Jump to content
mustang84

The California Exodus

Recommended Posts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216251501...emEditorialPage

New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and "the rich." There's a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state's history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "hasta la vista, baby" to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. "It costs more to do business in California," said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

There is already a reverse gold rush going on in California and the evidence points powerfully toward high tax rates as a culprit. Census Bureau data show that, from 1996-2005, 1.3 million more Americans left than came to California. And the people who are leaving are disproportionately those with higher incomes: the very targets the Democrats want to tax more.

The liberal fairy tale is that the rich "don't pay their fair share." The reality is that there's no state in the country more dependent on six- and seven-figure earners to pay its bills. Those with incomes of more than $100,000 pay 83% of the state's income taxes, and the richest 6,000 of the 38 million Californians pay $9 billion in taxes. Every time a rich person like Tiger Woods departs, the state fiscal problem deepens.

What the politicians in California refuse to address is their own overspending. State outlays were up 44% over the past five years, meaning that California is spending at a faster pace than even Congress. Minority Republicans in the Legislature say the solution is a hard expenditure cap – like 46 other states have. Yet even in the face of the giant deficit, Mr. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats want to pass a new $9 billion water bond, a $14 billion state-run health insurance program, and the most expensive climate-change program in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, imagine that! In the face of failure the Democrats want to spend more money they don't have and make the government bigger. Bet nobody saw THAT coming!

Are you sure you don't live in ASSachusetts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CA recently made home schooling a criminal offense. Can a state be more misguided ??

IMO- the typical & pervasive CA liberalism is finally biting it's own throat. Good- perhaps... just perhaps some of these whiny libs will scuttle back under their rocks for a decade or so.... but I'd bet against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeez, imagine that! In the face of failure the Democrats want to spend more money they don't have and make the government bigger. Bet nobody saw THAT coming!

Just for the record, the governator is a republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeez, just when I decide to come, everyone decides to leave. :smilewide:

They probably smelt you coming. :P:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold is quite liberal on social issues, but for fiscal issues, he uses the Republican playbook - cut revenues but expand government. And now he faces a $15 billion dollar deficit. Arnold has been in love with bonds. There's been billions in new borrowing. He will not have to worry about being accountable because he will be out of office in a couple ofyears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Republican' is not the opposite of 'liberal'.

The whole stupid mess reminds me of a reoccuring practice in gov: This happened this year (I forget where) and I saw the same thing reported in a 1968 NY newspaper I was paging thru last week: local government urges water conservation... gets it... and is forced to raise water rates due to lower revenue. Cut waste somewhere else to take up the slack, because... you know.... it's WASTE ? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to go off on a rant here, but the problem isn't just California, it's the whole country. The vast majority of politicians are willing to do whatever to guarantee their reelection and typically that means giving away the farm. The population behaves like children asking for more and more without ever considering how everything is going to be paid for and the long term ramifications of their greed. These two things put together are a recipe for disaster and it simply can't go on forever. I believe we are seeing the beginnings of the end of the dominance of the US in world affairs. We can't continue to be a world power when we are as far in debt as we are to other countries. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for the record, the governator is a republican.

yeah, but he doesn't make the laws, he can only push a direction, and sign or veto laws.

'Republican' is not the opposite of 'liberal'.

true, but liberal doesn't mean what it used to either.

didn't Cleveland or some other ohio city face bankruptcy recently... a city in cali was/is facing bankruptcy too.

maybe cali will go bankrupt and only the yuppies will live there.... and they'll realize either they know nothing or feel victorious and then leave cali for everyone to move back in. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, but he doesn't make the laws, he can only push a direction, and sign or veto laws.

And that veto power is very important, cause it could, ya know, be used to kill any outrageous spending bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold also has the line-item veto at his disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They probably smelt you coming. :P:lol:

I thought the air rather reeked of low tide at a Santa Monica pier. :smilewide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I did read it seemed that the problem was that the mother was acused of mistreating her children and lacked teaching credentials.

