Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you are describing a political issue, or what has become a pol. issue. when you say they...what portion of the cali pop. works for a muni or state union?
Are you being this stupid intentionally? What do govt employees have to do with this? It sounds like you're desperate to find a red herring
When the voters in CA vote to create a new program, but vote against paying for it, it is also an economic issue.
I thought the issue was unions pensions liabilities etc. and for the record we do purchase these servcies/goods as a consumer.
when I go into a DMV I am serviced by an employee paid to help me, which has a cost, that is a good rendered and a service I pay for, its all part of the business, just because its a gov. bus. means squat. Their pay benes etc. come off the bottom line as an operational expense whether they serve as a profit base or not.
did you wipe your chin btw?
i know that why I said what I said....needlessly? so everything is hunky dory? so my readjusted 250 billion is no good either? okay, do you have a number? or is this all a about nothing?
I'm not sure what the number should be. But I know its not $500 billion.
thats cool. hell I'll drop down to 200 billion.I don't think for today it gives us much pause. somehting has to change.
as i said I'll accept the worse case and then hack 50%...if you think that the study studies are off by 75% or more, well, I don't know what to say.
I do know that as a member of UC pension plan and UC union member , I have witnessed union bargaining meetings listened closely to the arguments we make amongst ourselves, and as a person not generally favorable to unions anyway, and have no wish to defend them, from the inside so to speak, I can tell you, they think we are in trouble. BIG trouble.
Pension plans are an issue around the country. Many jurisdictions will be in trouble over the next 5-10 years. There needs to be reform.
agreed.
here? I don't think have 5 years imho. the 'public 'sector' has become just like any other bus. expanse requiring more dollars than it generates in fees etc. ( fes keep gping up) so the whirligig starts, more money for more 'services' that requires more money....we don't work for them they work for us, we all must decide that longer lines at the dmv are whats in the future and bite the bullet etc etc etc..fine by me.
just as an aside they/we recently signed a new contract; when I retire I was guaranteed zero medical costs when I was hired and after a 5 year vest, now I am on the hook for 20% and thats because I was grandfathered in......... it was ridiculous to start with 100%??.
Oh and I will have to contribute 2% of my pay a year to my pension plan, BUT I got a 5% contract raise locked in for the next 4 years.......whoa is me....unreal man.
The moron Sangha continues to confirm his economic and historical illiteracy.
The facts about CA are that despite strong increases in tax receipts, spending and the growth in the numbers of public employees have outpaced inflation and population growth.
Every picture tells a story:
reason.org/files/​a2ec7caccc5d660e870c4a21526ef5f8.pdf
does congress have the political will? who does? just saying you think we can pay? at what price?
Like I said, it is a choice. Taxes can be much higher to pay for all the stuff the lawmakers whom the people elect pass. Californians can pay but they choose not to.
does congress have the political will? who does? just saying you think we can pay? at what price?
Like I said, it is a choice. Taxes can be much higher to pay for all the stuff the lawmakers whom the people elect pass. Californians can pay but they choose not to.
Isn't this a question of the chicken or the egg coming first?
It seems Californians can, and DO pay higher taxes, but then receive public services that are much more costly than what they anticipated.
Based on the number of CA neighbors we have in Boulder CO, it appears that the easier solution to ever increasing taxation is to simply move from CA.
The best study of state and local tax burdens comes from the venerable Tax Foundation, an independent non-profit thats been acting as a taxpayers watchdog in Washington since 1937. The Tax Foundation is non-partisan, but by the nature of what it does it leans politically to the right.
According to them, as of 2008 (the most recent year analyzed) state and local taxes in the average state came to about 9.7% of the annual state economy.
What was it in crazy, liberal, communistical, socialistical, un-American, soviet-style California?
Er, 10.5%.
Thats right. The burden was all of 0.8 percentage points higher than the average. ...
In the late 1990s, when California was riding high, it was...10.6%. Thirty years ago, when even Meg Whitman thought it was a wonderful place to work, start a family, and hire an illegal immigrant to raise your kids, it was...10.1%. ...
Wow......has TX become the bellweather for other US states?
The only difference is the one I saw in the OP with CA per capita income growth (before taxes?) equal to 0.1% over TX.
The moron Sangha continues to display his lack of cognitive ability.
CA has out migration, the population growth over the past decade is 9%.
TX has in migration, the population growth over the past decade is 12%.
Per capita stats are affected by changes in population. As TX receives more and more businesses, it future growth prospects are stronger than CA's, as the latter continues to sink under excessive government spending and public employee pension liabilities.
U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2009 — Infoplease.com
Already explained over and over again moron.
High tech (likely including foreign subs), Real Estate Bubble, Health Care, and Government spending fueled a great deal of CA's results.
The latter three are not sustainable areas for future growth.
Something you clearly can't grok.
Already explained over and over again moron.
High tech (likely including foreign subs), Real Estate Bubble, Health Care, and Government spending fueled a great deal of CA's results.
The latter three are not sustainable areas for future growth.
Something you clearly can't grok.
The high tech businesses started in an era when CA had a favorable business climate. Now, the largest ones are moving operations out of the state.
I wouldn't expect a lover of Swedish Socialism such as sanghaha to grok this.
The high tech businesses started in an era when CA had a favorable business climate. Now, the largest ones are moving operations out of the state.
I wouldn't expect a lover of Swedish Socialism such as sanghaha to grok this.
Oracle is a highly distributed organization. A lot of functions have been moved out of the SF Bay Area. The majority of Oracle's employees work remotely and outside of CA, yet its income is counted as part of the CA industrial base.
Already explained over and over again moron.
High tech (likely including foreign subs), Real Estate Bubble, Health Care, and Government spending fueled a great deal of CA's results.
The latter three are not sustainable areas for future growth.
Something you clearly can't grok.
You must be addresing the very sad, and lonely example of one of the last defenders of socialism, the always pitiful, sangha.
You will never convince him that both Sweden and California are examples of failed socialist agenda and produce low quality built-it-yourself furniture.
sangha said:This message is hidden because sangha is on your ignore list.
