Keep an eye on Califronia and the other state budgets

[AllentownJake]

These are the proposed budget cuts

# $5.2 billion cut to K-12 education and community colleges
# $1.7 billion by furloughing state employees 2 days a month until June 30, 2010
# $1.4 billion by reducing monthly grants to federal minimum for low-income aged, blind and disabled on Supplemental Security Income / State Supplemental Program and eliminating payments to recent immigrants
# $1.1 billion from CalWORKS welfare programs
# $788 million to the Department of Corrections and Rehibilitation by eliminating parole supervisions for all but those who have committed serious, violent or sexual crimes and reducing the medical budget by 10%
# $742 million to Medi-Cal by eliminating certain treatments
# $692 million by cutting UC and CSU budgets by 10%
# $459 million by eliminating general purpose grants to local transit agencies
# $473 million by reducing state payments for In-Home Supportive Services health workers
# $422.8 million to the Department of Developmental Services
# $275 million by eliminating the state First Five Commission
# $226 million by diverting money set aside in Prop 63 for mental health services
# $163.4 million by continuing through June 2010 "one-time" cuts in current budgets for state couts
# $150 million by eliminting or consolidating varitey of state entities including Integrated Waste Management Board and the California Conservation Corps
# $87 million by making various changes to the Cal Grant program including elimination of new grants awarded on the basis of competition
# $43.2 million by cutting Legislature's budget 10% and eliminating cost-of-living increase
# $37.8 million by eliminating food stamps for legal immigrants not eligible for federal assistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2009_California_budget_crisis

Cuts to education, the disabled, health care for the poor, transportation, mental health care etc.

California is the most extreme example, however this is happening in every state. Most of our social safety net is under state control.

This is going to be devastating and create more poverty and less opportunity. Its also going to increase unemployment not only for the state workers but those who are providing services to the state or to state workers. Of course if we weren't funneling so much money to save the banks that caused this misery, well maybe we could afford to help our states a little more.

[billyoc]

1. California destroyed itself with selfish ballot initiatives. They'd make Ayn Rand blush.

The only reason to keep an eye on CA is to remind yourself to never behave that selfishly.

[AllentownJake]

2. This is happening in every other state just to a lesser extent

[Zynx]

8. Few states were quite as irresponsible as California.

Most states were in deficit between 5 and 12% of their general funds in FY09. California was 35%. That's more than just a small difference. Their FY2010 deficit, which is likely understated, is twice the national average as a percent of their general fund.

California is not deserving of extraordinary assistance.

[AllentownJake]

9. California needs a new state constitution

The ballot initiative bullshit where they can amend their constitution with a 50% +1 vote plurality but can't pass a budget without a 2/3 super majority needs to fucking end.

That being said there are budget cuts to social spending in all states right now.

[Zynx]

10. Of course, but to be fair, a lot of states spent far beyond their ability to raise revenue

on a consistent basis. When you spend unusually large capital gains and corporate tax receipts during your peak years, you are going to be in a world of pain when a downturn strikes.

[unapatriciated]

11. Bill O Reilly said the same thing when Languna Beach had their landslides....

so lets punish the least among us, because that is who will suffer.

[Zynx]

13. If California is unwilling to tax itself sufficiently to pay for services, then I say fine.

My question is: when does the aid end? California's budget is structurally in deficit. If it does not adjust its tax and/or service levels, this will not improve.

[stopbush]

18. If CA received 90¢ back for every dollar it sent to the Feds, we'd have

surpluses like crazy.

Right now, we get back about 75¢ for every $1 we send the Feds in taxes. The difference between what goes out from our state and what comes back is roughly $48-BILLION a year. We were to get half of that $48-billion back (ie: $24-billion, or 90¢ back for every $1 we send to DC) we'd have a balanced budget. We are 45th in states that benefit from collected federal funds being returned to the states.

I'm pretty sick of hearing people in other states who benefit from CA's fed tax $ overpayment stating that we don't tax ourselves sufficiently.

FYI - the states that receive the most from the Feds are predominantly red states. Based on how much they get back for every $1 they send to the feds, the top states are:

New Mexico - $2.03
Mississippi - $2.02
Alaska - $1.84
Louisiana - $1.78
W Virg - $1.74
N Dak - $1.68
Alabama - $1.66
S Dak - $1.53
Ken & Va - $1.51

These fed $ directly impact the fiscal health of a state, and CA is on the butt end of the equation. If the 10 states listed above got back a 1-to-1 return on the $ they sent the feds, they'd be bankrupt. If they got the 75¢ that CA gets back for every $1 sent, they'd be owned by the Saudis who would have bought them at fire sale prices.

