Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565076
label
[Proposition One] - Effect of the Governoräó»s State Expenditure Limitation Program on an Average CA Family of Four, June 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565076
contentType
document
title
[Proposition One] - Effect of the Governoräó»s State Expenditure Limitation Program on an Average CA Family of Four, June 1973
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565076
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2fc5a5e14b5bccc6
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Proposition One] - Effect of the
Governor's State Expenditure Limitation Program
on an Average CA Family of Four, June 1973
Box: P38
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE EFFECT OF THE GOVERNOR'S
STATE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION PROGRAM
ON AN "AVERAGE CALIFORNIA FAMILY OF FOUR"
An Explanation and Analysis
STATE
LSSES MIRRIS CALIF MALIFORNIA ASSESSE ORNIA
ASSEMBLY OFFICE OF RESEARCH
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
SACRAMENTO
JUNE 1973
THE EFFECT OF THE GOVERNOR'S
STATE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION PROGRAM
ON AN "AVERAGE CALIFORNIA FAMILY OF FOUR"
An Explanation and Analysis
Prepared by
The Assembly Office of Research
R. William Hauck, Director
June, 1973
Stephen Holloway
Associate Consultant
AOR No. 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Letter of transmittal
i
Introduction
ii
Summary
iv
Section I.
A Typical California Family; Tax
1
Savings Resulting from State
Expenditure Limitation
Section II.
Analysis of the Governor's Claim
4
Section III.
Related Considerations
12
Footnotes
16
RULES COMMITTEE
R. William Hauck
John L. Burton
Director
Chairman
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
445-1638
Robert H. Burke
Jim Hurst
John F. Dunlap
Assistant Director
Ray E. Johnson
445-0834
Walter Karabian
ASSEMBLY OFFICE OF RESEARCH
Ernest N. Mobley
Joan Gibson Reid
John P. Quimby
Assistant Director
445-0844
Room 500, Library and Courts Building
Sacramento 95814
(916) 445-9098
June 13, 1973
Honorable Bob Moretti
Speaker of the Assembly
Room 3164, State Capitol
Dear Mr. Speaker:
At your request the Assembly Office of Research has
begun a comprehensive analysis of the Governor's proposed
expenditure and tax limitation program.
This is the first in a series of reports to be pub-
lished by this office dealing with major questions raised
by the proposal and principal assertions advanced by the
proponents.
We find no basis for the claim that the average
California family of four will save more than $17,000
during the first fifteen years of the program.
We hope this information will be helpful to you.
Sincerely
RW Jawk R. WILLIAM HAUCK
Director
RWH:r
i
INTRODUCTION
Proponents of the Governor's state expenditure limitation
initiative claim that the average California family of four
/emphasis added/ will save over $17,000 in taxes in the first
fifteen years if the initiative is approved by the electorate.
The magnitude of this projected tax savings for an average family
requires careful examination. The voter who, understandably, may
be confused about the effects of this complicated program may be
inclined to vote in favor of the initiative on the promise that
his tax burden will be reduced by $17,000 in fifteen years.
In Section I, a profile of a typical California family is
outlined. This family is assumed to correspond to the Governor's
average California family of four. Next, the actual tax savings
to this family resulting from state expenditure limitation over
the first four years of the plan is shown. The actual savings
is then contrasted with the Governor's claim.
Because the actual savings diverge so widely from the
Governor's claim, the data and method used to support this claim
are questioned.
In Section II, the data and method used to support the
Governor's claim are explained and analyzed. Implications of
the Governor's claim are then presented.
In Section III, related considerations of the limitation
plan's effects on tax savings are presented. These considerations
include the limitation plan and its interaction with federal income
taxes, the effect of expenditure reduction on tax savings, and the
ii
possibility of local increases in sales and property taxes in
response to the initiative.
iii
SUMMARY
The expenditure limitation plan does not guarantee that the
net state-local tax burden of the typical family will be reduced.
In fact, because of possible increases in tuition and local sales
and property tax increases, the net state-local tax burden of the
typical family may increase.
To receive $804 in state tax savings in the first four years
of the plan as claimed by the Governor, the "average family" would
have to earn annually $35,000. Such a family ranks in the top
4 percent family income bracket according to the 1970 Census.
