![]() Income Tax Authorization: New income tax on individuals with income over $2 million … Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure." Measure design See also: Text of measureĬlick on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Proposition 30. 30 is a special interest carve-out - a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Teachers Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Proposition 30 has received opposition from Gov. The committees reported $31.9 million in contributions. There are two committees registered in opposition to Proposition 30: No on 30 and No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts. The state is doing a lot to reduce harmful emissions but the budget, even with the governor making the commitment he has, is insufficient to address these problems." California needs to step up to protect its own. ![]() Bill Magavern, one of the authors of the initiative, said, "We need to protect the health of Californians. Lyft was the top contributor with $45.2 million in contributions. Together the committees reported $48.1 million in contributions. Two other committees also registered in support of Proposition 30: Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs and California Environmental Voters Issues Committee. It received endorsements from the California State Association of Electrical Workers and California Environmental Voters. Yes on 30: Clean Air California led the campaign in support of Proposition 30. ![]() Who supported and opposed Proposition 30? See also: Support and Opposition The sub-funds would have funded zero-emission vehicles, charging stations, and infrastructure, as well as hiring and training firefighters. It would then have been allocated to the following three sub-funds: Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund (35% of revenue), Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund (45% of revenue), and Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund (20% of revenue). Revenue from the increased income tax would have been appropriated into the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCATF). January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.The initiative provides that the tax would have ened on the earliest of the following dates: The additional tax would have taken effect on January 1, 2023. At the time of the election, income above $2 million for individuals was taxed at a rate of 13.3% in California. Proposition 30 would have increased the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income above $2 million for individuals. Overview What would Proposition 30 have done? See also: Measure design 10.4.1 Office of the State Fire Marshall (OSFM).10.4 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).10.3 California Energy Commission (CEC).10.2.1 Regulations related to zero-emission vehicles.10.2 California Air Resources Board (CARB). ![]() 2.2 Who supported and opposed Proposition 30?.2.1 What would Proposition 30 have done?.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |