U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2011, 03:10 AM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,656,543 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
You can buy a 2/1.5 bath in Sacramento for about $125K It would be around $100K in Fresno, and 90K in Kern, Chico and Redding.
The homes I refer to in Orlando are by jobs and are in nice neighborhoods ...
The ones you refer to are hella far and are not. Big difference. So, in the equivalent neighborhood in Florida to Fresno, you'd be looking at 40/50k or less. Scales up as you buy a better home. I'm really not trying to exaggerate here.

Cuppertino is equivalent to the area I am referring to in Orlando. And the reference comes in at 100k:500k in extreme case.. 200-300k difference on average.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2011, 11:40 AM
 
2,090 posts, read 2,258,617 times
Reputation: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
I agree.

I would also add that I would feel better if the services in California were better than states with lower tax burdens. Instead it feels like our burden is high and we are just getting by.

It is not like we as citizens are wholly ignorant of states without sales tax or income tax. We know that such states aren't lawless third world states without any government services.

When taxes are sensible in that they provide a favorable climate to benefit everyone in a state or country, there is an equal mutual benefit shared by everyone.

However, when the benefits is beginning to be heavily lopsided towards the taxpayers or the government, then argument about high and low taxation takes off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 11:41 AM
 
2,090 posts, read 2,258,617 times
Reputation: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
WAAAAAY too low, obviously. Just look at the deficit!

Look at the waste Jerry Brown began cutting in his first month. And he is just scratching the surface.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 11:47 AM
 
2,090 posts, read 2,258,617 times
Reputation: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNLV09 View Post
I'm also curious about this claim of exorbitant spending. What does California spend too much on? California school system already spends $600 less than the national average per student, we spend considerably less on transportation than other states which has led to six CA cities being put in the top 10 on list of worst roads in the nation, and most Californians agree that more police officers need to be put on the streets. What exactly should Jerry Brown cut?

It isn't just too much spending, at least in my perspective. It is the inefficient use of the taxpayer's money and their lack of shrinking expense to reflect the economy. Hopefully, the second look at proposition 13 and Jerry "rewiring" the government will improve the efficiency throughout the local and state levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:00 PM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,656,543 times
Reputation: 1208
LOL, if they take a 2nd look at prop 13 ... CA is toast. I would love for them to do it. Businesses and people would be hitting the road in droves and would mean great things for low tax states. That's one thing I'd support ...bwahahha, because I know it would be the end of this state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:10 PM
 
2,090 posts, read 2,258,617 times
Reputation: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
LOL, if they take a 2nd look at prop 13 ... CA is toast. I would love for them to do it. Businesses and people would be hitting the road in droves and would mean great things for low tax states. That's one thing I'd support ...bwahahha, because I know it would be the end of this state.
Newer small businesses will benefit from the second look at Proposition 13. The larger corporations have escaped paying far property taxes by using loopholes over and over again. It's time for everyone to pay their fair share of taxes.

Last edited by TimC2462; 02-02-2011 at 04:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:20 PM
 
178 posts, read 153,029 times
Reputation: 140
Until they stop illegal immigration here in my state California, add to that the crazy pensions, California will aways beg for more and more tax dollars... We eventually will fall off the cliff anyway, so let us get it over with and let us fall off the cliff NOW!!! Maybe then California will learn something about being responsible??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:36 PM
 
178 posts, read 153,029 times
Reputation: 140
This subject isn't politically correct ... Does anybody ever realize how much it cost to educate (one) child for one year who just crossed the border with their illegal parents? Some school districts here in California the costs are $6000 to more than $10,000... That's not counting all the other social services including free medical that family receives.

Don't get me started on the anchor baby subject!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
2,844 posts, read 1,935,518 times
Reputation: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by mollymonk View Post
This subject isn't politically correct ... Does anybody ever realize how much it cost to educate (one) child for one year who just crossed the border with their illegal parents? Some school districts here in California the costs are $6000 to more than $10,000... That's not counting all the other social services including free medical that family receives.

Don't get me started on the anchor baby subject!!
Hate to bust your balloon, but the net economic effects overall of immigration, both legal and illegal, are relatively small, maybe a slight positive effect.

Look, migrant workers are less likely to make use of social services, including health services. They tend to be healthier/younger than the population average because they're self-selecting - come here to work. Lots of them contribute into Social Security but can't make use of the benefits.

Why Americans Think Immigration Hurts the Economy - Newsweek
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 07:03 PM
 
2,312 posts, read 1,656,543 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Hate to bust your balloon, but the net economic effects overall of immigration, both legal and illegal, are relatively small, maybe a slight positive effect.

