More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($50K-$75K) voters
Last answered 5 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($50K-$75K) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 9, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Income data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
More stances on this issue
No, and since the government is supposed operate efficiently based on existing fees that are justified from a zero based budget, there should not be such a gap that would allow for 3% to be set aside for a rainy day. 7 years ago from a Republican in Goleta, CA
Who's rainy day? The politicians? Nancy Pelosi's (she is already a big tax waster) The environmental groups? Another big NO! Thanks for giving us a heads up so that we can inform our friends to start an opposition group. 7 years ago from a Republican in Alameda, CA
Yes, increase our savings, and cut spending. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Fresno, CA
Return the money to the people. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Yes, if we can afford to do so while maintaining essential services. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Spreckels, CA
No, any surplus should be returned to the taxpayer. History shows that legislators have always managed to deplete any surplus or savings in tax monies for pet projects that do not benefit the people of the state. 7 years ago from a Republican in Rohnert Park, CA
No use the funds to pay down pension debt and change govenemnt pensions. They are a disgrace. 7 years ago from a Republican in Mill Valley, CA