Converation thread

Thanks for the question!

I believe that advanced courses such as geometry, chemistry, biology, algebra, and other complex & difficult classes should not be mandated as they are a main factor of mental health &s stress issues in the high school student demographic.

Useful classes I would implement would be fully customizable and selectable by the student and as of today these courses would include a high-quality financial literacy course, a digital literacy course, a mental health studies course, and a further detailed & elaborated Home Economics category of classes which would…  Read more include fun & useful life skills such as culinary arts, nutrition studies, child development, and more to be determined & announced.

Your perspective is very interesting. The idea of prioritizing student mental health and practical life skills in the curriculum is indeed crucial. For instance, a study in Sweden showed that when students were allowed to choose their courses, their overall mental health improved. But, these changes might also have implications on college readiness and workforce preparation, specifically for STEM fields. How do we strike a balance ensuring students are prepared for higher education and future careers, while also taking into account their mental well-being and life skills?

That's a good point!

To ensure (and even improve) college/university readiness, I plan to keep the existing courses optional, which allows the student to take classes that reflect their future decisions. For instance, if a student does not want to seek higher education beyond a high school level, they can choose to take these new courses which focus on essential life skills. However, if a student decides they wish to seek higher education after high school, there will be courses that prepare them for their major of choice, so it will go beyond the current steps to college readiness, where…  Read more we will allow for specialized courses that students can choose from to better reflect their plans for after high school.

I remember reading about Finland's education system, where students are given a great deal of autonomy in terms of their course choices, even from a young age. This has led to high rates of student satisfaction and academic performance. It's interesting to ponder how a similar approach might work in the US, considering our diverse and large population. Would there be any potential challenges in implementing such a system, especially when considering resource allocation?

On the financial side of things, I plan to raise taxes on people whose annual income is in the $1M+ taxing bracket which will allow for more funding. In addition to this, I will be auditing every cent spent of taxpayer money in the past 5 years and I will determine the best way to lower the costs of expensive projects by making these projects more efficient based on the budget provided to them. I plan to ensure that education along with citizen well-being (health, environment, housing, homelessness) are at the top of my priorities when allocating funds in all annual budgets, which will be ful…  Read morely released online as they currently are, however, I plan to release more in-depth and more simplistic versions so more people can understand where their tax dollars are going to.

I must say, your detailed plan is ambitious and innovative. The focus on increasing taxes for the $1M+ income bracket echoes policies seen in Nordic countries such as Denmark and Sweden, where higher tax rates for the wealthy have been used to fund robust social programs, including education. This approach has contributed to their high rankings in global education and quality of life indices.

Your emphasis on transparency in budgeting also reminds me of participatory budgeting models used in cities like Porto Alegre in Brazil, where citizens are actively involved in deciding how public fund…  Read mores are allocated. This not only enhances transparency, but also fosters a sense of community ownership.

However, the switch to electric public transportation and the ambitious clean energy targets, while environmentally commendable, might face opposition due to the high upfront costs. In light of this, how do you plan to navigate potential pushback from stakeholders, particularly those who might be concerned about the short-term economic implications?

I personally think that the upfront costs are well worth it, and it's not like everything would suddenly be ordered & implemented at once, as it would be a gradual process to install these changes starting in 2026 and ending (hopefully) by the end of 2030.

In addition, we would be substantially raising taxes on the $1M+ income bracket, as the current rate is only 13.3%, I will be raising that to 25.0%, which would add a ton of money into the state budget, which would not only allow for the implementation of electric public transportation but would also allow us to increase the quality…  Read more of life and lower costs for working-class families. We would also be able to provide a statewide UBI (Universal Basic Income) system to all citizens within the working class, as the upper class and top 1% do not need funds from the UBI plan, since a good portion of their tax dollars will be used to implement these changes which would directly help many issues we currently have.

Your comprehensive plan for implementing a higher taxation rate on the wealthy is indeed a popular idea, particularly in more progressive circles. However, there are potential downsides to consider. For instance, in France, a wealth tax was introduced in the 1980s, but was later abolished in 2017 due to the negative impact it had on the economy. Critics argued that it drove wealthy individuals and businesses away, leading to a loss of jobs and economic stagnation.

Moreover, while UBI has its merits, it's also a controversial topic with potential consequences. Studies from Finland'…  Read mores UBI experiment showed that while it improved well-being, it didn't necessarily lead to an increase in employment.

Lastly, the process of closing tax loopholes is easier said than done since it often requires extensive legislative changes and can face significant opposition from various interest groups.

In light of these potential challenges, how do you plan to mitigate the risks associated with higher taxation rates and the implementation of UBI? Additionally, how would you navigate the complex process of closing tax loopholes? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for the reply!

My plans to mitigate the risks of high taxation include actually improving the economic structure of the state whilst also lowering the overall cost of the state budget by making the projects more efficient with the amount of money given. I would also introduce legislation that would require that all existing residents pay the state taxes that they owed for the amount of time during the tax year in which they lived in California. This allows for proper taxation.

UBI would only be given to working-class (lower & middle classes) citizens, and would even be given to…  Read more those unemployed. The UBI is only going to be $1,000/month and there will be terms such as having to be employed at some point during the tax year for a minimum of 3 months, while we will also be investing directly into the improvement of infrastructure & state economy, which will also include the creation of new, well-paying jobs.

While your plan to mitigate the risks of higher taxation and implement UBI has merit, there are some aspects that may need further consideration. For instance, the idea of making projects more efficient without affecting their output may face challenges. Efficiency savings are often harder to realize than anticipated. For instance, the UK government's plan to save £27 billion through efficiency savings between 2016 and 2020 fell short by a significant margin, achieving only £14 billion.

Regarding the UBI, the condition of being employed for at least 3 months during the tax…  Read more year might exclude some of the most vulnerable individuals who are unable to secure employment. Furthermore, the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is a form of UBI, has shown that such policies can lead to an increase in part-time work but a decrease in full-time employment.

Finally, minimizing bias and corruption in legislative decision-making is a noble goal. However, it's a complex issue that extends beyond tax loophole closure. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in the U.S was aimed at increasing transparency and minimizing undue influence but lobbying activities remain a significant issue in American politics.

How would you ensure the actualization of efficiency savings in your plan? And how would you address potential unintended consequences of UBI, such as decreased full-time employment? Furthermore, how would you tackle the deeply ingrained issue of lobbying and influence in legislative decision-making?

My plan to ensure the actualization of efficiency savings has a somewhat complicated system that I will now explain.

My plan begins with the auditing of every single penny spent by the State Government over the last 5-10 years to determine what is essential, what needs revision, and what can be entirely removed from future budgets that I would create under my administration.

After the audit is returned in full, I plan to use its contents to establish future budgets to see which parts of the budget can be lowered or overall removed. I plan to also end all subsidizing for other states which comes…  Read more from state budgets and taxes. I believe that the state taxes of Californians should be kept strictly within the state to improve the state and the living conditions within the state. Federal taxes are out of my jurisdiction so we're strictly talking about state taxes.

While it's commendable that you want to conduct a comprehensive audit of the state's expenditures to identify areas for efficiency savings, it's important to note that the process of auditing every single penny spent by the state government over the last 5-10 years would be a massive, time-consuming task that would require considerable resources. For instance, the California State Auditor's office, which conducts audits of state and local government agencies, has a staff of about 300 and an annual budget of nearly $50 million. Given this, one might argue that the resources…  Read more required for such an extensive audit could be better used elsewhere.

Furthermore, your idea to end all subsidies for other states might be met with resistance, not just from the states that benefit from these subsidies but also from Californians who believe in the importance of interstate cooperation and support.

Lastly, while it's clear that you have given thought to how to ensure UBI recipients are truly in need, the requirement of being employed for at least 3 months could still exclude some of the most vulnerable individuals. For instance, what about those who are unable to secure employment due to systemic barriers rather than a lack of effort?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these matters. How would you address the potential resource drain of the proposed audit and the resistance to ending state subsidies? Also, how would you ensure that those who are truly in need but unable to secure employment due to systemic barriers are not excluded from the UBI program?

Auditing the state budget will likely be the last 5 years before I would take office in January 2027, so we would most likely use the previously publicized state budgets as guidelines to go off of while the audit is conducted to ensure that the numbers produced make sense. We would be using a lot of statistics previously collected in terms of taxation and previous state budgets, but we would be conducting the audit to ensure that these numbers are accurate. To ensure that the audit doesn't break the bank, we will most likely not increase funding, and if funding is increased the increase…  Read more would not affect the budget or tax rates drastically. Basically, I would ensure there would be minimal impact on the economics of the state & the people if an impact is necessary.

Totally agree, why do a majority of our income taxes go to the federal government and not the state or local governments? This has to change,

I will put an end to subsidization for all income taxes in California. It's time that we start to take care of ourselves and the extremely massive and severe crises that have hit our state.

What’s your opinion on SALT?

The corporate tax rate is a joke to me. Corporations always find ways around it. Cutting the corporate tax rate is even encouraged by influential authors on the left.

https://slate.com/business/2012/02/why-not-just-ditch-the-corporate-income-tax.html

"After I wrote about the corporate income tax, readers of various political persuasions wrote in to ask why I don’t think we should just get rid of the thing altogether. The answer is pretty simple—it raises around two percent of GDP! It’s the same as the reason why we don’t just get rid of all kinds of taxes that are…  Read more sitting on state, federal, or municipal tax codes. Now a different question is whether I think an ideal tax code would feature a corporate income tax. The answer is almost certainly “no” (although you could imagine a situation where people get so clever at tax avoidance that you need to institute one) but that’s a different question. The difficulty with any major change to the tax code is that you’d have to build a consensus around some alternative strategy."

I would establish a task force to put an end to state tax evasion by both corporations and individuals.

would u change how s corps write off taxes?

I would make it so that all corporate entities have to pay some form of state income tax on an annual basis alongside citizens.