The 1970 Census indicates that the typical California family
earns about $13,000. This family will receive about $140 in state
tax savings over the first four years of the plan. This is one-
sixth the amount claimed by the Governor.
Projecting personal income and state revenues fifteen years
into the future is highly speculative. When more realistic near-
future projections are used, the tax savings claim of the Governor
bears no relation to fact. Therefore, the $17,000 tax savings
claim appears to be grossly exaggerated and a misrepresentation
of economic and fiscal realities.
The typical family will lose 22 percent of any state tax
savings to the federal government in the form of higher federal
income taxes. Between 30 percent and 40 percent of the total
of any state tax savings will be lost to the federal government.
iv
SECTION I
A Typical California Family;
Tax Savings Resulting from State Expenditure Limitation
Income, Family Size, Tax Burden
The 1970 Census determined that median family income in
2
California in 1969 was $10,732.
One-half of all families earned
less than this amount and one-half of all families earned more
than $10,732. This figure, then, is an accurate representation
of the income earned by a typical California family in 1969.
Adjusting for income growth since 1969 increases the typical
4
family's earnings to approximately $13,000 in 1973.
The
5
1970 Census also determined average family size to be 3.48 persons.
Thus, it can be reasonably assumed that the typical family consists
of four persons.
This typical family owns a home and one automobile. It pays
about $140 in state income taxes, and its total direct state tax
6
burden is approximately $586.
The typical California family outlined above is assumed to
correspond to the Governor's "average California family of four. 11
Tax Savings
If the Governor's state expenditure limitation initiative is
approved by the electorate in November 1973, it will first take
effect in the 1974-75 fiscal year. In this year, according to
the Legislative Analyst, estimated state revenues subject to
limitation will actually be less than those authorized by the
limitation plan.
Thus, tax savings resulting from state expenditure
-1-
limitation in the first year will derive solely from the permanent
7½ percent income tax credit contained in the plan. This credit
will save the typical family about $12 in 1974 state income taxes.
In subsequent years, estimated state revenues will exceed the
expenditure limit. 10/ The excess revenues will be transferred to
the Tax Surplus Fund created by the plan and refunded to the
11
people.
In the first four years after the expenditure limitation plan
takes effect, the following amounts will be transferred to the
Tax Surplus Fund: 1974-75, none; 1975-76, $129 million; 1976-77,
$342 million; 1977-78, $573 million. 12/ During this time, the
13/
typical family's income will increase to about $16,500.
Assuming the surplus revenues will be refunded each year by means
of an income tax credit, the total tax savings (including the
permanent 7½ percent credit) to the typical family in the first
14
/
four years of the plan will equal $140.
Comparison with the Governor's Claim
The Governor claims that the "average California family of
four" will save $72 in taxes in the first year of the limitation
15/
plan and $804 in the first four years.
The actual savings will
be $12 and $140, respectively. Table I compares the actual savings
with the Governor's claim.
-2-
TABLE I
Tax Savings to a Typical California Family
Actual
Governor's
Fiscal Year
Savings
Claim
Difference
1974-75
$ 12.60
$ 72.00
$ 59.40
1975-76
$ 24.20
$152.00
$127.80
1976-77
$ 41.75
$240.00
$198.25
1977-78
$ 61.55
$340.00
$278.45
Total
$140.10
$804.00
$663.90
The Governor's claim of $804 in tax savings over the first
four years of the expenditure limitation plan is nearly six times
greater than the actual savings.
To receive $804 in tax savings over the first four years,
assuming income tax credits as the means of refund, the Governor's
"average family of four" would have to earn about $35,000 annually.
Less than four percent of all California families earned more than
16
$35,000 in 1969.
Projecting personal income and state tax revenues fifteen
years into the future is highly speculative. When more realistic
near future projections are used, we find the actual tax savings
for a typical California family bears no relation to the Governor's
claim. Therefore, the $17,000 tax savings for fifteen years
appears to be grossly exaggerated and a misrepresentation of
economic and fiscal realities.
-3-
SECTION II
Analysis of the Governor's Claim
Explanation
Because the tax savings claimed by the Governor appear to
be SO widely divergent from fact, it is appropriate to explain
the data and underlying methodology employed to arrive at these
figures. The data and methodology are contained in the Governor's
Message to the Legislature on the State expenditure limitation
plan.
First, state revenues without the expenditure limitation
plan were projected fifteen years into the future, to fiscal
year 1989-90. This projection was based on the assumption that
personal income would grow eight percent per year and that state
revenues as a percent of personal income would increase by .22
percent per year. In 1973-74, state revenues will equal $9.759
billion or 8.75 percent of personal income according to the
Governor's Message. By 1989-90, it is claimed state revenues will
equal $47.185 billion or 12.27 percent of personal income.
17/
Second, state revenues with the expenditure limitation program
were similarly projected. In 1973-74, state revenues and revenues
as a percent of personal income are the same as above, $9.759
billion and 8.75 percent, respectively. Under the limitation
formula, spendable revenues as a percent of personal income will
decline by .01 percent per year. Thus, by 1989-90, it is claimed
revenues will equal $27.436 billion or 7.15 percent of personal
income if the plan is enacted.
18/
Third, revenues with and without the expenditure limitation
program were divided each year by population to obtain per capita
-4-
-5-
revenues, assuming an annual 2 percent population growth rate. This
figure was then multiplied by four and identified as the "state
revenue share" for an "average California family of four. II This
19
figure is also clearly identified as "tax dollars.
Finally, the state revenue share with limitation was sub-
tracted from the state revenue share without limitation each year.
For example, in the first year of the plan uncontrolled revenues
will equal $10,851 billion and controlled revenues will equal
$10.464 billion according to the Governor's Message. Dividing
both of these figures by population and multiplying by four results
in a "state revenue share" of $2,020 and $1,948, respectively.
Thus, the savings to the "average family of four" in the first
year equals $72. The "cumulative savings to a family of four"
over the first fifteen years equals $17,756.
Below is TABLE 6 and FIGURE 6 from the Message which shows
the results of this methodology.
TABLE 6
EFFECTS OF TAX CONTROL PROGRAM ON AN AVERAGE
CALIFORNIA FAMILY OF FOUR (1)
State Revenue (8)
Same State Revenue (8)
Fiscal
Share
Shure Under Tax
Year (3)
Without Control
Control Program
Savings
1970
$1264
$1264
71
1304
1304
72
1492
1492
73
1652
1652
74
1852
1852
75
2020
1948
$
72
76
2188
2036
152
77
2372
2132
240
78
2572
2232
340
79
2784
2332
452
80
3016
2440
576
81
3264
2552
712
82
3528
2668
860
83
3812
2792
1,020
84
4120
2916
1,204
85
4452
3048
1,404
86
4808
3184
1,624
87
5188
3328
1,860
88
5596
3476
2,120
89
6036
3632
2,404
90
6508
3792
2,716
Cumulative savings to family of four
$17,756
FIGURE 6
THE EFFECTS OF TAX CONTROL
ON AN AVERAGE CALIFORNIA FAMILY OF FOUR
7,000
$6,508
6,000
16 YEAR
CUMULATIVE
SAVINGS=
5,000
$17,756
I
4,000
TAX DOLLARS
3,000
SHARE OF REVENUES WITHOUT CONTROL
-9-
I
$3,792
FAMILY FAMILY SHARE OF REVENUES WITH CONTROL
2,000
$1,264
1,000
1969-70
74-75
79-80
84-85
1989-90
YEAR
Analysis of the Data
Since the Governor's Message to the Legislature, the state
expenditure limitation plan has undergone many changes. In
addition, the data employed to arrive at the claimed tax savings
to an "average California family of four" is questionable. The
Governor's Message shows that state revenues subject to limitation
for 1973-74 are $9.759 billion or 8.75 percent of personal income.
The Governor's expenditure limitation task force now states that
1973-74 state revenues equal $9.3 billion or 8.34 percent of
personal income. According to an opinion of the Legislative
Counsel, however, the task force has incorrectly included $0.3
20/
billion in state revenues which are not subject to limitation.
Thus, the appropriate figures are $9.016 billion and 8.078 percent,
respectively.
The Message assumes that personal income will increase 8 percent
per year for the next fifteen years. During the last 13 years,
personal income grew at an average of 7.6 percent per year. This
time span includes the longest period of uninterrupted economic
growth in our history. It is not probable that personal income
growth in the next fifteen years will exceed the exceptional
growth experienced during this time. The UCLA Business Forecasting
Project estimates that personal income will grow at the following
rates during the first four years of the limitation plan:
21/
1974, 7.5%; 1975, 8.4%; 1976, 8.6%; 1977, 6.5%.
