perceptions that rich people are villians and worthy of being taxed rather than the "average Joe". I would be more likely vote for a tax initiative that tiered the tax, the burden may be greater for the top of the pyramid, but the base of the pyramid must also shoulder their load--it's the democratic way.

You also have to ask yourself, are we on a slippery slope? When will they start to propose a tax on people in my zip code to fund police departments in another county? When will they start to propose a tax on people of MY RACE to fund cultural initiatives?

It is a form of Robin Hood banditary that, although performed anonymously and through the electorial system, is no less wrong--no matter the cause that it supports.