Home schooling is fine, but certainly the parents need to have proof that they can actually teach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the high tax bracket may make some rich people leave but... do you really think that all the high paid celebrities are going to leave LA? Not bloody likely... they probably won't notice 1.5% more tax anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there always comes a point where the cost of doing business is too much but the icing on the cake is probably excess regulation and lawmaking.

hopefully this will stem CA's desire to extend their tentacles to the rest of our great nation with all the crap like bullying others into extreme emmissions regs etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the high tax bracket may make some rich people leave but... do you really think that all the high paid celebrities are going to leave LA? Not bloody likely... they probably won't notice 1.5% more tax anyways.

It is that kind of short-sighted thinking that causes the dispare between working class and the wealthy. A person making 4.5 Million annually taxed an additional 1.5% would lose the equivalent of 68k annually. These people structure their lives like you and I do with a budget, allbeit larger, a balanced budget nonetheless. An increase in costs will be offset with the loss of 1-2 household employees. Where will they go? Unemployment, welfare???

For real people the problem with the US and state governments is not income it is outgo. Eliminate government spending on programs that could be left to private business. Healthcare, postal service, and charity are a couple to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always a balancing act. Often popular locations can become victims of their own success. They do run the risk of pricing themselves out of the market. Eventually, some sort of 'push back' in the market can take hold.

For example, if you are a teacher making $50k a year, would you rather live in L.A. where a bungalo will cost you $400k, or in Seattle where it is 1/3 less? I am pulling these numbers out of my ass to make a point. If you are a long time L.A. resident (having bought your home 25 years ago), then it is a wash - other than the traffic. However, if you are looking to set up in L.A., the entry costs are prohibitive.

If a place becomes too popular, then some of the reasons for living there in the first place can diminish with time. The balance of L.A.'s nice weather, versus famous smog being one example.

I suspect a 7.5 on the richter scale might not do L.A. county any favors either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know, the average cost of a home in Seattle is over $400,000... :)

But your point is still valid. A lot of people will move where they can get more for their money.

Many won't though because of the impact it has on the true "quality of life" that one benefits from their location. There are several cities in Washington and in the country that are far cheaper than Seattle/Bellevue but we wouldn't want to give up what we have here just to buy a more expensive car or live in a home that's unnecessarily 2000 sq ft bigger than we need. We would inadvertently spend the same amount somewhere else anyway, but trade our "quality of life" with an increase of material possessions that neither of us wants or need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hopefully this will stem CA's desire to extend their tentacles to the rest of our great nation with all the crap like bullying others into extreme emmissions regs etc.

This doesn't happen. CA only governs itself. If other states adopt things CA adopted first, your issue is with those legislators, not the state of CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CA recently made home schooling a criminal offense. Can a state be more misguided ??

IMO- the typical & pervasive CA liberalism is finally biting it's own throat. Good- perhaps... just perhaps some of these whiny libs will scuttle back under their rocks for a decade or so.... but I'd bet against that.

This is being challenged...

Which is good. My 18 year old daughter just graduated home-school high school.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to let you know, the average cost of a home in Seattle is over $400,000... :)

But your point is still valid. A lot of people will move where they can get more for their money.

Many won't though because of the impact it has on the true "quality of life" that one benefits from their location. There are several cities in Washington and in the country that are far cheaper than Seattle/Bellevue but we wouldn't want to give up what we have here just to buy a more expensive car or live in a home that's unnecessarily 2000 sq ft bigger than we need. We would inadvertently spend the same amount somewhere else anyway, but trade our "quality of life" with an increase of material possessions that neither of us wants or need.

This is why I like Central Ohio, where I live $275,000 buys a 3000 sq. foot log home that backs to a ravine and sits on about 8 or 10 acres of land.

But I would also love to live in Seattle, I hear it is fantastic.

It is a trip I intend to make again, I was there once when I was in College and thought it was wonderful.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to let you know, the average cost of a home in Seattle is over $400,000... :)

But your point is still valid. A lot of people will move where they can get more for their money.

Many won't though because of the impact it has on the true "quality of life" that one benefits from their location. There are several cities in Washington and in the country that are far cheaper than Seattle/Bellevue but we wouldn't want to give up what we have here just to buy a more expensive car or live in a home that's unnecessarily 2000 sq ft bigger than we need. We would inadvertently spend the same amount somewhere else anyway, but trade our "quality of life" with an increase of material possessions that neither of us wants or need.