The Message assumes that population will grow 2 percent per
year for fifteen years. The annual growth of population in
California has not exceeded 2 percent since 1965. It is unlikely
that the population growth rate will average 2 percent per year
-7-
for the next fifteen years. The UCLA Project estimates that
population growth will vary between 1.5 percent to 1.2 percent
22/
during the first four years of the plan.
The Message assumes that tax increases equal to .22 percent
of personal income will occur every year for fifteen years. It
is not explained why such repeated tax increases will be enacted.
The Legislative Analyst has shown that state workload expenditures
for the next four years can be financed without increasing tax
rates.
As a result of the Governor's unrealistic projections, the
Message shows that a $387 million surplus will occur in the first
year of the limitation plan. However, as shown above, state
revenues subject to limitation will actually be less than those
authorized by the expenditure limit. Similarly, the cumulative
four-year surplus resulting from the plan is shown in the Message
23/
to equal $4.53 billion.
But based on the realistic projections
of the Legislative Analyst, the actual surplus which can be refunded
to the people, including the 7½ percent income tax credit, is
$1.978 billion, or $2.55 billion less than that claimed by the
Governor.
If the Governor's tax savings claim for the first four years
is revised using the more reasonable projections of the Legislative
Analyst, but the method shown in the Governor's Message continues
to be applied, the tax savings to "an average California family of
four" is $353. This is less than one-half the claim of the Governor.
However, this revised estimate remains more than twice the actual
savings to a typical California family. The reason for this rests
on the misleading methodology used in the Governor's Message.
-8-
Analysis of the Methodology
The Governor's Message assumes that the total state taxes
subject to limitation paid by an average family of four is equiva-
lent to four times per capita state revenues. By the same reason-
ing, the income of this average family equals four times per capita
personal income. If such an income is multiplied by the tax
burden percentage found in the Message, 8.75 percent, the total
state tax burden for this "average family" is the same as shown
in TABLE 6, or $1,852. In fact, these two methods of determining
the total state tax burden of an "average family" are identical.
Method one shown in the Message divides state revenues
(equal to the designated limitation percentage, (%), times
personal income) by population and multiplies this number by four, or:
% X Personal Income
X 4 = Total State Taxes of an
Population
"Average Family of Four"
Method two, which is implied by the methodology of the task
force, divides personal income by population to arrive at per
capita personal income and then multiplies this number by four and
then by the designated limitation percentage (%), or:
Personal Income
X 4 X (%) = Total State Taxes of an
Population
"Average Family of Four"
Thus, by this reasoning, the "average family of four" has an
estimated income in 1973 equal to $21,116. A family with this
income would rank in the highest 13% family income bracket in
24
California.
In contrast, as noted above, median family income
in California is about $13,000 according to the 1970 Census.
-9-
This is far below the income earned by the Governor's "average
family of four." Thus, with respect to its income, the Governor's
"average family" does not factually represent a typical, or average,
California family.
Further Implications of the Governor's Claim
The Governor's "average California family of four" does not
represent a typical family in many other respects as well. For
example, the total state tax burden of the Governor's "average
family" equals $1852 in 1973-74. As shown above, the direct state
tax burden of the typical family is about $586. This implies that
this family pays about $1266 in indirect state taxes. Indirect
taxes are those paid by business and passed forward to consumers
25/
in the form of higher prices.
To assert that the typical family
pays more than twice as much in indirect taxes as direct taxes is
a total rejection of all of the economic theory and empirical
analysis of the incidence of taxation.
The Governor's "average" reasoning has the typical family
paying not only its taxes but also a pro rata share of the taxes
of families in much higher income brackets as well. For example,
if estimated state personal income tax revenues for 1973-74 are
divided by population and multiplied by four (the Governor's
method), the personal income taxes paid by "an average California
family of four" equals $413. But as shown in Section I, the
typical family pays only about $140 in state income taxes.
