Jump to content

Photo

Ballot Question


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

Poll: Ballot Question (5 member(s) have cast votes)

Yes or No?

  1. Yes (5 votes [100.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 100.00%

  2. No (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 10:47 PM

Shall the amendment to Article VIII, Section II of the State Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, which: prohibits collection by the State of assessments based solely on employee wages and salaries for any purpose other than providing employee benefits; dedicates all employer and employee contributions collected for any employee benefit fund, and all returns on investments of those contributions, to the purpose of that fund; and prohibits any transferring, borrowing, appropriating or using of those contributions or returns for any other purpose, be approved?

INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT:
This proposed constitutional amendment prohibits the collection by the State of assessments based on employee wages and salaries for any purpose except paying employee benefits (or making other employee-authorized or federally required payments, in the case of the State's own employees), dedicates all contributions made to the unemployment compensation fund, the State disability benefits fund, or any other employee benefit fund, and all returns on investments of those contributions, to the purpose of that fund, and prohibits the use of those contributions or returns for any other purpose. The requirements of this proposed amendment do not apply to the gross income tax, which is exclusively dedicated by the Constitution to the purpose of reducing or offsetting local property taxes.



I'm not 100% sure I even understand what it's asking. I think what it's saying is this amendment makes it so the state has to use the money it takes out for disability, unemployment, etc. only for what it says they're using it for. If that's the case, does that mean that currently some of the money they're taking out of our paychecks for these things are being used for other things too? How would this amendment affect how much we pay in these taxes?
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#2 DEATHtoGOMEZ

DEATHtoGOMEZ

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 88 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:55 PM

Shall the amendment to Article VIII, Section II of the State Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, which: prohibits collection by the State of assessments based solely on employee wages and salaries for any purpose other than providing employee benefits; dedicates all employer and employee contributions collected for any employee benefit fund, and all returns on investments of those contributions, to the purpose of that fund; and prohibits any transferring, borrowing, appropriating or using of those contributions or returns for any other purpose, be approved?

INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT:
This proposed constitutional amendment prohibits the collection by the State of assessments based on employee wages and salaries for any purpose except paying employee benefits (or making other employee-authorized or federally required payments, in the case of the State's own employees), dedicates all contributions made to the unemployment compensation fund, the State disability benefits fund, or any other employee benefit fund, and all returns on investments of those contributions, to the purpose of that fund, and prohibits the use of those contributions or returns for any other purpose. The requirements of this proposed amendment do not apply to the gross income tax, which is exclusively dedicated by the Constitution to the purpose of reducing or offsetting local property taxes.



I'm not 100% sure I even understand what it's asking. I think what it's saying is this amendment makes it so the state has to use the money it takes out for disability, unemployment, etc. only for what it says they're using it for. If that's the case, does that mean that currently some of the money they're taking out of our paychecks for these things are being used for other things too? How would this amendment affect how much we pay in these taxes?


For years now the state has been using money contributed by its employees to fund their pension, disability etc etc, for other causes. This will put a stop to all the "borrowing" from those funds and leave the money contributed to the people that contributed it.
  • 0
Posted Image
Gomez smells....

#3 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 03 November 2010 - 10:14 AM

I don't understand why 20% of people voted no on this, I can't think of one good reason why someone would be opposed to this amendment.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#4 point

point

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts

Posted 04 November 2010 - 12:40 PM

This does not just apply to state employees. The unemployment/disability/healthcare/workforcedevelopment/family leave taxes that all employers deduct from employees' pay goes into designated funds. Except that the legislature sees money in those funds and regularly uses the funds for other purposes. This amendment will stop those games.
  • 0
2 C6H12O6 > 2 C2H5OH + 2CO2




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users