LA voters pass another tax that’ll impact almost all shopping trips ⁠75%

By Titus Wu⁠85% Benjamin Brown⁠0%

6/29/2026, 2:51:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 1,336 faulty-reasoning hits from 495 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,133 of 20,370 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.80% of the article peer group.

Los Angeles County has voted to jack up the prices they pay for everyday items by approving a sales-tax increase — in a move critics say will backfire by sending residents across county lines for shopping trips. 
Measure ER, which passed by more than 25,000 votes, is set to increase sales taxes by half a cent to raise $1 billion annually for hospitals, local health departments and low-income residents needing insurance. 
The Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office certified the June 2 primary results on Friday, with the LA County Board of Supervisors scheduled to declare the election officially over during its meeting on Tuesday. 
The tax hike — which raises the current 9.75% rate to 10.25% — increases prices on items ranging from furniture and electronics at a time when LA residents are already drowning in rising costs — as inflation on gas and groceries have drained people’s wallets. 
California already has the highest sales tax in the nation, and with county and local taxes included, consumers will pay close to 12% sales tax in some areas of Los Angeles that have adopted higher municipal taxes. 
“People are going to travel across county lines to purchase items, when you’re sitting at 12% sales tax up in Lancaster, 11.75% up in Lancaster and Palmdale … you’re going to jump across the border to Orange County and buy and save 3%,” said Aidan Chao of the Los Angeles County Taxpayers Association. 
“While you may say ‘a few dollars here and there is not much,’ sometimes a few dollars is a lot to those who are living paycheck to paycheck and need those few dollars to pay their rent,” Chao added. 
“It seems like a lot when people can’t even pay for their gas.” 
Measure ER, backed by nonprofit St. 
John’s Community Health and Service Employees International Union, was advertised as “half a penny to save lives” to make up for President Donald Trump’s federal funding cuts and endorsed by labor and progressive groups. 
Some locals could face sticker shock when the tax goes into effect and make them hesitant to buy those big-ticket items. 
“Anytime the tax rate goes up, it does impact taxpayers’ behavior… and when people see a two digit number like that, that definitely starts making them think twice about purchases,” added David Kline, president of California Taxpayers Association. 
“The county said it’s going to generate $1 billion a year in new revenue, which means that is a $1 billion a year new cost for taxpayers,” he said. 
Tax advocates said they felt it was important to pay their fair share to help the community. 
But even supporters of the tax agreed that money needs to be spent wisely. 
“I think we need to figure out a way to make sure it’s being spent responsibly and then people would be more willing to give more,” said Chris Maese, who voted for Measure ER. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.7%Titus Wu: 4.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias7.7%This article: 7.5%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias7.5%This article: 10.7%Titus Wu: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 6.9%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Titus Wu: 12.5%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 7.9%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion7.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias20.8%This article: 27.1%Titus Wu: 22.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias27.1%This article: 6.9%Titus Wu: 4.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.9%This article: 5.9%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Titus Wu: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.9%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 4.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.9%Titus Wu: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority6.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.5%Titus Wu: 1.3%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope7.5%This article: 5.9%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.9%This article: 22.6%Titus Wu: 6.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization22.6%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 32.3%Titus Wu: 9.6%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion32.3%This article: 5.9%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 9.1%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 6.9%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque6.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Titus Wu: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Titus Wu: 3.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground2.8%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.3%Titus Wu: 3.9%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote27.3%This article: 1.2%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 11.3%Titus Wu: 17.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice11.3%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

495 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers42%attributed speech289writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageAidan Chao • 53 words • 0.0% coverageAidan Chao • 39 words • 0.0% coverageAidan Chao • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Kline • 38 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Kline • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageChris Maese • 34 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Kline

100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words33% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote+6.6 ptsWriter: 36.7%David Kline: 43.3%43.3%Biased Writer Voice-19.4 ptsWriter: 19.4%David Kline: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%David Kline: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.