Further, the total "taxes" paid by the Governor's "average
family" include a pro rata share of tuition to higher education,
teacher credential fees, payments to the Cal-Vet Home Building Fund,
-10-
interest earned by the state from the Surplus Money Investment
Fund, and other non-tax items. The Message does not explain how
the average family will save on taxes it does not pay. Moreover,
the inclusion of interest earned by the state as a "tax" paid by
the average family is nonsensical. In fact, the surplus money
investment operation of the State Treasurer and the Pooled Money
Investment Board has saved the taxpayers of California millions
of dollars.
-11-
SECTION III
Related Considerations
Federal Income Tax Interaction
Neither the tax savings estimate presented in Section I nor
the Governor's message considered the interaction of the state
expenditure limitation plan and the federal personal income tax.
The typical California family pays federal income taxes and
probably itemizes its deductions. It is in the 22 percent marginal
tax bracket. For every dollar it can deduct from its adjusted
gross income, such as interest payments on a home mortgage, it
saves 22¢ in federal income taxes. Thus, if it saves $140 in
state taxes over the first four years of the limitation plan, it
will lose $140 in itemized deductions. Accordingly, it will pay
22 percent of this amount, or $31, in higher federal income taxes.
Its net state tax savings is only $109. Similarly, the Governor's
family which must annually earn $35,000 to receive $804 in state
tax savings over the first four years will lose 36 percent, or
$289, in higher federal income taxes. Its net state tax savings
is $515. It is estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of the
total of any tax savings will be lost to the federal government in
the form of higher federal taxes.
Expenditure Reduction
When the typical family receives its $109 tax savings, state
expenditures will also be reduced. The Legislative Analyst
estimates that workload expenditures will have to be reduced by
26/
$1.1 billion
over the first four years if the plan is enacted.
-12-
The Analyst states that, "Most of the pressure for budgetary
27
reductions will be centered in the budget act category.
Below
is a table from the Legislative Analyst showing the estimated
reduction in 1977-78 budget act expenditures resulting from
enactment of the Governor's plan.
Estimated Reduction in 1977-78
Budget Act Expenditures
From the Enactment of the
Governor's Limitation
(In Millions)
Workload
Required Reductions
Program
Expenditures
Without SB 238
With SB 238
Higher Education
$1,095
-$133
-
-$219
Department of Health
1,375
- 168
- 274
Corrections & Youth
Authority
269
- 33
- 54
Local Education
343
- 42
- 68
Social Welfare
187
- 23
- 37
Other
2,244
- 273
- 447
Total
$5,513
-$672
-$1,099
Budget Act portion.
/2
Includes salary increases, new legislation and also various state agencies
such as Highway Patrol, Motor Vehicles, etc., partly or wholly funded in
the Budget Act category.
To maintain existing services in higher education, additional
funds must be found to offset the estimated $133 million reduc-
tion. Following recent history, the most logical source is
higher tuition. If a member of the typical family desires to
attend the University of California or the State University and
College System, the family may find its state tax savings completely
eliminated by higher tuition charges. Similarly, if salary in-
creases to state employees must be foregone, their real incomes
will fall and offset any tax savings.
-13-
Local Tax Increases
The Legislative Analyst states, "Under this initiative it
is almost inevitable that reductions in state expenditures will
be shifted to local governments and cause increases in local
28
property and sales taxes.
This follows from the restrictive
language of the initiative which makes it easier for local govern-
ment than state government to increase taxes in response to
pressures to maintain, or increase, levels of government services
or create new programs. The plan requires a two-thirds vote by
the Legislature for any change in a state tax rate or base. Any
increase in the expenditure limit requires a two-thirds vote of
the Legislature and a majority vote of the people.
Local sales taxes, on the other hand, may be increased
by a majority vote of the Legislature. The Legislature may also
permit local entities to increase property tax rates to "allow
for
special circumstances creating hardship for individual
local entities." Further, the governing boards of local entities
may increase property tax rates for two years by a four-fifths
vote to "defray the costs of an emergency situation
11
The
Legislature may not increase property tax relief to homeowners,
senior citizens, or renters to offset such increases because to
do SO requires a corresponding reduction in other state expendi-
tures.
Since local property taxes and sales taxes are regressive
levies and at least part of the state tax surplus is refunded
through the progressive state income tax, it follows that the
typical family may incur an increase in its net state-local tax
-14-
burden if local taxes increase in response to the limitation
program.