Say hello to Dr. Frazer Crane, when you get a chance. :smilewide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"This is being challenged... Which is good. My 18 year old daughter just graduated home-school high school."<<

It's great it's being challenged, it sucks (and is much more foreboding) that it was passed to begin with.

Congrats to your daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres a pretty cool show on HGTV where it shows what you get for your money across the nation in texas 300 grand got like a 3500 sq ft house and in san fransisco it can net you a 200 sq ft apartment cant remember the name of the show though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been haunting a different website lately (I know you guys will miss me, though!) and it sickens me to see some of these people gush about their new 400 sq ft condos they paid $450k for! I see a lot of justifying going on for buying a pill box 300 feet in the air just so you can walk to a Starbucks and pay $5 for a coffee. Then you get sucked into paying an extra $50k to live 30 floors higher, only so some builder comes along and slaps a 50 story building across the street from you. Well, maybe your new neighbors have better cable than you - you can always watch their TV. This is what is being passed off as city living these days.

But it's all good because with the $6k you save on car ownership you can replace your bike 8 times year when it gets stolen.

I think people need a bit more imagination when it comes to picking a place to spend the rest of their life. Just because some magazine says a place is a great place to live, does not mean that is true. (Hmm, doesn't that sound familiar?) Maybe for the guy writing the article (who makes $80k a year and bought his house 25 years ago!), but for the average chump, I am not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the "No political talk" rule is really dead here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the "No political talk" rule is really dead here....

If you have a problem with a specific post or posts, alert the mods instead of making snide comments that contribute NOTHING to the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the "No political talk" rule is really dead here....

i think that is a vestigial rule from the Josh days. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was aimed more on the economic side of it, but economics and politics tend to go hand-in-hand.

I think most here are mature enough to handle a topic such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if political talk is now all good and Josh is no longer here to enforce his ideas, why is that banner still above every Lounge post? It isn't like the admins can't dump it if they want to open the forums up to more topics.

For the record, I could do without such partisanship here. Figure I can discern one's ideology clearly enough when noticing tastes and views on cars.

And the mods can do them without me saying anything, they know the rules and what direction they want the site to go better than I do.

So hey, if y'all wanna have a political civil war here, ain't nothing I can do about it, knock yourselves out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since we're on the topic I for one, will never live

in California for all those reasons and because my

dad's been saying for years it's going to sink into the

Pacific ocean, even though that will probably take

another 400,000 years or whatever...

Bush is a crappy Republican,

Ahh-nold is in bed with the Kennedys: they're like the

Epicenter of the liberal hypocracy. Still even though

he's not allowed to become prez. I'd vote for him

over Osama or McAmnesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in order to abolish the rule on Political talk, we would have to discuss the idea and reach a consensus in the Mod Forum. It may be unmodlike of me, but I have freely acknowledged that I violate this particular rule myself, as I feel that the membership can handle it.

I also enjoy such discussions.

However, if it devolves into a slugfest, all bets are off and one of the staff will take action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Political talk : I think we can handle it.

This thread was aimed more on the economic side of it, but economics and politics tend to go hand-in-hand.

I think most here are mature enough to handle a topic such as this.

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TED KENNEDY HAS BAD HAIR! And he has a nasty case

of halitosis... not to mention he likes to drink breastmilk

from T.V. Cambodian crackwhores!

Does that constitute a slugfest? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, since we're on the topic I for one, will never live

in California for all those reasons and because my

dad's been saying for years it's going to sink into the

Pacific ocean, even though that will probably take

another 400,000 years or whatever...

Bush is a crappy Republican,

Ahh-nold is in bed with the Kennedys: they're like the

Epicenter of the liberal hypocracy. Still even though

he's not allowed to become prez. I'd vote for him

over Osama or McAmnesty.

Bush is a crappy Republican. Were e to get someone that actually represented the best of republican values, I'd vote for them but McCain and Bush are both idiots IMHO.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if it devolves into a slugfest, all bets are off and one of the staff will take action.

any slug fest seems to quickly turn into a locked thread. so as long as it's fairly enforced, i don't know why anything can't be talked about.

anything having to do with regulations, company direction has vast potential to incite "political talk". if this site was relegated to only comment about new and old cars.... i think here would not be near as lively as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush is a crappy Republican. Were e to get someone that actually represented the best of republican values, I'd vote for them but McCain and Bush are both idiots IMHO.

