The GREAT SOCIALIST CALIFORNIA WELFARE STATE IS DYING

[The Rabbi]

Many decades of illegal aliens using a system, and not paying their taxes.
Too many Prisons, California incarcerates more people than any other state.
Too many Highways, and interstates. Too much pollution.
Too many people flooding the State for too many years, using state resources.
And a State government that did not take in enough taxes.
They need to institute a water tax, and a overall general purpose tax now!

California is already overtaxed. It is one of the most expensive states to live in. That is the reason why whole businesses are pulling up stakes and leaving for other states with less of a tax burden

The solution is not more taxation. IT IS LESS TAXATION!

The state has a lack of money problem. The only way to raise state funds is to sell state Bonds, state securities, or to raise taxes. Its not businesses leaving the state because of higher taxes. California needs to implement new taxes in order to raise state revenue.

That's worked so well for Michigan.
No, more taxation will drive more companies out of the state and produce ultimately lower revenue. This is a no brainer, having been proven many times over.

 

[Limey]

When people with old fashioned values were the moral majority in charge in California this state was not a Socialist Welfare State. Once those values were lost (Just like the signature of a good football team with their hard hitting.), the state went to hell.

You're repeating your previous error. A welfare state isn't socialist. It is an integral aspect of capitalism, designed to minimise the negative spillover effects of problems generated by wage exploitation and involuntary unemployment.

 

[Neubarth]

when people with old fashioned values were the moral majority in charge in california this state was not a socialist welfare state. Once those values were lost (just like the signature of a good football team with their hard hitting.), the state went to hell.

you're repeating your previous error. A welfare state isn't socialist. It is an integral aspect of capitalism, designed to minimise the negative spillover effects of problems generated by wage exploitation and involuntary unemployment.

total bullshit. A welfare state is totally socialist. The opposite of welfare is indifference and indifference is the attitude of the rich towards the poor.

 

[Neubarth]

many decades of illegal aliens using a system, and not paying their taxes.
Too many prisons, california incarcerates more people than any other state.
Too many highways, and interstates. Too much pollution.
Too many people flooding the state for too many years, using state resources.
And a state government that did not take in enough taxes.
They need to institute a water tax, and a overall general purpose tax now!

california is already overtaxed. It is one of the most expensive states to live in. That is the reason why whole businesses are pulling up stakes and leaving for other states with less of a tax burden

the solution is not more taxation. It is less taxation!

the state has a lack of money problem. The only way to raise state funds is to sell state bonds, state securities, or to raise taxes. Its not businesses leaving the state because of higher taxes. California needs to implement new taxes in order to raise state revenue.

that is commonly referred to as being bug fuck crazy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah.
So why are businesses leaving the state if it isn't for high taxes, high mandates, high labor costs? Is the weather better somewhere else?

 

[Toro]

Or may I keep much of what I earned rather than pay you to live off what I earned.

Public goods are essentially goods that, given non-excludability characteristics, we all benefit from. By demanding the underprovision of those goods, general economic well-being is harmed. At best, there is an increase in free riding behaviour. Buzzwording for theft!

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much underprovisioning of goods in California. California has had no problem spending money. The problem is that much of this spending was under the auspices that the economy would continue growing at the rate it had been growing, a false assumption.

California is one of the highest spending states in the union.

 

[Limey]

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much underprovisioning of goods in California. California has had no problem spending money.

Comparisons across states won't actually help me much. We can argue that all states suffer from the retrenchment hypothesis (where the nature of the franchise, particularly with the "not my money" type of people more likely to vote) leads to underprovision of public goods. We're therefore only referring to differences in the extent of that underprovision

 

[Limey]

total bullshit. A welfare state is totally socialist.

I don't see why you'd insist on using terms incorrectly, it only weakens your overall argument. The origins of the welfare state can be traced to imperialistic competition between capitalist nations. Suggesting that figures such as Churchill, a key figure in Britain's adoption of social insurance systems, are socialist is of course quite ridiculous.

That welfare is used to ensure the reproduction of capitalist labour markets (and therefore enable the continuation of involuntary unemployment and wage underpayment) ensures that it is quite inconsistent with socialist political economy

 

[Toro]

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much underprovisioning of goods in California. California has had no problem spending money.

Comparisons across states won't actually help me much. We can argue that all states suffer from the retrenchment hypothesis (where the nature of the franchise, particularly with the "not my money" type of people more likely to vote) leads to underprovision of public goods. We're therefore only referring to differences in the extent of that underprovision

You are assuming under-provisioning. There is no evidence nor reason necessarily to think this.

Many Californians think that the state is over-provisioning.

 

[Limey]

You are assuming under-provisioning. There is no evidence nor reason necessarily to think this.

I've constructed an argument based on an understanding of the impact of the franchise (going further than a static public choice approach such as the median voter model). Its possible to demonstrate the severity of any underprovision by comparing across countries. For example, we have the evidence into welfare state effects that- by ensuring a more generous safety net- enables more risk adverse behaviour that then encourages social mobility

 

[52ndStreet]

What the State of California needs is help from the Federal government. And then they need an immediate increase in Taxes accross the board.More Taxes , and then they must sell State bonds to the world.They must act now.Time is running out.

 

[Charles Stucker]

California is already overtaxed. It is one of the most expensive states to live in. That is the reason why whole businesses are pulling up stakes and leaving for other states with less of a tax burden

The solution is not more taxation. IT IS LESS TAXATION!