Net Effect of State Expenditure Limitation
The limitation initiative does not guarantee a net reduction
in state-local taxes to the typical family. Higher federal income
taxes, reduced state expenditures, and possible increases in local
taxes may combine to increase the tax burden of the average
family at the expense of tax savings to families in higher income
brackets.
-15-
FOOTNOTES
1.
For example, in remarks to the Association of Independent
California Colleges and Universities, in Los Angeles,
April 30, 1973, Governor Reagan stated, "The average family's
per capita share of the total tax burden would be reduced
by more than $17,000, if we enact this plan, over a period
of fifteen years. "
2.
General Social and Economic Characteristics, California,
p. 6-403, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population.
Family income includes all earnings before deductions for
taxes, dues, bonds, or other items.
3.
Mean income (average income) is strongly influenced by
extreme values in the distribution of income and is especially
susceptible to the effects of sampling variability and mis-
reporting. Therefore, median income, which divides income
distribution into two equal groups, one above the median and
one below the median, is a better measure of the income earned
by the "typical" family.
4.
Family income was adjusted by applying the percentage change
in total non-property income divided by total employment from
1969 to 1973. Family income was also adjusted for changes
in average weekly earnings of production and related workers
in manufacturing in California from 1969 to 1973 with approxi-
mately the same results. Source: Economic Report of the
Governor, 1973, and 1973-74 Governor's Budget.
5.
General Population Characteristics, California, p. 6-97,
1970 Census.
6.
Direct taxes include: Personal income, Sales, Cigarette, Fuel
Auto registration, Beer, Wine, and Alcoholic Beverages. The
auto "in lieu" tax is also included as a state tax although
it is a tax collected by the state government for local govern-
ment "in lieu" of local property taxation of autos. The gift
and inheritance tax was not included because it is not an on-
going liability. No attempt was made to determine the burden
of the horse racing tax on an average family.
7.
An Examination of the Governor's State Expenditure Limitation
Program, p. 78-79, Legislative Analyst, April 30, 1973.
8.
State Expenditure Limitation Initiative, Section 4 (b).
9.
Income for years after 1973 is adjusted by the method described
in footnote 4, based on UCLA Business Forecasting Project
estimates. To obtain an estimate of the tax savings resulting
from the 7½ percent income tax credit, the average deduction
in the $13,000 adjusted gross income class as shown in the
Franchise Tax Board's 1971 Annual Report was subtracted from
family income to derive taxable income.
-16-
10.
Legislative Analyst's Report, pp. 78-79.
11.
Limitation Initiative, Section 2 (a) (1).
12.
Legislative Analyst's Report, pp. 78-79.
13.
See footnotes 4 and 9.
14.
Taxable income for years 1974-77 for an average family is over-
estimated for the following reasons: 1) Expenses such as
business and travel expenses were not deducted from family
income; 2) deductions from adjusted gross income (AGI) for
years 1974-77 are the same as the average deductions for this
AGI class in the 1970 calendar year. Accordingly, this figure
should be adjusted downwards to take into account this over-
estimate. The income tax credit was chosen as the method of
distributing the tax savings because this is the method employed
in the initiative and favored by the Governor.
15. A reasonable program for - - - Revenue Control and Tax Reduction,
submitted to the California Legislature by Governor Ronald
Reagan, March 12, 1973. p. 45.
16. General Social and Economic Characteristics, p. 6-403, 1971
Calendar Year Report, Franchise Tax Board, p. 33.
17.
Governor's Message, p. 39.
18.
Ibid., p. 42.
19. Ibid., pp. 44-45.
20.
Legislative Counsel Opinion, No. 7466, April 24, 1973.
21.
Legislative Analyst's Report, p. 77, Appendix p. 30.
22. Ibid., p. 76.
23. Governor's Message, p. 42.
24.
See footnote 16.
25.
Indirect taxes passed forward by business to consumers include:
Bank and Corporation, Insurance, Private Car, and Liquor
License Fees, plus the portion paid by business of Fuel, Auto
Registration, Auto "in lieu" and Sales taxes.
26.
Legislative Analyst's Report, p. 84.
27.
Ibid., p. 87.
28.
Ibid., p. i.
-17-
6-73 400