Very true. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anymore, I don't think there is really a difference between the two parties. Sure, they both have different social agendas, but no matter which party is elected to office they only pander to lobbyists and business interests. We Americans and our apathy have let the parties and our leaders get lazy; as the government gets larger and spends more frivolously, the USA's prosperity sags and the national debt skyrockets. Look at all the programs and departments created under the Bush Administration alone.

It's part of the reason I liked Ron Paul so much...sure he had some pretty radical, off-the-wall stuff, but I think that's what we need to right the ship or at least shake up the bureaucracy. The government needs its own GM/Ford-style restructuring....cut the fat and infuse cash where it's badly needed, like infrastructure and education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost impossible to talk about General Motors or the auto industry in general these days without getting political. With Jim Press admitting (and, of course Toyota denying) the Synergy drive was handed to Toyota on a silver platter by the Japanese government (big surprise there), how can we separate the two?

Maybe some people are jealous of California, maybe some are not, but a charmed existance cannot last forever. Eventually, the cost of living, smog and influx of newcomers is going to turn a very desirable place into something less than that. That is a fact of all real estate markets.

Toronto is going through a similar 'renaissance'. Downtown is choked with cement mixers, dump trucks and closed roads due to the explosion of 50 story condos. It has become unbearable to actually live with the mess and noise. It becomes a quality of life issue. Long time residents become resentful of the pressures on infrastructure and local resources. And it is human nature to be suspicious of newcomers.

A lively debate is not only healthy but it is interesting.

If you want to see the consequences of over-zealous moderators and imposed dialogues, go to www.urbantoronto.com. Boring. Mods love to ban people for not reading directly from the Jane Jacobs handbook. (You know: cars are bad/bicycles are good, pigeons over people, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I did read it seemed that the problem was that the mother was acused of mistreating her children and lacked teaching credentials.

Home schooling is fine, but certainly the parents need to have proof that they can actually teach.

My opinion on home-schooling is.......it takes away a very significant impact in the growth and maturity of young kids.....that's the process of learning how to interact with others, build relationships, and to be able to cope with life "on your own" (while you are at school without your parents around.)

I just see home-schooling as the ultimate tool to create the ultimate "Mama's Boy."

(Edit: NO OFFENSE to anyone on here that has home-schooled......just me thinking out loud that's all)

Edited by The O.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, if you are a teacher making $50k a year, would you rather live in L.A. where a bungalo will cost you $400k, or in Seattle where it is 1/3 less? I am pulling these numbers out of my ass to make a point. If you are a long time L.A. resident (having bought your home 25 years ago), then it is a wash - other than the traffic. However, if you are looking to set up in L.A., the entry costs are prohibitive.

That's one of the MAIN reasons that I kept my condo in O.C. and leased it out......as opposed to selling it so I could buy something in Las Vegas. I KNOW that I want to be able to return to SoCal and live there again.....it may be a few years.....or it may be longer.....but it's home to me and at least I know I'll have a house there that I own to go back to.

......because the housing market WILL rebound.....it's just a matter of when. In five years, I might not have been able to move back there and buy something if I had sold my condo.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is almost impossible to talk about General Motors or the auto industry in general these days without getting political. With Jim Press admitting (and, of course Toyota denying) the Synergy drive was handed to Toyota on a silver platter by the Japanese government (big surprise there), how can we separate the two?

Maybe some people are jealous of California, maybe some are not, but a charmed existance cannot last forever. Eventually, the cost of living, smog and influx of newcomers is going to turn a very desirable place into something less than that. That is a fact of all real estate markets.

Toronto is going through a similar 'renaissance'. Downtown is choked with cement mixers, dump trucks and closed roads due to the explosion of 50 story condos. It has become unbearable to actually live with the mess and noise. It becomes a quality of life issue. Long time residents become resentful of the pressures on infrastructure and local resources. And it is human nature to be suspicious of newcomers.

A lively debate is not only healthy but it is interesting.

If you want to see the consequences of over-zealous moderators and imposed dialogues, go to www.urbantoronto.com. Boring. Mods love to ban people for not reading directly from the Jane Jacobs handbook. (You know: cars are bad/bicycles are good, pigeons over people, etc.)

I would move utterly the f@#k out of Toronto, IMHO...

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in order to abolish the rule on Political talk, we would have to discuss the idea and reach a consensus in the Mod Forum. It may be unmodlike of me, but I have freely acknowledged that I violate this particular rule myself, as I feel that the membership can handle it.

I also enjoy such discussions.

However, if it devolves into a slugfest, all bets are off and one of the staff will take action.

Why.....don't......we......suggest........that a particular member/s doesn't like the discussion going on in a particular thread......don't enter the thread.....geez....! It's just like the radio or TV.....don't like the music or the program, change the damn station.

I'm all for ANYTHING GOES in any of the Lounge threads......political talk or otherwise......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion on home-schooling is.......it takes away a very significant impact in the growth and maturity of young kids.....that's the process of learning how to interact with others, build relationships, and to be able to cope with life "on your own" (while you are at school without your parents around.)

I just see home-schooling as the ultimate tool to create the ultimate "Mama's Boy."

Yes..I couldn't imagine how awful life would be, esp. the teenage years without the real world experiences, both good and bad, of high school... I knew a number of people in Colorado that did home schooling, their kids seemed to have developed into Christian Stepford child zombies...

Growing up in an expensive, resort oceanside community, I could have gone to a private school, but went to public school, with it's heady mix of the very rich, a few poor, a narrow middle class, jocks, nerds, geeks, overachievers, joiners, cliques, surfers, stoners, preppies, proto-yuppies, and all the sex, drugs, alcohol, & rock and roll of the '80s....I came out relatively unscathed. It was a memorable, heady experience full of highs and lows.

The stuff that went on in school back in the day couldn't happen today without a lot of arrests and suspensions. It seems like high schools today have the ambience of prisons.

Edited by moltar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The stuff that went on in school back in the day couldn't happen today without a lot of arrests and suspensions. It seems like high schools today have the ambience of prisons.

The private schools don't :AH-HA_wink:

I went to a private HS, but it was fairly diverse both ethnically and socio-economically. The HS was "multifaith" though run by Jesuits, and as a result had a very generous scholarship program to allow kids to "work off" what their parents couldn't afford in the form of staffing concessions during football games, helping with basic maintenance around the campus, and other things. Additionally, many parents used the program because they wanted their kids to have a work ethic, or to get a break on tuition. As a result, there wasn't any stigma against the work-study kids, and yet you had a high school where it was socio-economically diverse without everyone knowing who was what. It was a great experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know one person who was home-schooled. Dumb as a box of rocks, couldn't get her G.E.D. because she hadn't learned anything more than basic math and English skills. So yeah, there probably ought to be some sort of standard for the people who home school children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know one person who was home-schooled. Dumb as a box of rocks, couldn't get her G.E.D. because she hadn't learned anything more than basic math and English skills. So yeah, there probably ought to be some sort of standard for the people who home school children.

They do, actually.

They have to pass standardized tests administered at the public school they would have attended.

Though I am a bit leery of the home school concept, I have seen it work pretty well. The trouble is that the parents are the biggest variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think it's pretty ballsy to say you can teach K-12 ALL by yourself

(or between two parents, point remains) no matter how intelligent you are

or how much of a firm grasp you have on all that subject matter. Even all out

genius level people with photographic memories often times can not articulate

as well as they would like in conversation... and you're going to teach all that

effectivelly at home without the support of a structured environment?

If you have a bad math teacher or if you're stuck in an english class that just

does not engage you then there's at least the chance that next year you

will click better with your next teacher, having ONE person, parent or not

teach all the subjects seems very overwhelming for both parties involved...:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, I think Ahnold tried to reign in state spending when he was first elected by taking on the teacher's union (which got a law mandating certain expenditures linked to state income) and failed horribly. Obviously, that same teacher's union had issues with home-schooling, which makes me wonder who's really in power.

As for what's going on now in California, I think at some point, it's relevance on the US/world stage will change, depending on how these new policies are carried out. Even the Hollywood types are mobile enough to leave - and places like Vancouver could take over (not to mention Bollywood, etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...