That fucking Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere could pay for a ton of services in CA.

BTW - 32 of the 50 states receive more back in fed $ than they pay in. One state gets a 1-to-1 return. The other 17 states are taking it up the wahzoo, the worst being NJ which gets only 61¢ back for every $1 it sends to DC.

Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[Zynx]

21. Those numbers are all well and good but don't tell us much.

Most federal spending that would be allocated to state services is distributed via federal formula. A lot of this pertains to where federal military installations are. I would have to see what these various spending items are.

[stopbush]

59. Those numbers are no more obtuse than any other number - or opinion -

that has been or will be offered in this thread.

Are you really suggesting that New Mexico has more military bases than CA?

[LooseWilly]

62. That's kind of funny coming from someone with a Michigan avatar.

Hmm... what say the monies going to bail out GM and Chrysler be re-directed to California? Give us... what was it?... 25 billion?... Let's see what California could do with $25 billion to build an alternative auto industry... and let Michigan's obviously failing industry just die... Why not?

[truedelphi]

50. Thank you for that report. This state really does pay in

Sufficiently.

Also there are laws on the books that demand that the Federal Government pay out for every newly arrived immigrant that is taken in. The Feds have never honored that agreement. Not for decades.

Those monies alone, had they been paid off in a timely manner rather than being ignored, would have kept the state afloat.

[stopbush]

19. And how do states get money into their general funds? See my post #18 above.

[Zynx]

24. Those numbers don't really address the problems.

That counts all forms of federal spending. A lot of that doesn't match up with state budgets.

[LooseWilly]

61. You do realize that California had to piss away it's surpluses to cope with Enron frauds?...

Gray Davis had to use the State's surpluses to cover energy costs and pay Enron (fraudulently leveraged) energy fees in order to avoid rolling blackouts back in '01... and in order to cover some of those costs, Davis proposed a hike on auto registration fees... which led to a recall... which the dumbshits fell for... which saddled us witht he Guvernator... who then promptly dropped Davis and Bustamante's (the Lt. Governor at the time) lawsuits against the execs of Enron for pennies on the dollar (not surprisingly, as there are reports of meetings between the Guvernator and Ken Lay, and cronies before the recall election).

Ironically, the Guvernator is now proposing a fee hike on auto registration to pay for a state budget deficit... and suddenly he's being hailed as being fiscally responsible for doing so... despite the fact that the State would've been collecting those fees for years if there hadn't've been a recall (because of those fees).

No state has suffered as much from Bush and his boys as California. Who do you think attended those super-secret energy policy meetings with Cheney?... The same people who systematically defrauded the state of California of millions and millions... perhaps billions... of dollars.

Easy to forget that we were robbed, when casting "personal responsibility" aspersions. Easier still to blame the victims that are the dumbshit voters who voted in the Guvernator for compounding the robbery.

If nothing else... isn't it worth it to offer assistance to California just to see the Governator beg??...

[XemaSab]

52. I was ONE when Prop 13 passed

We've been living under this thing for almost a third of a century. Half the people who voted for it are probably dead. But the legacy lives on....

[Cleita]

3. Bill Maher said it best last Friday that California is governed by initiatives.

That being the truth, it's time to roll back Proposition 13, the Jarvis Amendment in 1977 which brought us to this by initiative. I would make a change though, that the 1% property tax remain for single family homes and small ranches and family farms as well as residential rental units. That senior citizens have the value of their single family property frozen at the time they retire so that those on fixed incomes will also have fixed property taxes and don't have to end up on the street.

Anybody else holding property in California like business properties, second homes and multi-billionaires from out of state and out of the country who own mansions in the various rich enclaves of California like Beverly Hills, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Carmel, San Francisco, Marin County, Lake Tahoe, etc., pay 4% to 5% in property taxes on the value of the property owned. I'll bet that will solve the budget problem overnight. We have so much rich property in California owned by an upper crust of people and corporations that are not even residents of this state that it's time they paid their fair share because I'm certain half of them don't pay any California income tax either.

Maybe we can bring back free education too in our state colleges and universities.

[AllentownJake]

4. Funny on a municipal level in PA I just ran into a similar thing

My friend was running for office as Treasurer for her township. The incumbent and his had picked successor seemed to have a difficulty (and by difficulty I mean unwillingness) to collect business taxes.

She lost the election (due to a hit job by the local paper) but the entire board of commissions are aware of this little problem and have commissioned an audit and will be expecting the Treasurer's office to collect the business taxes.

[Jane Austin]

5. Is it possible that the low property taxes are responsible

in part for the high cost of housing in California?

I mean, houses cost as much as people will pay for them, so if property taxes were higher, people wouldn't qualify for such expensive mortgages, would they?

Wouldn't that have kept the cost of housing more in line with the rest of the country?

My niece is "house poor" living in California.

[Cleita]

6. It's not only possible but a direct result of it. After the Jarvis Amendment

passed, I watched the speculators arrive in my town of Santa Monica. They started buying up property as fast as they could, converting apartment buildings into condos, remodeling modest single family homes into Mc Mansions and reselling at previously inflated and unheard of prices. My husband's ex, who kept the house that they bought for $30,000 and had increased in value to $40,000 at the time of the amendment's passing, sold a run down two bedroom, one bath home for $600,000. The residents who saw triple windfall profits on their homes, moved out of state to Washington and Oregon buying three properties thereby inflating the prices of their real estate market, a domino effect. On rental property rent tripled in a matter of three years causing us renters to vote in rent control. We were then called, "The People's Republic of Santa Monica" by sneering would be real estate entrepreneurs that we stopped in their tracks.

In 1980 homeless filled the streets. Governor Jerry Brown had run out of a budget surplus that he had acquired to keep the state social programs afloat so thousands of dysfunctional people were turned out in the street to fend for themselves. With rent becoming un-affordable, marginal people who worked but could only afford the cheapest of rent were then turned out into the street. When I walked to work from the parking lot stepping over bodies, I felt like I had been transported to a third world country.

When houses became too expensive for working people with families to buy, and it seemed like the housing boom was over, the creative financing schemes began. Yep, it's a direct cause.

[Jane Austin]

14. I've never heard that mentioned as a cause,

but it flashed through my mind while reading this thread.

A lot of those Californians who made a bundle on their real estate came to Austin, TX, too.

The cost of living used to be low here, but not any more. Real estate prices skyrocketed, and the transplants thought they were getting a bargain.

Thanks for your answer - very informative.

[Cleita]

15. I never made the connection myself while it was happening. It seemed like

there was no explanation as to why this was happening or the explanations were that it's all those lazy welfare people's fault and it's wrong of us to not let the market determine the value of rentals. We should move to where we can afford to live. (Never mind that those places didn't have jobs.) It was years later and ironically enough when my DH and I had left California when we retired and started traveling the West, including Texas, that the threads started getting tied together.

[nichomachus]

44. Definitely

That's very intuitive, but I hadn't considered it until I read your post.

[Jane Austin]

47. Thanks.

Every now and then the ol' synapses come through for me.

I hope California finds a way out of this mess.

[nichomachus]

48. I don't think

there is a way out of this mess until people realize that taxes are necessary to run a civilized country.

Even as the US comes down around their ears, people are clinging to the "I don't want to pay any taxes" mantra. It is sheer stupidity.

My own sister works for the city. She is in imminent danger of losing her job because the city can't raise any revenue and the state can't help them -- due to idiotic tax restrictions. My sister, who cheered on the no-tax idiots, is blaming "liberals" for her plight.

[LooseWilly]

64. Hehe... let me guess... she thinks the city should pay for the bureaucracy that administers...

... even when they have no money for the administrators to "administrate"?

The money spent "liberally" should be cut... but administrators still need to be hired to "administrate" the money that's no longer being spent?...

[nichomachus]

69. I don't think the process is that complex

It's more along the lines of "I don't like this. It's the fault of the liberals." That's about as complicated as that thought process is.

[truedelphi]

51. Yes and no, Jane Austin. The people who have owned homes get by

Without paying their share - and let's face it - especially from 1980 to 2007, home ownership in California was the real wealth.

So we do not get monies in from wealthy home owners, like the John McCains who have their second (or is it their seventh home?) here.

But to offset this, we have a high income tax. And we have to pay over 8% when we buy something. Except for food, unless it is prepared hot food. And meds.

So the middle and lower classes have been getting reamed by this dis-proportionate tax scheme in order to allow for the others to save.

[cboy4]

20. Rolling back Prop 13 only hurts the middle class.

There is no way in a million years it will be rolled back.

[Cleita]

25. BS. Take your RW talking points somewhere else. I've heard them all and

the proof is in the historical fact that prop. 13 has hurt the middle class tremendously in the years since it was enacted. Middle class and lower class California residents could aspire to get their children a quality college education, tuition free. Middle class working people could afford to buy a family home with good schools to sent their children to. Neighborhoods were safer because there were more policemen and firemen in the streets. Poor people, who had fallen on bad times didn't have to live in the streets, actually making the streets much pleasanter for the middle class and rich class. Trauma and emergency response were state of the art before Prop. 13 was enacted. Oh, yes dysfunctional people who can't look after themselves were taken care of instead of being left to the mercy of the streets or made an additional burden on relatives, who are middle class or poor and all the while Jerry Brown was able to get a surplus in the California Treasury. So tell me how this is better?

Also, posting your chart without the whole truth as to why Californians voted for Prop. 13 is very disingenuous of you. Californians were sold the propaganda that passing it would keep grandma and grandpa in their homes because property taxes were making them lose their property. So we went for the bleeding heart way it was presented, voted for it and found out the truth when it was too late. A law could have been passed freezing grandma and grandpa's taxes when they retired. End of problem. The Republicans LIED to Californians who passed a law that has had devastating consequences nationwide as the meme spread across the country.

[cboy4]

28. Yea, rolling back Prop 13 will let students get a "quality college

education, tuition free." :spray:

Suuuuuure it will. Talk about propaganda.

You can call me a Republican all you want, but I oppose increasing taxes.

It's tax, tax, tax people like you who give the GOP all of the ammo they need to convince folks that the Democrats are the tax and spend party.

[Zynx]

29. Being opposed to raising taxes when taxes are too low to support services is irrational.

If you are willing to accept a lower level of services, congratulations. However, supporting continually lower tax rates is not a rational view point.

[cboy4]

31. If I was convinced changing the formula for those who have

had their property tax rates frozen (and that includes a lot of Democrats), was going to solve the state's fiscal crisis, maybe that would be one thing.

But that poster actually thinks it would solve everything, including it sounds like allowing everyone to go to college for free!!

[Zynx]

32. It won't solve everything, but it will help.

Taxes have to go up or services have to go down or some combination. It really is as simple as that.

[cboy4]

38. It won't help. That's what they said about the tax increases

a few months ago.

Now they're saying the global economy has put us in the whole another 21 billion dollars, or whatever it is.

Further increasing taxes on the middle class is not the way to go.

How did that special election go on Tuesday Zynx?

That was a message.

[Zynx]

41. I'd like to see what would happen if you put up the necessary spending cuts.

I would really like to see it.

[LooseWilly]

66. Hate to say it cboy, but prop 13 really did screw California into the ground.

My mom might've loved it... and my (virtual) mother in law too... but it's really at the heart of California's woes. Well, that and the friggin 2/3 vote to pass a budget. You might be right that repealing it now would be a bad thing for those who can't pay taxes at a full market rate... but in the meantime the grand children of the old folks still enjoying prop 13 property tax rates are getting a shitty education because the schools have no money because the local and state taxes aren't enough to pay for anything better than maybe a 30-40 student per class school system.

The special election called for allowing the state to take the lottery income away from the schools in exchange for a promise to give the schools an equivalent amount of money... so that the state could borrow against future lottery money. I voted against it because I didn't trust the state to live up to that promise... and because more borrowing seemed like a ridiculous idea.

If California is really unwilling to do something about repealing prop 13 and taxing properties at their full value... then let's just go ahead and admit that we don't give a shit about any public programs... and become a third-world-like economy. Let's let children go without medical attention, and beg on the streets like they do in Tijuana. Let's let abused women turn to pimps to put them onto the streets to work. Let's let the elderly try to walk to their doctor's appointments. Or let's raise sales tax to a full 20%... virtually making it impossible for all the day laborers, people working 2 jobs, 3 jobs... to do more than just break even for 80 hours a work of pay after paying cost of living.

