Own It California! Tax Rates Go Up, Revenues Go Down, Surprising I Know

[LiveLaughLove]

unless you know anything outside of liberal dogma.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/CALIFORNIA-STATE-BUDGET-GOES-OFF-THE-CLIFF

Of course, its all right wing BS.


California State Controller John Chiang has announced that total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget.

Did they start prudently trying to cut their deficit after they won the tax hike? Why no, that would be, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, responsible.

No absolutely not, they did the Democrat thing and ramped up spending! Another shocker I know.

Now with the lower "take" from the tax hikes, well, they are at a $2.7 billion deficit now.

You can't make this stuff up.

One last thing on this, I have heard pundits, usually left leaning ones, say "California voted themselves a tax increase." Not true. They voted the rich a tax increase. They didn't vote themselves (the majority) a tax increase.

Income taxes went up on, you guessed it, those making $250k per year and more.

Here's what they actually voted on:


In Tuesday’s election, 54 percent of California voters approved Proposition 30, a $6 billion tax hike that staves off dire spending cuts. If the measure had failed, trigger reductions would have forced schools and community colleges to trim their budgets by $5.3 billion and made the state’s colleges and universities cut $500 million.

So in reality they voted for their spending to remain the same. As usual. Easier to vote for other people to spend money, than to take less yourself.

Britain saw a mass exodus of the rich when their taxes hit 50%. They lost 66% of their millionaires. Gone.

When the fiscal cliff hits or Obama gets his way, California rich will be paying around 52%. Hmm.

Own it California. Welcome rich former California's to Oklahoma and Texas. Can we call you "Callies"? Leave your liberalism at the door. It don't work.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

LLL, you may have some good points, but get the facts right.

1. Prop 30 wasn't just an income tax increase on high-income folks, it also included a quarter point increase in sales tax rate. So that does impact all voters - not just the wealthy.

2. If state revenues fell below projections, it couldn't be because of tax hikes - they haven't started yet.

3. I voted yes on Prop 30 in my own self-interest. I benefit from a welfare program called in-state tuition. My son goes to a UC and if Prop 30 had failed his taypayer subsidized tuition would have increased $1500 or so. Who do you think benefits more from avoiding UC tuition hikes, poor folks or the top 50% of household incomes? Asian American voters (who are disproportionately represented at the UCs) supported Prop 30 (60% voted yes).

4. I agree state spending must be cut. It's quite difficult with the public employee unions and their sweet benefits packages that were negotiated during good times. Those of us in the private sector can't retire at 55 and live off the taxpayers' tit for the rest of our lives.

5. I don't see how this is evidence of rich folks flight. The explanation was:


Personal income taxes in the month of November were down $842.5 million (-19.0 percent). Some of the tax revenue associated with Facebook shares came in during the month of October, while budget planners had projected receiving those funds in November.

Corporate taxes were down for the month, coming in $187.8 million below (-213.4 percent) projections. A portion of this drop was due to higher than expected corporate tax refunds going out in the month of November. Totals for sales taxes were up $99 million (3.8 percent).


5. I don't think you'll see a mass exodus of the rich folks living on Lake Tahoe, moving to Lake Eufala over a 3% tax hike ... maybe a couple will move to the Nevada side of Tahoe.

[FaninAma]

Don't expect a lot of liberal response to your thread. It is very hard to defend a cluster F when you see said CF playing out before you very eyes. It's hard to defend your emotionally based policies when you actually are forced to see the consequences.

I hope when the time comes for the liberals to try and force the rest of us to bail out the
idiots in California, Illinois and Detroit that the remaining responsible people in the country hit the streets in massive protests.

[FaninAma]

Interesting SJS that you admit voting for more stuff from the taxpayers(tuition subsidy).


I appreciate your honesty. But you see where we end up when everybody does that. The short term benefits get erased by a government going into bankruptcy or at least paying more and more to service the debt as well as devaluing the currency.


My self interest would also be promoted by voting for more big government especially in the medical field but it isn't just about me. It's also about leaving my kids with a debt they will never pay off and which will cripple their chances for economic success.


BTW do you belong to the group you voted to raise most of the taxes from? Do you think that increasing taxes on this group will cause some of them to move? That would in reality decrease the state's tax base?