Look, migrant workers are less likely to make use of social services, including health services. They tend to be healthier/younger than the population average because they're self-selecting - come here to work. Lots of them contribute into Social Security but can't make use of the benefits.

Why Americans Think Immigration Hurts the Economy - Newsweek
That's an outright lie.
Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts | The Heritage Foundation


The poverty and other problems associated with mass low-skill immigration would be of less concern if they could be expected to quickly vanish in the next generation. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that this will not occur.

Duh, the long term net effect is what gets you.. Not the short term economic gain...

For example, the low levels of education, high levels of poverty, and high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing found among Hispanic immigrants since 1970 persist among native-born Hispanics in the U.S. to a considerable degree.[5]

These data indicate that the current influx of low-skill immigrants will raise poverty in the U.S. not merely at the present time, but for generations to come. Current low-skill immigrants will raise both the absolute number of poor persons and the poverty rate in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The greater the inflow of low-skill immigrants, the greater the long-term increase in poverty will be.


It's no surprise that most American's don't get this. Most aren't capable of critical thinking and lack the discipline to think about the long term effects of their actions vs. the short term (perceived gain)



The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.[3] This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immigrant will pay and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant's children, which U.S. taxpayers would also heavily subsidize.
In this way, the roughly six million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will impose a net cost of around a half-trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes.
<- Make sure you read this and really understand it.
.........................



The current influx of poorly educated immigrants is the result of two factors: first, a legal immigration system that favors kinship ties over skills and education; and second, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrants. In recent years, these factors have produced an inflow of some ten and a half million immigrants who lack a high school education. In terms of increased poverty and expanded government expenditure, this importation of poorly educated immigrants has had roughly the same effect as the addition of ten and a half million native-born high school drop-outs.
As a result of this dramatic inflow of low-skill immigrants,
One-third of all immigrants live in families in which the head of the household lacks a high school education; and
First-generation immigrants and their families, who are one-sixth of the U.S. population, comprise one-fourth of all poor persons in the U.S.
immigration also plays a large role in child poverty:
Some 38 percent of immigrant children live in families headed by persons who lack a high school education;
Minor children of first-generation immigrants comprise 26 percent of poor children in the U.S.; and
One out of six poor children in the U.S. is the offspring of first-generation immigrant parents who lack a high school diploma.
Hispanic immigrants (both legal and illegal) comprise half of all first-generation immigrants and their families. Poverty is especially prevalent among this group. Hispanic immigrants have particularly low levels of education; more than half live in families headed by persons who lack a high school diploma. family formation is also weak among Hispanic immigrants; fully 42 percent of the children of Hispanic immigrants are born out of wedlock. Hispanic immigrants thus make up a disproportionate share of the nation's poor:
First-generation Hispanic immigrants and their families now comprise 9 percent of the U.S. population but 17 percent of all poor persons in the U.S.; and
Children in Hispanic immigrant families now comprise 11.7 percent of all children in the U.S. but 22 percent of all poor children in the U.S.
Massive low-skill immigration works to counteract government anti-poverty efforts. While government works to reduce the number of poor persons, low-skill immigration pushes the poverty numbers up. In addition, low-skill immigration siphons off government anti-poverty funding and makes government efforts to shrink poverty less effective.
Low-skill immigrants pay little in taxes and receive high levels of government benefits and services. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.[3] This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immigrant will pay and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant's children, which U.S. taxpayers would also heavily subsidize.
In this way, the roughly six million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will impose a net cost of around a half-trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes. The roughly five million illegal immigrants without a high school diploma will cost taxpayers somewhat less because illegal immigrants are eligible for fewer government benefits. However, if these illegal immigrants were granted amnesty and citizenship, as proposed by the Bush Administration and legislated in a recent Senate-passed immigration bill (S. 2611), they could cost taxpayers an additional half-trillion dollars. In total, all immigrants without a high school education could impose a net cost on U.S. taxpayers of around one trillion dollars or more. If the cost of educating the immigrants' children is included, that figure could reach two trillion dollars.[4]
The poverty and other problems associated with mass low-skill immigration would be of less concern if they could be expected to quickly vanish in the next generation. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that this will not occur. For example, the low levels of education, high levels of poverty, and high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing found among Hispanic immigrants since 1970 persist among native-born Hispanics in the U.S. to a considerable degree.[5]
These data indicate that the current influx of low-skill immigrants will raise poverty in the U.S. not merely at the present time, but for generations to come. Current low-skill immigrants will raise both the absolute number of poor persons and the poverty rate in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The greater the inflow of low-skill immigrants, the greater the long-term increase in poverty will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top