if you can vote(or if you can)what will you vote for yes/no on prop 87?why?

Answer 1

no! you and I will pay for the tax increased with this proposition.
go to a gas station and you will see that the tax reading at the gas pump, you pay for. the oil company don't pay that tax, they collect the tax we pay.

Answer 2

No! None of the politician are addressing the economics of Renewable Energy. If it was economically viable after the California energy crisis in 2000 All of the new power plants would have been based on Renewables. When one reads environmentalist's material buried deep in the articles the economic viability comes from cleaning up all the damage done by fossil fuels & deleting ALL the capital expenses from Renewables. Most that can afford to pay for their utilities up front, are looking for a Return ON their Investment, not a return OF their investment.

If you have read this far you most likely think I'm against Renewable Energy - you'd be wrong. I just hate being lied to!

I've told both sides of the political aisle what it will take to change the Economics of Renewable Energy. They wish to stick with their fantacy that some how either sceince or the previous mentioned individuals will say the 1st world's economy. They by pass a little creative repackaging based on what the masses have shown they are willing to pay a premium for. It will take 2 international governments working with the private sector to change the economics of Renewables.

Answer 3

Yes of course. Alternative energy is out there and it definitely is within reach, it just needs a few steps to get there. And that's what prop87 is there for.

Also, it is illegal to pass the cost of this tax onto customers.

Also, it is amazing how much money the oil companies are contributing in the campaign against prop 87. I mean if they did have the ability to pass the cost to customers, why would they be so opposed to the tax?

I mean, Chevron alone has contributed over $9 million against this campaign.

What does that tell you?

Answer 4

A bill to support new energy sources sounds attractive until you realize there is no accountability for how the money is to be spent. There is no requirement for proof of progress or way of doling it out to successful programs.

Also, four billion dollars? Think about that number for a minute. Four billion seconds ago was the year 1818. Not only will we be paying more to fill up our own tanks, but we will pay more for the products that have to be shipped via trucks to our stores. Worse than that is the businesses that decide its too expensive to operate in California because of taxes and general expenses. Jobs go away, everything costs more, tax revenue goes down. Very bad idea.

This one gets a big fat NO.
http://judgeright.blogspot.com

Answer 5

Yes, because there is a provision in it that the oil companies cannot raise their prices nor charge consumers a tax, but they will be taxed their fair share so that revenues can be made to start paying back Arnold's huge debts, through bonds, that the State of California will be forced to pay back for generations to come.

Besides if you read the fine print, the ones that say no to this propositions are the big oil companies. Heck - Why would they want to pay their fair share of taxes?

Answer 6

I will be voting yes. The proposition, as written, prohibits the Oil companies from raising gas prices, they will finally pay us Californians back, as they do in Texas and Alaska (where, by the way, their gas prices are cheaper) and we can finally invest in alternative energy sources, at the Oil companies expense, not us taxpayers.