[cleller]

What's the deal with the passenger rail service Jerry Brown is pushing? Some deal to spend billions to try and start it up, when no one really wants it?

One thing's for sure, if its proven not to work in California, there will be a giant push to do the same thing to the rest of the country.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Interesting SJS that you admit voting for more stuff from the taxpayers(tuition subsidy).


I appreciate your honesty. But you see where we end up when everybody does that. The short term benefits get erased by a government going into bankruptcy or at least paying more and more to service the debt as well as devaluing the currency.


My self interest would also be promoted by voting for more big government especially in the medical field but it isn't just about me. It's also about leaving my kids with a debt they will never pay off and which will cripple their chances for economic success.


BTW do you belong to the group you voted to raise most of the taxes from? Do you think that increasing taxes on this group will cause some of them to move? That would in reality decrease the state's tax base?


California politicians were intoxicated by good times... e.g., property tax revenue when a $200,000 home increases to $500,000 in just a few years. But then the housing crash dropped the price down to 250,000 with massive loan defaults for those who bought homes at the top.

California's recovery is dependent on a housing recovery.

Our household income is not over $250,000 so, no, our state income taxes will not increase. As a small business owner, Maria doesn't draw a large salary. But I'm fairly sure we are in the top 15% of household incomes in California. One of the biggest inhibitors for Maria hiring is the cost of workman's comp and regulatory fees. For example, she sells uniforms and needs to sew patches onto the uniforms. The state says, if you sew patches on a uniform you are a "manufacturer" so you have to pay a yearly manufacturer's fee, take manufacturer's training, take a manufacturer's test, etc that adds significantly to the cost of business.

My point about voting for self-interest includes the fact that it's not only liberals who do so. for example, a military person might also advocate raising taxes if impending cuts might affect his or her livelihood.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

What's the deal with the passenger rail service Jerry Brown is pushing? Some deal to spend billions to try and start it up, when no one really wants it?

A lot of people don't want it, but it did win voter approval in 2008- Prop 1A.

[olevetonahill]

California politicians were intoxicated by good times... e.g., property tax revenue when a $200,000 home increases to $500,000 in just a few years. But then the housing crash dropped the price down to 250,000 with massive loan defaults for those who bought homes at the top.

California's recovery is dependent on a housing recovery.

Our household income is not over $250,000 so, no, our state income taxes will not increase. As a small business owner, Maria doesn't draw a large salary. But I'm fairly sure we are in the top 15% of household incomes in California. One of the biggest inhibitors for Maria hiring is the cost of workman's comp and regulatory fees. For example, she sells uniforms and needs to sew patches onto the uniforms. The state says, if you sew patches on a uniform you are a "manufacturer" so you have to pay a yearly manufacturer's fee, take manufacturer's training, take a manufacturer's test, etc that adds significantly to the cost of business.

My point about voting for self-interest includes the fact that it's not only liberals who do so. for example, a military person might also advocate raising taxes if impending cuts might affect his or her livelihood.

Why dont she move those jorbs to Mesico and just Import the rags?

[LiveLaughLove]

LLL, you may have some good points, but get the facts right.

1. Prop 30 wasn't just an income tax increase on high-income folks, it also included a quarter point increase in sales tax rate. So that does impact all voters - not just the wealthy.

2. If state revenues fell below projections, it couldn't be because of tax hikes - they haven't started yet.

3. I voted yes on Prop 30 in my own self-interest. I benefit from a welfare program called in-state tuition. My son goes to a UC and if Prop 30 had failed his taypayer subsidized tuition would have increased $1500 or so. Who do you think benefits more from avoiding UC tuition hikes, poor folks or the top 50% of household incomes? Asian American voters (who are disproportionately represented at the UCs) supported Prop 30 (60% voted yes).

4. I agree state spending must be cut. It's quite difficult with the public employee unions and their sweet benefits packages that were negotiated during good times. Those of us in the private sector can't retire at 55 and live off the taxpayers' tit for the rest of our lives.

5. I don't see how this is evidence of rich folks flight. The explanation was:




5. I don't think you'll see a mass exodus of the rich folks living on Lake Tahoe, moving to Lake Eufala over a 3% tax hike ... maybe a couple will move to the Nevada side of Tahoe.

Voting a sales tax increase is not voting for a tax increase to everyone, at least not equally. The income taxes were raised on the rich, not on everyone.

