Dave, its good to see that someone else actually looks at that kind of stuff. I think its safe to say that any proposition that seeks to raise a tax on anything will be found to be supported by(if not written by) those who will make money out of it.
The major backing for Yes on Prop 87 is a guy named Vinod Khosla. (look at the bottom of the ads)
Well ol' Vinod was at a venture capital seminar in San Jose covered by CNBC (aired at 1:45 P.S.T today). It seems he is a venture capitalist and his money is invested in... you guessed it....... 5 companies that make technology for alternate forms of energy.
so if prop 87 passes.... Mr. Khosla and his venture capital firm stand to make a lot of money.....
just though SOME of you would like to know.
Dave, its good to see that someone else actually looks at that kind of stuff. I think its safe to say that any proposition that seeks to raise a tax on anything will be found to be supported by(if not written by) those who will make money out of it.
When it comes right down to it.....most props are supported by the $$ of those who benefit from either having it pass or fail.
It's important that we do our research and really pay attention to how each prop is written that way we can vote on to benefit our state/children.
And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.
And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.
I rest my case
so are you trying to say that a group of liars and cheats should prevail?
I don't see how the ends justify the means.... :rollside:
And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.
I rest my case
So if someone was seeking to substantially raise your taxes you wouldn't fight against it?
Keep in mind, one point of the PRO 87 ads is that the oil companies pay a "production tax" in Texas, but not in California. They dont tell you that the oil companies do pay corporate income tax in California, while Texas has no corporate income taxes.
This initiative should be looked for what it really is.....a $4 billion dollar, 10 year spending program designed primarily to finance its writers/backers alternative energy companies. It seeks to gain support by taxing the one entity we all have bad feelings about, the oil companies.\
I am no supporter of the oil companies, but I wont be voting for this proposition.
Exactly. It is feel-good politics.
WE will pay for 87 if it passes.
Brian
So if someone was seeking to substantially raise your taxes you wouldn't fight against it?
Keep in mind, one point of the PRO 87 ads is that the oil companies pay a "production tax" in Texas, but not in California. They dont tell you that the oil companies do pay corporate income tax in California, while Texas has no corporate income taxes.
This initiative should be looked for what it really is.....a $4 billion dollar, 10 year spending program designed primarily to finance its writers/backers alternative energy companies. It seeks to gain support by taxing the one entity we all have bad feelings about, the oil companies.
I would vote for any choice that helps the oil companys provide us our
fuel for a reasonable price. That would be a NO on 87.
Thats not at all what I am saying, I was simply making a point that all props are supported by those with the big bucks. Which I believe to be correct. Who supports them does not decide for me how I will vote.