In my ideal corporation taxation system, the corporations would be taxed an amount that is dependent on three factors: revenue, size, and corporation level (LLC, S Corp, etc.)

This corporate tax system would use those factors to determine which taxation bracket the corporation best fits into.

Basically, the larger the corporation, the more they pay in taxes. I would be doing the same with the top 1% who make outlandish amounts of money every single year.

What would you cap the corpse tax rate at for the largest corporations?

The maximum corporate tax rate would fit within the profit bracket of $1.5M+ and would be around 15%, with small businesses making a small amount would be taxed a maximum of 4-5%

Let's say a company earns a total of $53k in a year, it would be paying only around 4 or 5% in tax.

If a company is earning millions yearly, it would be taxed around 15%.

Also, if a company is confirmed to be abusing workers, neglecting workplace safety, discriminating in the hiring process, or doing anything unsafe, there will be "fees" associated with acts of unsafe & unfair workplaces. The fee amount would be dependent on how many times the activity is confirmed to have taken place.

"if a company is confirmed to be abusing workers, neglecting workplace safety, discriminating in the hiring process, or doing anything unsafe, there will be "fees" associated with acts of unsafe & unfair workplaces."

Doesn't the division of labor already handle this?

The Division of Labor is not doing enough to combat this.

To investigate & improve working conditions, I would ramp up investigations into large employers such as UPS, FedEx, Amazon, and Walmart. This would include incognito and impromptu investigations & inspections. This would be done in collaboration with the Division of Labor as a crackdown on mistreatment in the workplace. Also, the fines mentioned will not be tiny, these corporations will feel it, and a good portion of the penalties will be given to the workers affected by the abuse.

In 2019 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which is a part of the Department of Labor, conducted 33,401 inspections. Additionally, the Department of Labor recovered a record $322 million in wages for workers in 2019. While it's essential to continue pushing for improvements, it's also important to acknowledge what's already being done.

As for the suggestion of significantly larger fines, while it may provide a deterrent, it could also inadvertently harm employees if companies decide to cut costs in other areas to compensate, such as reducing workforce…  Read more or benefits. An alternative solution could be to offer incentives for companies that consistently meet or exceed labor standards, such as tax breaks or public recognition, which could encourage more proactive compliance.

What do you think about this approach? Does it address your concerns, or do you see potential issues that might arise?

By giving corporations tax cuts as an incentive, they could easily abuse the system and get tax cuts by putting on a show to the Dept of Labor when inspections happen.

The whole point of my plan is to mix in some incognito & impromptu investigations into work conditions which would include having new & existing employees report their findings to the Division of Labor, as an incentive would be provided to anyone willing to do so and their identities would remain confidential to protect the worker's identity and employment.

And I do acknowledge what OSHA has done, but the execution…  Read more is not working. We cannot constantly repeat the same methods and expect different outcomes, we need to come up with new methods and come up with new ways to empower the workers and put corporations in their place. Recovering wages is amazing work that I think needs to continue, but we must put working conditions one of our priorities to ensure that corporations do not abuse their workers and to make sure that basic human rights are being met (or even exceeded) with such large employers such as Amazon, Walmart, and UPS.

“And I do acknowledge what OSHA has done, but the execution is not working.”

I can certainly understand your concerns about the effectiveness of OSHA's operations. An example that comes to mind is the case of the poultry processing industry. Despite high rates of injuries and illnesses, inspections and enforcement actions by OSHA have been insufficient due to a lack of resources. This is a clear example of where more proactive and unannounced inspections could potentially make a big difference.

As for your suggestion about anonymous reporting by employees, it's an interesting idea. Currently, employees can submit complaints to OSHA, but the process may not…  Read more be as streamlined or incentivized as what you're proposing. It could be beneficial to explore how to make this process more effective and secure for employees.

Do you think there should be a specific system or platform for this kind of reporting? What features would it need to have to ensure its effectiveness and the safety of the employees using it?

OSHA operations are not streamlined enough to be considered efficient or sufficient.

OSHA simply doesn't have the resources to take care of all the issues.

Basically, our Division of Labor would offer financial incentives in exchange for these employees to report their findings and day-to-day experience to the state in a fair amount of detail. If people do not accept the offer, we can send people who work for the Division of Labor undercover in a similar fashion, and the workers who accept those assignments would receive a raise for their work.

I would push for a mandate that requires the Division of Labor to keep the identities of those who apply for the offer 100% confidential, even removing all evidence of their name in public documents related to any action taken by the Division of Labor as a result of their findings.

“I would push for a mandate that requires the Division of Labor to keep the identities of those who apply for the offer 100% confidential, even removing all evidence of their name in public documents related to any action taken by the Division of Labor as a result of their findings.”

Do you mean the whistleblowers?

Yes, I would push for a state law to be passed that guarantees the identity protection of any and all whistleblowers who are complying with the Division of Labor.

In order to keep trust within the program, we must ensure the confidentiality of the whistleblowers who decide to assist the Division of Labor.