You agree that spending must be cut, just not the part that effects your household. You want the union folks stuff cut. I assume from that you are not a union folk. So everyone wants to keep their share of the pie. Not gonna get very far in cutting spending like that.

Anecdotal, but my brother in law (a millionaire) just moved back to OK from Cal, because of the taxes and cost of living. He lived down the street from Robin Ventura. There are people leaving. I never said they all would leave. But a significant amount will when the percentage reaches the 50% range.

Housing is not going to be the savior. The dot com has dotted and commed, so can't count on that.

California has no incentive to cut spending. They are not punished by the electorate for not doing so, and Joe Q doesn't care if the state has to borrow money from the rest of us or not to stay floating. All he cares about is DON'T TOUCH MINE.

The California legislature is already drooling at the mouth to enact more spending. Because the cure is always more Democrat spending.

[Soonerjeepman]

SJS,
you've prob seen I'm a teacher, so I do have a "state pension". I have NO CHOICE. It is taken out of my check without any permission of mine, invested by the state, embezzled by the state, then given back to me. Yes, I will eventually make more than I put in but if I had my choice I would have invested in my own.

Yes it is a retirement, but in 10 yrs I'll get $2500 a month. Health insurance will prob be $500 or more, house $800, bills $300, car insur etc, so yes it is nice it won't pay for everything. My plan is take half and pay everything off and live on $1200 a month with another job.

Guess I don't see that as living off the gov teet.

[diverdog]

SJS,
you've prob seen I'm a teacher, so I do have a "state pension". I have NO CHOICE. It is taken out of my check without any permission of mine, invested by the state, embezzled by the state, then given back to me. Yes, I will eventually make more than I put in but if I had my choice I would have invested in my own.

Yes it is a retirement, but in 10 yrs I'll get $2500 a month. Health insurance will prob be $500 or more, house $800, bills $300, car insur etc, so yes it is nice it won't pay for everything. My plan is take half and pay everything off and live on $1200 a month with another job.

Guess I don't see that as living off the gov teet.

I am guessing you have a contributory defined pension. To get a $30,000 a year pension you would have had to save in excess of $2,000,000! Then taxpayers are massively subsidizing your pension. To sit here and bitch about the state taking from you is absolutely hollow. You have a better deal than 90% of the people in the private sector. And yes you are living off the government teet just like everyone else on this board who gets a government pay check.

[cleller]

I am guessing you have a contributory defined pension. To get a $30,000 a year pension you would have had to save in excess of $2,000,000! Then taxpayers are massively subsidizing your pension. To sit here and bitch about the state taking from you is absolutely hollow. You have a better deal than 90% of the people in the private sector. And yes you are living off the government teet just like everyone else on this board who gets a government pay check.

Wait a minute, I thought it was mandatory that Dems loved teachers, and think they always deserve way more than what they are getting. ?? Don't you have to swear to that or something? (cheesy grin button)

However, I don't hold with those Chicago type teachers getting full pay and medical for life without having to pay in.
Case by case thing.

Also, a 50 year old man in Kansas (that right?) can buy an annuity paying him $30k for life for under $700k. No COLAs, though....

[diverdog]

Wait a minute, I thought it was mandatory that Dems loved teachers, and think they always deserve way more than what they are getting. ?? Don't you have to swear to that or something? (cheesy grin button)

However, I don't hold with those Chicago type teachers getting full pay and medical for life without having to pay in.
Case by case thing.

Also, a 50 year old man in Kansas (that right?) can buy an annuity paying him $30k for life for under $700k. No COLAs, though....

What I get tired about is all the hypocrits who complain about public employees and the government when they are getting every bit the same benefits as the people they bitch about and are public employees themselves.

i have no problem with taking care of teachers. My wife is one. But she also worked on Wall Street so she has a deep appreciation of what it is like to work in the real world. (As a side note, when she left JP Morgan to be teacher I almost cried. Her last bonus was almost 50k and that was in the 80's. After taxes and a cash payment we put the rest into JP Morgan stock and never touched it. I think it is worth less today than when we got the stock.lol)

I seriously doubt you can buy an annuity for $700,000 (single premium) that will pay you $30,000 for life. ( I get about $24-$25 k in my calculations)The current fixed rate annuities are paying less than 125 basis points. The math does not work. It did a few years ago.
Even if I take your word for it I doubt there are many teachers who could save $700,000. My example was based on how much you would need in CD's under current market conditions to create a $30,000 income without touching the principal. If you are going to use principal then the amount of savings would be about half of that.