Meanwhile... the guvernator vetoes yacht taxes.

If there was ever a time to repeal prop 13, and re-set those property taxes... it is now. The properties are valued at an all time low. Add a service to allow a state sponsored re-appraisal... then re-set taxes without prop 13 limits for all except single family dwellings of owners who are on some sort of fixed income. And make a provision that, once those on a fixed income are no longer the owners (death, sale, whatever)... then the properties go back to market value for determination of property taxes... Ohh yeah, and corporations are not entitled, under any circumstances, to prop 13 protections... pass that, and maybe California's budget will recover despite the state's being screwed over by the Feds... and Enron...

A theory anyway...

[Cleita]

30. God those RW talking points just keep coming.

Let me educate you a bit about quality education. I worked at UCLA both before and after prop 13. When California residents were able to get tuition free into the state college and university system, the admissions standards were much higher. The smartest high school students were the ones admitted. When they had to start charging tuition the admission standards were lowered because they had to let in students whose parents could afford to pay the tuition. Why do you protect the uber riche whom I'm talking about taxing? They are the ones who aren't paying their fair share. I'm not talking about the ordinary person who has to go to work every day. Also, after eight years of the Bush administration, driving the country into trillion dollar deficits after the surplus Clinton left, no one but the most moronic are every going to believe that tax and spend idea any more.

[cboy4]

33. Oh, so only the "uber riche" are benefiting from Prop 13.

Give me a break.

You're why the people voted for Prop 13.

And your posts are all they need three decades later to remind themselves why they voted the way they did.

Stop saying everything only benefits the rich. It's harmful to the Democratic cause.

[Cleita]

34. Give me a break. You have no idea what real Democrats believe in and

what their cause is. However, if you want to support rich oil billionaires who are living off the fat of California land, don't make me do it.

[cboy4]

36. Sorry, but I don't consider radical, far left wing, Code Pink

nut ball-types who hate rich people "real Democrats."

You're why we don't win elections by landslides.

You're perfect ammo for Rush and Sean.

There's a reason Dennis K., as wonderful a person he is, finishes dead last.

[Cleita]

39. Excuse me but you don't besmirch the Code Pink ladies to me.

They protest war and unecessary deaths and agony to those left behind. Rush and Sean have lied about just about everything we lefties hold dear. And we are not far left wing for your information. Your crowd just likes to paint us that way. Actually, our views were considered moderate a few decades ago until the lunatic RW guns and Jesus wing of the Republican Party took over pulling the country so far too the right that the actual conservative faction looks like middle of the roaders. Dennis doesn't finish last but he's really not allowed to be in the debate. He was cut out of the debates in the primaries, by the very people he was running against. That my friend is like saying that when someone cuts in front of you in the line at the supermarket that he should and is entitled to.

[cboy4]

43. Interrupting committee hearings and dressing up in nutty

costumes wins over nobody.

Their message gets lost in the lunacy and they accomplish zero.

They only hurt us. I don't want to be associated with them. That's for sure.

[Cleita]

35. Here's one for you laddie that I posted in the California Forum.

There is plenty of money in California to fix the state's problems and not defund programs for education, health and children's welfare. There are so many rich, rich companies, out of staters and rich foreigners who are enjoying the benefits of having property in California and not paying their fair share.

I just heard of a Texas billionaire who has a private vineyard in our Central Coast wine country. He has 300 acres of grapes that are turned into a private stock of wine for himself. He lives in the Bahamas and has cases of the various wines, at the peak of perfection, shipped to his estates in Texas and the Bahamas by private jet. His vintner accompanies these shipments personally to make sure they are handled right. This guy is only paying the property tax for agricultural land.

There are many, many more who maintain residences here in California, John and Cindy McCain being one couple, who only pay the 1% for their beach properties and who are from out of state. Beverly Hills is overrun by oil billionaires from the Middle East, who own mansions in this city and only pay 1% property tax. Many wealthy people own second vacation homes in this state and they only pay 1%.

Okay, I will say that let's keep the property tax on a single family home or small ranch at 1%. Any property owned by non-California residents or additional properties owned by residents (other than residential rental) should be taxed at 4% to 5%. It's the Jarvis ammendment, proposition 13, that ruined all the progress in the education and social programs California had achieved. When need to bring back some of what was lost back then.

