Charts reveal why companies are leaving California BY THE THOUSANDS!!!

CA used to be 6th largest economy. Lucky with weather, beaches and got big luck w/silicon valley. But they are spinning tales about books. You can't go on with pension bomb. 1 work, two off. Ask Illinois how you pay $10K/mo pension s foever. AND insurance for all the dyke you can muster up. 13% tax rate is not enough. They just sdded parcel tax SCCTY.....


And now the demrats want to move on to Texas and crap there too....

I don't have a horse in this race but if I had one I would say no....let the roaches go somewhere else.
Every time a Californicator moves here we check to make sure they're up to date on all their shots then run 'em through a sheep dip. They are pretty tame after that.
 
CA used to be 6th largest economy. Lucky with weather, beaches and got big luck w/silicon valley. But they are spinning tales about books. You can't go on with pension bomb. 1 work, two off. Ask Illinois how you pay $10K/mo pension s foever. AND insurance for all the dyke you can muster up. 13% tax rate is not enough. They just sdded parcel tax SCCTY.....


And now the demrats want to move on to Texas and crap there too....

I don't have a horse in this race but if I had one I would say no....let the roaches go somewhere else.
Every time a Californicator moves here we check to make sure they're up to date on all their shots then run 'em through a sheep dip. They are pretty tame after that.


(((Agree Hossfly))) :2up:
 
Secession for Texas! :clap:


This ignorant nitwit does not realize that without Texas, a conservative would NEVER again see the inside of the oval office.

(give it another generation....after the old, white, tea bagging conservatives die off.....and TX will be a bright PURPLE state.)
 
CA used to be 6th largest economy. Lucky with weather, beaches and got big luck w/silicon valley. But they are spinning tales about books. You can't go on with pension bomb. 1 work, two off. Ask Illinois how you pay $10K/mo pension s foever. AND insurance for all the dyke you can muster up. 13% tax rate is not enough. They just sdded parcel tax SCCTY.....


And now the demrats want to move on to Texas and crap there too....

I don't have a horse in this race but if I had one I would say no....let the roaches go somewhere else.
Every time a Californicator moves here we check to make sure they're up to date on all their shots then run 'em through a sheep dip. They are pretty tame after that.

Last time I went to Texas this is what I saw.

5.jpg
 
You choose where it'd be nicer to live and prosper....

Texas
x13958307.jpg



90981411.fmbfVMyr.jpg


California
 
Demrats did it to Detroit....they did it to Cali.....

they want to do it to Texas too?

hmmm...something tells me...it won't be that easy with patriots in Texas ....so dream on Demrats. Dream on.

Bless Texas Bless patriots in Texas.:clap:
 
The Decline of California

Duncan Black writes that California succeeded as a high-tax, high-service state but is going to fail as austerity transforms it into a high-tax low-service state.

I think this gets the relationship between population growth and service mix wrong. When I look at California's historical population growth trajectory and current real estate dynamics, what I see is a state that managed to provide a high level of public services on a relatively modest tax burden thanks to a rapidly growing population. That works through several mechanisms. One is that if you have a large number of people who move to your state as adults after having gone to school elsewhere, you can maintain a high ratio of currently working taxpayers to kids enrolled in school. Another is that if you have a rapidly growing population, then you have a high ratio of currently working taxpayers to retired public sector workers drawing pensions. Once population growth slows, a much higher share of your public employee compensation is going to retirees who aren't actually providing any services. Last, a growing population supports a lot of new infrastructure building. Texas, which is the new California in terms of population growth, has excellent roads with low taxes by continually adding to its stock of taxpayers.

I'm reasonably certain that California's deteriorating public services aren't really driving the declining population growth. That's because if you look at someplace in California where it would be nice to live—Santa Monica, say, or Palo Alto—it turns out to be incredibly expensive. All the best land is occupied and the people in those communities don't want it to get filled up with more density and California's environmental legislation gives them powerful tools with which to block new residents.

Part of the price the state needs to pay for this induced slowdown in population growth is a downshift to a much less desirable tax/service tradeoff. But it would certainly be possible to open the floodgates to construction in Silicon Valley and all along the coast, which would bring in a huge flood of new tax revenue and create the possibility of lower tax rates and return to more generous levels of public expenditure.

The Decline of California
 
The Decline of California

Duncan Black writes that California succeeded as a high-tax, high-service state but is going to fail as austerity transforms it into a high-tax low-service state.

I think this gets the relationship between population growth and service mix wrong. When I look at California's historical population growth trajectory and current real estate dynamics, what I see is a state that managed to provide a high level of public services on a relatively modest tax burden thanks to a rapidly growing population. That works through several mechanisms. One is that if you have a large number of people who move to your state as adults after having gone to school elsewhere, you can maintain a high ratio of currently working taxpayers to kids enrolled in school. Another is that if you have a rapidly growing population, then you have a high ratio of currently working taxpayers to retired public sector workers drawing pensions. Once population growth slows, a much higher share of your public employee compensation is going to retirees who aren't actually providing any services. Last, a growing population supports a lot of new infrastructure building. Texas, which is the new California in terms of population growth, has excellent roads with low taxes by continually adding to its stock of taxpayers.

I'm reasonably certain that California's deteriorating public services aren't really driving the declining population growth. That's because if you look at someplace in California where it would be nice to live—Santa Monica, say, or Palo Alto—it turns out to be incredibly expensive. All the best land is occupied and the people in those communities don't want it to get filled up with more density and California's environmental legislation gives them powerful tools with which to block new residents.

Part of the price the state needs to pay for this induced slowdown in population growth is a downshift to a much less desirable tax/service tradeoff. But it would certainly be possible to open the floodgates to construction in Silicon Valley and all along the coast, which would bring in a huge flood of new tax revenue and create the possibility of lower tax rates and return to more generous levels of public expenditure.



The Decline of California


The article above is written by Matthew Yglesia........

Does Matthew Yglesias Ever Tire Of Being Embarrassingly Wrong About Everything?
 
They better send Romo and the Cowpies down south when that wasteland down Mexico way
 
CA had best schools late 60s' 70s'? But ruined that too.

You got to hand it to them..,,silicon valley started taking off early 70s' despite high taxes, dimwitted loons by the gross, they could not kill it. Asians love the weather too. They think it not congested lol. Maybe dems are right?
 

Forum List

Back
Top