Having said all of that I think we would agree that Jeepman still has a sweet deal. Good for him. We need good teachers and he is probably worth more than he is paid.

[cleller]

What I get tired about is all the hypocrits who complain about public employees and the government when they are getting every bit the same benefits as the people they bitch about and are public employees themselves.

i have no problem with taking care of teachers. My wife is one. But she also worked on Wall Street so she has a deep appreciation of what it is like to work in the real world. (As a side note, when she left JP Morgan to be teacher I almost cried. Her last bonus was almost 50k and that was in the 80's. After taxes and a cash payment we put the rest into JP Morgan stock and never touched it. I think it is worth less today than when we got the stock.lol)

I seriously doubt you can buy an annuity for $700,000 (single premium) that will pay you $30,000 for life. ( I get about $24-$25 k in my calculations)The current fixed rate annuities are paying less than 125 basis points. The math does not work. It did a few years ago.
Even if I take your word for it I doubt there are many teachers who could save $700,000. My example was based on how much you would need in CD's under current market conditions to create a $30,000 income without touching the principal. If you are going to use principal then the amount of savings would be about half of that.

Having said all of that I think we would agree that Jeepman still has a sweet deal. Good for him. We need good teachers and he is probably worth more than he is paid.

If I didn't cry about the leaving JP Morgan, the result of leaving that cash in the Morgan stock would have me crying every day.

I go back and forth on teachers. No one is forced into any job. Teachers have also traditionally worked fewer hours than most. Yet in small towns across Oklahoma they are needed, and have a bad job dealing with the mean loud mouth kids society now produces.

Like I said, I don't like seeing people that get some kind of 100% pension and full medical in retirement who have not paid much in, like in the northern states. Not affordable, irresponsible. Don't know what it is like around this part of the country. The pension issue is part of the package, a carrot to entice people into professions where luring qualified applicants can be a struggle.

A responsible pension administrative board is essential, and what is lacking in lots of places around the country. Loaning money to the mob or spending it on political candidates is probably not going to give the same return TIAA-CREFF could get you.

I just used some online quote thing for that annuity. Didn't research them up, but for a 50 year old man in Oklahoma to receive $30k for life it quoted $611,845.

http://www.immediateannuities.com/

[diverdog]

If I didn't cry about the leaving JP Morgan, the result of leaving that cash in the Morgan stock would have me crying every day.

I go back and forth on teachers. No one is forced into any job. Teachers have also traditionally worked fewer hours than most. Yet in small towns across Oklahoma they are needed, and have a bad job dealing with the mean loud mouth kids society now produces.

Like I said, I don't like seeing people that get some kind of 100% pension and full medical in retirement who have not paid much in, like in the northern states. Not affordable, irresponsible. Don't know what it is like around this part of the country. The pension issue is part of the package, a carrot to entice people into professions where luring qualified applicants can be a struggle.

A responsible pension administrative board is essential, and what is lacking in lots of places around the country. Loaning money to the mob or spending it on political candidates is probably not going to give the same return TIAA-CREFF could get you.

I just used some online quote thing for that annuity. Didn't research them up, but for a 50 year old man in Oklahoma to receive $30k for life it quoted $611,845.

http://www.immediateannuities.com/

I wonder what interest rate they use?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Like I said, I don't like seeing people that get some kind of 100% pension and full medical in retirement who have not paid much in, like in the northern states. Not affordable, irresponsible. Don't know what it is like around this part of the country. The pension issue is part of the package, a carrot to entice people into professions where luring qualified applicants can be a struggle.

It's similar to what Jeepman said for Oklahoma State public pensions, 50% of base wage at minimum retirement, no insurance coverage or contributions, and taxable as income. That and being a qualifying pension, either ineligibility for Social Security or receiving 1/2 benefits from Social Security credits earned prior to employment with a qualifying pension.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Voting a sales tax increase is not voting for a tax increase to everyone, at least not equally.

Shirley you aren't serious. Not everyone pays exactly the same amount of sales tax, therefore it's not a tax increase?