Arnold, of course, won't do this, even though it will save his sad legacy as Governor because they are the same people who put him into power.

[cboy4]

37. Another post, blasting the rich, while using Republicans as

examples in order to accuse me of being a right wing conservative.

How predictable.

Don't blame me for Californians just absolutely loving Prop 13.

It's been a dream come true for so many middle class residents who've been able to do things like a send their children to college.

[Cleita]

40. You don't know what you are talking about anymore. You just want to

argue for arguments sake. You have no more straw men to throw at me. Also, as long as there are rich not paying their fair share of taxes, and people in the street without health care and homes I will continue to blast them. Well tata, it was fun but I must go. I have some protests to plan.

[cboy4]

42. There's a difference between protesting and crossing the line.

All of your far, far left goof balls and your right wing christian conservative radical extremist equals are just God awful for Democrats and Republicans respectively.

Who won the 2006 midterms?

Who won in November?

Certainly not a bunch of far leftists.

Obama, Hillary, Edwards .. all light years away from your politics.

Thank goodness, because we would never win if you had your way.

Again, that's why Dennis was last.

I love Dennis for the most part, but he's not in touch with reality.

[XemaSab]

54. My mom went to UC Berkeley for $200 a semester

Humboldt State is now $2000 a semester, plus textbooks, and even with student loans it was a real struggle for my mom to send me there.

A world class education used to be available to the child of a carpenter and a telephone operator, but now the middle class is being shut out of higher education, even in a system as modest as the CSU system.

I thought I got a decent education at Humboldt, but since I graduated 5 years ago there has been nothing but budget cuts. This year there's a proposed 10% cut! Are kids today going to get the same education I got? I worry that they will pay more and get less for it. :(

[Zynx]

27. Then the state will continue to rot.

[CreekDog]

46. Cboy, simplistic, rolling back the corporate tax freezes would not hurt the middle class

and would make California's property tax more like the rest of the states.

[XemaSab]

53. What constitutes a mansion?

I know several people who own 600-700K homes who are VERY middle class otherwise.

[Cleita]

60. 600 to 700K in parts of California are lower middle class.

Mansions often go for the millions and in double digits, like 10 or 30 million in the posh communities of California.

Heres a link for properties in the Santa Barbara area 100 miles south of where I live:

http://www.sbestatehomes.com/listings/index.shtml

[LooseWilly]

67. I've seen listings for 300K houses in the "ghettoes" of East Oakland...

... You know, like near 76th and MacArthur, where those cops were killed by that dumb thug who was apparently also a rapist.

I know some nice people who live in the neighborhood too... but you have to be ready for crap like that gunman on a daily basis in the neighborhood... hell of a thing when you're paying 300K for a house...

[Zynx]

7. We've sent unprecedented amounts of money to the states.

Don't pretend we haven't.

Should we send more? Perhaps, but don't claim the administration and Congress haven't tried.

[cboy4]

12. I don't know where those figures are coming from, but they

don't completely reflect the post-special election situation.

Rejection at polls deepens the deficit to $21.3 billion

2009-10 California State Budget
- 2 visits - 9/20/08
Governor's Proposed Budget. Summary · Detail. Governor's Revised Budget. Available Mid-May 2009. Enacted Budget. Available Summer 2009. DEPARTMENT INDEX ...
www.ebudget.ca.gov/ - 4k - Cached - Similar pages -

[Cleita]

16. I don't know where your figure is coming from either, maybe Arnold's ass.

I would like to see an unbiased statistical study done on this down the line.

[cboy4]

17. I'm talking about the deficit figures .. not how much and where

the cuts have to come from.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst comes up with how much California is in the red.

Arnold proposes cuts and then the legislature considers those cuts and acts.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[Cleita]

26. If your not sure what my point is and I think I was pretty unambiguous about

it, then I can't help you.

[Catshrink]

22. Grover Norquist is getting what he wanted: CA managed to starve the beast.

This is the RWs wet dream of the last 30 years -- low taxes and limited government. Let's see how well it works out and how the public responds.

[nichomachus]

45. Exactly -- CA is just the canary in the coal mine -- this will spread to all other states

unless people rise up and fucking do something.