That is easily confirmed by watching where companies are moving. They are going places like Texas where the state constitution requires a balanced budget with no more than 1% spent on "welfare" programs. No state income tax, no city income tax (Yes I'm pointing at NYC here), just property and sales taxes for most residents.
Lower taxes means better real standard of living for lower wages which makes for more profits for doing business in Texas.
All Texas needs now is a voter led call for independence from the feds.

 

[hjmick]

I'm not going to miss California. That extra 10% the state is taking out of the paychecks will mostly likely never be seen again by the wage earner, I don't care what they say.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Alarming Title, but I like the ones that make you think.

Having lived in California off and on since 1958 when I was ten years old, I have seen.

Damn, dude, put some fucking clothes on or go buff. Grown hairy men in hot pants...now that just ain't right.

Now, on message: I wouldn't call California a socialist state.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not going to miss California. That extra 10% the state is taking out of the paychecks will mostly likely never be seen again by the wage earner, I don't care what they say.

I'm here and hoping the economy stays bad for a bit. Culling the herd is good at times. I'm a liberal, but not a moron. California is shaking out. Cool. Let a few more assholes and degenerate losers leave. When I hear Texas is where people are going I say...good luck. I know to avoid it.

Same thing that will happen to Texas happened to Florida, New Hampshire and California when droves of people who whine, complain and moan and bitch left their home states for cleaner pastures, which they then shat upon.

 

[Anikdote]

The thread title is a massive hyperbole, being that the welfare state and socialism are two entirely separate entities. In fact I'd even go as far as to say that it's a necessary feature in both capitalistic and socialist economies.

But on the the point of California's welfare system and it's failures, it's a predictable issue. California, like the US has shifted it's "visible" tax responsibility off of nearly half of the population and simultaneously increased the quantity of entitlement available to these same folks. It's a clear case of vote buying that breeds dependency and is and has been spiraling towards unsustainable.

 

[Toro]

You are assuming under-provisioning. There is no evidence nor reason necessarily to think this.

I've constructed an argument based on an understanding of the impact of the franchise (going further than a static public choice approach such as the median voter model). Its possible to demonstrate the severity of any underprovision by comparing across countries. For example, we have the evidence into welfare state effects that- by ensuring a more generous safety net- enables more risk adverse behaviour that then encourages social mobility

You are assuming in your argument that social mobility and a more equal distribution is the optimum outcome for a society. I don't disagree that countries with a more extensive welfare system can bring about more social mobility, such as in Canada or Sweden. However, it can also be demonstrated that increased welfare spending slows economic growth. In the United States, economic growth is generally considered a better outcome than government spending to increase social mobility and general economic welfare.

 

[hjmick]

I'm not going to miss California. That extra 10% the state is taking out of the paychecks will mostly likely never be seen again by the wage earner, I don't care what they say.

I'm here and hoping the economy stays bad for a bit. Culling the herd is good at times. I'm a liberal, but not a moron. California is shaking out. Cool. Let a few more assholes and degenerate losers leave. When I hear Texas is where people are going I say...good luck. I know to avoid it.

Same thing that will happen to Texas happened to Florida, New Hampshire and California when droves of people who whine, complain and moan and bitch left their home states for cleaner pastures, which they then shat upon.

I hear you. More than anything, we were ready for a change. Left behind three kids, though they are adults all, the youngest being 18. That was tough. Tougher still was being unemployed since February. After 26 years with the same company, I was terminated a year after a corporate buyout, as was my wife. After nine months of hardcore searching, she took a job in Albuquerque and here we are. Still, I will not miss the cost of living in California, I will not miss the government of California, I will not miss the taxes (though I'm not sure NM is much better... should have kept going until I hit Texas, a place I know). I might miss the weather, especially now, it gets cold here in the winter. I will miss the kids, but they can come visit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not going to miss California. That extra 10% the state is taking out of the paychecks will mostly likely never be seen again by the wage earner, I don't care what they say.

I'm here and hoping the economy stays bad for a bit. Culling the herd is good at times. I'm a liberal, but not a moron. California is shaking out. Cool. Let a few more assholes and degenerate losers leave. When I hear Texas is where people are going I say...good luck. I know to avoid it.

Same thing that will happen to Texas happened to Florida, New Hampshire and California when droves of people who whine, complain and moan and bitch left their home states for cleaner pastures, which they then shat upon.

I hear you. More than anything, we were ready for a change. Left behind three kids, though they are adults all, the youngest being 18. That was tough. Tougher still was being unemployed since February. After 26 years with the same company, I was terminated a year after a corporate buyout, as was my wife. After nine months of hardcore searching, she took a job in Albuquerque and here we are. Still, I will not miss the cost of living in California, I will not miss the government of California, I will not miss the taxes (though I'm not sure NM is much better... should have kept going until I hit Texas, a place I know). I might miss the weather, especially now, it gets cold here in the winter. I will miss the kids, but they can come visit.

Taxes are everywhere. Services equals taxes. Now the government out here has surprised me. CA has too large a population to be governed with the pre-existing structure. I am not so sure I'd trust 'the people' out here to make things better. The ballot initiative thing is crazy.

I thought of trying out the gulf coast of Texas. That was until a storm that had two people I was in contact with vanish off the web. Never found out how bad they were hit.

 

[Limey]

You are assuming in your argument that social mobility and a more equal distribution is the optimum outcome for a society.

I'd find any alternative support for social immobility quite worrying. It would be support for a class system after all

However, it can also be demonstrated that increased welfare spending slows economic growth.

I'm happy for you to refer to empirical evidence in support of that premise. Given the distinctions in welfare spending, it should be a straight forward exercise to find study after study in support