You agree that spending must be cut, just not the part that effects your household.
No one in my household gets gov't checks. However, our own private sector livelihood can be impacted by public employee customers who spend less if their compensation is cut. For example, many of Maria's customers are public employees. Bottom line - if you want to cut gov't spending you gotta cut checks and benefits.


You want the union folks stuff cut.

I want public employee benefits to be actuarily sound. California politicians funded benefits w/o a realistic plan of how to pay for it. you can't assume bull markets continue forever, without occasionally bear markets. They acted like real estate prices were going to double every 5 years forever.

I want the double dipping practice to stop -- where a public employee retires and draws six figure retirement and then is hired as a consultant by the same department for another six figures.


I assume from that you are not a union folk.

No, like Ronald Reagan, I'm a former union officer.


Anecdotal, but my brother in law (a millionaire) just moved back to OK from Cal, because of the taxes and cost of living. He lived down the street from Robin Ventura. There are people leaving. I never said they all would leave. But a significant amount will when the percentage reaches the 50% range.

Great if he can sustain his earned income in Okla.


Housing is not going to be the savior. The dot com has dotted and commed, so can't count on that.

Housing has been a great depression. It is key. technology is hardly dead.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

SJS,
you've prob seen I'm a teacher, so I do have a "state pension". I have NO CHOICE. It is taken out of my check without any permission of mine, invested by the state, embezzled by the state, then given back to me. Yes, I will eventually make more than I put in but if I had my choice I would have invested in my own.

Yes it is a retirement, but in 10 yrs I'll get $2500 a month. Health insurance will prob be $500 or more, house $800, bills $300, car insur etc, so yes it is nice it won't pay for everything. My plan is take half and pay everything off and live on $1200 a month with another job.

Guess I don't see that as living off the gov teet.

I am not familiar with public employee benefits in Kansas. In California, they are not actuarily sound. But it sounds like we agree that you should manage the money instead of the state.

[cleller]

I wonder what interest rate they use?

That stuff is fascinating. They figure since its Oklahoma, he's some fried food eating divorced slob who will die at 66. Total outlay: $480k. They cleared $130k plus 16 years of investment profits off the original sum.

Well, at least that's the hoped for scenario.

[diverdog]

That stuff is fascinating. They figure since its Oklahoma, he's some fried food eating divorced slob who will die at 66. Total outlay: $480k. They cleared $130k plus 16 years of investment profits off the original sum.

Well, at least that's the hoped for scenario.

LOL. The way my portfolio is going I am thinking when I retire is to blow through my cash, see the world then start smoking, drinking and eating fast food. Figure about two years and then wham the big one and I am done.

[pphilfran]

I don't think I would be buying an annuity at these rates...

[East Coast Bias]

Giving workers a pension is a failed concept and why private industry has went to 401K's. In the old days all the big companies provided pensions, good luck on finding one today.
In today's world employee's don't work for the same company for thirty years, they switch jobs to grow their careers.
My wife is a school teacher as well and I am definitely pro-teacher but the states need to scrape the pensions, convert them to 401's and pay the teachers more in salary. AT least they would have a better shot at making their budgets.

[Soonerjeepman]

My wife is a school teacher as well and I am definitely pro-teacher but the states need to scrape the pensions, convert them to 401's and pay the teachers more in salary. AT least they would have a better shot at making their budgets.

My point exactly...I don't have CONTROL over it. Give it to me and let ME make the choices, good or bad.

[Soonerjeepman]

DD, thank you for the compliment...?..lol I guess. I do think I'm a good teacher and enjoy what I do. I'm in a 95% free/reduced school (low income). YES I chose the profession. I wanted to help kids get a shot at life. BUT I see total abuse and waste of gov spending on education. True reform for the poor will never come unfortunately, and that is a crime for the kids. (i Know this thread is about budget, but I had to add that..lol)

With that said, I've NEVER complained of my salary, $58K, 23 yrs in and a Masters, started out at $22K. Nor have I complained about my retirement pension, I know it's a very good deal, just wanted to point out I won't be livin high on the hog. No vacations to Mexico or ski trips to Colo but I'm good...I've always worked in the summers and coached to add to it. I've ALWAYS bitched about me not having control over my money....hell I can't even decide WHERE it goes let alone if it gets pulled out or not.

I know you know this but the unfortunate thing with any civil job, teacher, cop, fireman, etc is we are paid by taxes and cannot neg or require higher pay due to our product being better, it is what it is. I would argue 90% of those folks don't do it for the money and the majority of teachers don't retire at 56/57 and definitely don't stop working unless they are the "extra income earner".

[diverdog]

Giving workers a pension is a failed concept and why private industry has went to 401K's. In the old days all the big companies provided pensions, good luck on finding one today.
In today's world employee's don't work for the same company for thirty years, they switch jobs to grow their careers.
My wife is a school teacher as well and I am definitely pro-teacher but the states need to scrape the pensions, convert them to 401's and pay the teachers more in salary. AT least they would have a better shot at making their budgets.

It is not a failed idea. Many pensions worked when management did not rape the company. GE for instance cancelled their pension plan citing burgeoning cost. The problem is that the pension did not require addition money for 20 plus years and was actually adding to the bottom line of GE. The execs at GE cancelled it to fund managements multi billion dollar pensions.

401K's were never meant to fund the average workers retirement. We are victims of a massive campaign by mutual fund companies and Wall Street.

[diverdog]

DD, thank you for the compliment...?..lol I guess. I do think I'm a good teacher and enjoy what I do. I'm in a 95% free/reduced school (low income). YES I chose the profession. I wanted to help kids get a shot at life. BUT I see total abuse and waste of gov spending on education. True reform for the poor will never come unfortunately, and that is a crime for the kids. (i Know this thread is about budget, but I had to add that..lol)

With that said, I've NEVER complained of my salary, $58K, 23 yrs in and a Masters, started out at $22K. Nor have I complained about my retirement pension, I know it's a very good deal, just wanted to point out I won't be livin high on the hog. No vacations to Mexico or ski trips to Colo but I'm good...I've always worked in the summers and coached to add to it. I've ALWAYS bitched about me not having control over my money....hell I can't even decide WHERE it goes let alone if it gets pulled out or not.

I know you know this but the unfortunate thing with any civil job, teacher, cop, fireman, etc is we are paid by taxes and cannot neg or require higher pay due to our product being better, it is what it is. I would argue 90% of those folks don't do it for the money and the majority of teachers don't retire at 56/57 and definitely don't stop working unless they are the "extra income earner".

Jeepman:

Chances are pretty damn good your retirement is managed by money managers who are really good at their job. They probably do a better job than any of us can. I know in DE we have the best fund managers that money can buy. Our retirement system is fully funded.

[badger]

Eventually, states will stop trying to one-up one another and the federal government will charge flat tax rates for everyone, regardless of what state they're in, with little states can do to circumvent it (because the feds will jack up rates so high that to try to do state-only taxes would be fiscal suicide).

No more Delawares with their ZERO sales tax because they house big biz mailing addresses (who are there only to circumvent other state's taxes).

No more celebrities/sports stars/trust fund babies keeping a house in Texas/Florida/Nevada/Washington state for tax purposes because those states have zero income tax

No more fraction-nickle and fraction-diming from local county governments who try to get fraction-of-penny sales taxes through for weird river initiatives on top of their previous vision initiatives.

No more raising taxes to pay settlements when your county jailers sexually abuse female inmates.

No more buying everything on the Internet so that you don't have to pay sales tax.

[LiveLaughLove]

And more California spending on the horizon. Good thing it is boomtown there, otherwise these spending sprees could cause, oh I don't know, like more debt for them or something.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PUC-set-to-OK-free-phones-for-homeless-4104121.php

But with the huge surplus of cash they have there, I am sure you all will be pleased to know...the homeless of California will be getting their own cell phones.

We can call them MoonbeamPhones I suppose.

Now here's the laugher in this. They need them to keep in touch with businesses about their job prospects. And to keep in touch with family. Which of course, begs the question, why isn't their family sheltering them to make them UN-homeless in the first place?

It's plain to see that Moonbeam and the Dems in control of California are tackling the tough problems facing their state head on. So, whew, now the whole homeless cell phone need thing is taken care of, and that's one less thing.

So that's good.

[LiveLaughLove]

I think SJS told me people weren't going to leave California.

The Census Bureau disagrees.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Californias-Population-Moving-Out-182914961.html

Net loss of 100k people with most moving to Texas. Yes that liberal bastion.

Here's another effect of what is happening in California. Now that it's party hard time with unblockable Dem majorities, poor people will begin flocking there for the goodies.

Not as many of course, as rich people leaving, because, well, they're poor. Getting there is going to be hard. But a lot will find a way.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

And more California spending on the horizon. Good thing it is boomtown there, otherwise these spending sprees could cause, oh I don't know, like more debt for them or something.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PUC-set-to-OK-free-phones-for-homeless-4104121.php

But with the huge surplus of cash they have there, I am sure you all will be pleased to know...the homeless of California will be getting their own cell phones.

We can call them MoonbeamPhones I suppose.

Now here's the laugher in this. They need them to keep in touch with businesses about their job prospects. And to keep in touch with family. Which of course, begs the question, why isn't their family sheltering them to make them UN-homeless in the first place?

It's plain to see that Moonbeam and the Dems in control of California are tackling the tough problems facing their state head on. So, whew, now the whole homeless cell phone need thing is taken care of, and that's one less thing.

So that's good.

Did you read your article?

California is heavily regulated, which is unfortunate. It was previously restricted to land lines only, but is now available for wireless just like 36 other states, including 16 red ones. It is federally funded - Jerry Brown and the CA legislature didn't fund it.

In what states is Assurance Wireless offered?
Assurance Wireless is currently available in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I think SJS told me people weren't going to leave California.

The Census Bureau disagrees.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Californias-Population-Moving-Out-182914961.html

Net loss of 100k people with most moving to Texas. Yes that liberal bastion.

Here's another effect of what is happening in California. Now that it's party hard time with unblockable Dem majorities, poor people will begin flocking there for the goodies.

Not as many of course, as rich people leaving, because, well, they're poor. Getting there is going to be hard. But a lot will find a way.

I said there wouldn't be significant numbers leaving because of the state income tax hike on the well-to-do. Of course tons of people leave California and go back home. If your dreams don't pan out like you hoped, you're better off taking the midnight train to Georgia.

[badger]

Here's another effect of what is happening in California. Now that it's party hard time with unblockable Dem majorities, poor people will begin flocking there for the goodies.

Cali does have a lot of oceanfront. That'll keep some wealthy out there, just so they can continue to own their acres overlooking the Pacific.

But yeah, if the taxes start to hover in the France range (75 percent), I fully expect some of them to say "You know, I bet income tax-free Florida's Atlantic Ocean views are just as good as California's Pacific Ocean views"

[okie52]

Did you read your article?

California is heavily regulated, which is unfortunate. It was previously restricted to land lines only, but is now available for wireless just like 36 other states, including 16 red ones. It is federally funded - Jerry Brown and the CA legislature didn't fund it.

In what states is Assurance Wireless offered?
Assurance Wireless is currently available in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

OK didn't make the list? Dam unprogressive of us.

[sappstuf]

California...


That is the plan anyway. “First cap-and-trade auction a bust for California budget,” read the headline in the Sacramento Bee. Budget planners expected that the state would receive $1 billion from the sale of credits, but the 2013 credits went for a low price and there was little demand for 2015 credits. As the Bee story explained, “The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that if trends hold in the February and May auctions, the state may only raise about $140 million in the first year.”

They projected a billion dollars profit and are on track for $140 million...

14% of projected revenue.

Geniuses.

[LiveLaughLove]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/12/5048195/undocumented-immigrants-could.html#mi_rss=State%20Politics

Should somebody tell California they are running a big deficit? And what that actually means? And that paying 400,000 illegals unemployment benefits will cost money that they don't have?

I don't think they are grasping that concept.

[badger]

California's a huge land mass state. Perhaps they would be best served dividing it up a bit so that they don't need to manage as much. Even dividing it down the middle wouldn't be a bad thought... or dividing it in fours.

I am not sure the old colony states would approve though. They didn't want Oklahoma to be two states because only east coast states are allowed to be small anymore.

[LiveLaughLove]

First Cap and Trade Auction A Bust for California. Tree huggers everywhere are in mourning.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/22/5003856/first-cap-and-trade-auction-a.html (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/22/5003856/first-cap-and-trade-auction-a.html)

That $1 billion they wanted to spend on green tech, yeah, not so much. Although, I seriously doubt this will curtail their spending the $1 billion.