[Imajika]

23. California is screwed big time...

The people with money are beginning to just leave the state, they already feel overtaxed and will just go elsewhere. How does California plan to keep spending at this level? Right or wrong, those who can actually pay are finding greener pastures in other states. So the population base is less able to pay for services through taxation, leaving a less affluent citizenry whom are inevitably going to wind up expecting and voting for the same, if not an even higher, level of services.

As long as the affluent taxpayer base can just go elsewhere, I am not sure how you can tax them at the level many people here would consider fair (ie, higher than they would like). And if they leave because they feel they are taxed too much, which they obviously can do, how do you keep the coffers full to pay for the social spending aimed at those in need?

For now, California is just going to have to spend less. People can't have it both ways which seems to be what they want. They don't want to pay more, but they don't want to see anything (other than prisons) cut.

The able-to-pay tax base zipping off to other states where they pay less taxes will always be a problem so long as the bulk of these social services are provided on a state level.

California seems pretty screwed at the moment. Hopefully it is not as bad as it appears.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Do you have any evidence that the rich are leaving? (n/t)

[Imajika]

56. Just articles I have read and seen discussed...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-california_11bus.ART.State.Edition1.4b1cc11.html

A quick search brought up quite a few, this one was the first I saw so I linked it. This article doesn't specify rich, just working people that gave up on California.

I am not expert on it, just heard it discussed many times that legal residents, those who are working and/or somewhat affluent are starting to leave the state. The number of undocumented people on the other hand continues to rise.

If working and affluent people are beginning to move out of California, and the state population grows based on undocumented migrants who are largely poor and probably some of the people most in need of services, how can California pay for everything?

That was my question. I mean, California voters have basically said they don't want anymore taxes, yet they also don't want services cut (other than prisons). So what then?

Taxes will probably have to go up, but what if those who can most afford to pay those taxes just leave?

I just wonder if this is starting to happen in California, will it also happen elsewhere? And as long as people can just avoid taxes for services for the needy by moving to a new state, wouldn't that indicate that core social services really need to increasingly be a Federal responsibility so people can't skip out on their share of responsibility?

I mean, CA has a huge number of migrants and economically lower class residents that are in need of services. They will be for a long time to come. Other states don't necessarily have as many people in need of assistance, so those states can just lure the affluent voters to their states and tax them less since their new state doesn't have near the number of people depending on government help. This is already happening, at least to some degree, with businesses. I mean, you've got states running ads trying to get business to leave California and go to say Colorado.

Just thinking out loud is all.

[Luminous Animal]

63. So your answer is no. You have no evidence.

Even so, I have little doubt that you'll use that totally baseless argument in the future.

[CreekDog]

65. You think the people in Malibu and Brentwood are going to move to Phoenix to save money in taxes?

are you that stupid? :eyes:

[LooseWilly]

68. Hehe... your analysis is very theoretically interesting.

I have a friend who tried to live out the dream of the theory you propose. He made a million here, and another million here... and then decided to bail on California.

He has since realized that he can't get investors in his new project, since the investors seem mostly inclined to invest in companies based in... California. (Software/ Internet investors anyway)

How many other "affluent" CA taxpayers will find that trying to pretend that they're multi-national corporations will also find it difficult/impossible to find work and wind up coming back to CA?

Hell, part of the reason my friend is liable to come back is that he seemed to miss the presence of daylaborer-types to do hard work for minimum wage... so the "huge number of migrants and economically lower class residents" in CA are something of a "resource" to the affluent in CA... let's face it, the rich wouldn't know what to do without them as employees.
And these are the people who almost never get "government assistance".

Some corporations might be moving some of their lower skilled jobs out of California to other states with less educated (despite our shitty education spending) populations.. hoping to get cheaper customer service workers in Louisiana, or India... but the software jobs, and the firms investing in such... they're not going anywhere, apparently.

Just saying.

[book_worm]

55. CA voters brought these draconian cuts on themselves. They need to lose the initiative

because govt can't do anything now unless it's approved by voters and voters can't be trusted to always do the right thing--not that govt can, but looks, they also tossed Gray Davis out and put Arnold in and things have just gotten worse.

[Odin2005]

57. The People of Californian sowed thier anti-tax BS and now they are reaping what they sowed.

You guys brought this on yourselves with crap like Prop. 13.

[CreekDog]

58. This *guy*/Californian was 7 when Prop. 13 was passed

:eyes: