Retirement for state workers is part of their agreed-on compensation for labor provided, so its part and parcel of the labor costs for all the things government does (including all those things that you said you are "totally happy" with your taxes going to), not a separate use of funds.
> This is what I think the conservatives are railing against - 64% of benefits going to ~10% of the state's citizens.
Medi-Cal alone (which isn't all of public healthcare expenditures in California) covers around 12 million of California's 38.8 million population, so that piece of the healthcare component of what you are complaining about reaches far more than "~10% of the state's citizens".
I am quite happy, that some of my tax money is preventing to have multi-resistant tuberculosis, or STDs (or whatever other horror you can imagine) at every corner. Having a basic access to some healthcare is benefiting every one in the long run. Same for welfare, some basic minimum probably prevents some people to kill/rob just to eat. I wonder if that kind of relation has already been quantified.
I would probably be OK with a 20-33% reduction of my income if it was used to provide a universal basic income.
Completely agree. My only stipulation would be that all financial transactions, reporting, etc is openly available to the public online.
I want a strong government providing support to its citizens, but I want it held ruthlessly accountable.
The reality though is that our taxes increasingly go to paying for retirement for state workers (19% - California), welfare (10%), and health care (35%). In other words, a total of 64% of our budget goes to things I will never see a benefit from.
This is what I think the conservatives are railing against - 64% of benefits going to ~10% of the state's citizens.