California in ten years (2022) (San Andreas: home, homeschooling, colleges)

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

One plausible scenario:

In ten years California ...l not be able to enforce the massive legal and regulatory burdens it imposes on its citizens. So we will face a situation common in the third world: an endless tangle of laws, many of them contradictory, but a culture of non-compliance due to chronic non-enforcement.

As has been documented elsewhere, we already see some of this. State and local entities responsible for inspecting & licensing restaurants & food vendors focus on established restaurants, and do not spend time on "roach coaches" in less urban settings. It is not uncommon for restaurants in less populated areas to have no oversight. There are only so many inspectors on the public payroll.

...Translation: increasing contempt and disregard for the law...

Again, in more rural areas, illegally dumping food and medical waste is growing more common. It isn't a crisis - yet.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to forecast the proportion of tax revenues that must be allocated to public sector employee pensions & retiree medical care. It takes an actuary. The calculations have been done & reviewed.

Imagine a pie chart. The slice of pie that must be taken off the top for public sector employee pensions & retiree medical care will grow. And grow.

The slice of the pie available for "everything else" will shrink.

To fund "everything else," taxes will go up on the fraction of the population that bothers to pay taxes. People will whine. Some will leave.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

Do you understand the concept of donor state vs Recipient state? My tax dollars are already "bailing out" many red states that refuse to raise their state taxes.

100% untrue. No California state tax dollars go to bail out any red state.

FEDERAL tax dollars flow from California to Washington DC where many are wasted, and then in turn flow out to fund projects across the nation.

Our US senators -- Boxer & Feinstein, together with our congressional delegation, headed up by Pelosi, realize that their seats are safe. So they direct some of our FEDERAL tax dollars to flow to non-California projects in swing states and swing congressional districts in hopes of getting more Democrats elected.

From where I sit, many of those non-California federal projects are pure pork. From where I sit, neither Feinstein nor Boxer have brought much pork to California. Feinstein has been (relatively) careful about not sponsoring pork projects. Boxer signs on to anything that will hurt a Republican or help a Democrat. Pelosi is the devil incarnate.

See for example The Federal Government Wasted $125 Billion Of Your Tax Dollars Last Year and of course feel free go google "US government waste."

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

100% untrue. No California state tax dollars go to bail out any red state.

FEDERAL tax dollars flow from California to Washington DC where many are wasted, and then in turn flow out to fund projects across the nation.

Our US senators -- Boxer & Feinstein, together with our congressional delegation, headed up by Pelosi, realize that their seats are safe. So they direct some of our FEDERAL tax dollars to flow to non-California projects in swing states and swing congressional districts in hopes of getting more Democrats elected.

From where I sit, many of those non-California federal projects are pure pork. From where I sit, neither Feinstein nor Boxer have brought much pork to California. Feinstein has been (relatively) careful about not sponsoring pork projects. Boxer signs on to anything that will hurt a Republican or help a Democrat. Pelosi is the devil incarnate.

See for example The Federal Government Wasted $125 Billion Of Your Tax Dollars Last Year and of course feel free go google "US government waste."

I am totally aware of federal vs state tax dollars. Your theories are your opinion to which I (mostly) disagree.

My point was that maybe recipient states will increase their STATE taxes and rely less on my FEDERAL dollars.

Maybe An equalization of Taxes would level out the playing field and employers would be less anxious to leave CA.

[Jonathan_]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

One plausible scenario:

In ten years California will be broke, perhaps bankrupt, and severely crumbling economically. As a result, the state will not be able to enforce the massive legal and regulatory burdens it imposes on its citizens. So we will face a situation common in the third world: an endless tangle of laws, many of them contradictory, but a culture of non-compliance due to chronic non-enforcement. Translation: increasing contempt and disregard for the law. Squatting on the state's vast unoccupied lands will be ubiquitous and there will be no will to evict. Substandard buildings will be erected, roads constructed, and neighborhoods developed without any regard for code, regs, taxes or fees. Businesses will operate without regard to legal permissions, restrictions, or standards. Etc.

At the same time, while the state's infrastructure is neglected and many of its laws abandoned, the state's social and ideological agenda will be pushed to extremes. Homeschooling will be illegal and prosecuted. Religious schools will have a mandatory curriculum imposed on them. Large families will be harrassed. Acceptance of homosexuality will be demanded for employment. All remaining inconveniences with respect to abortion will be removed. The Catholic Church and other Christian organizations will be forced to close colleges, universities, hospitals, orphanages, adoption agencies, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, food pantries, and so forth, because they cannot in good conscience comply with the state's demands.

The end game: economic ruin and social tyranny, combined with a massive population transfer. Those harrassed by the state's social climate will leave, and those attracted by the de facto anarchy in other respects will flood into the state.

Please crawl back into your bomb shelter

[Caltovegas]

I won't be here. Too many regulations... It's too bad because to me calif. is a nice place to live it's just financially from a business point of view there are better options.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

The gene pool needs some chlorine.

Hey, NewtoCa, tell me how this is allowed, following the little note you left for me. Seems like a personal attack of the most vile sort.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Jonathan_

Please crawl back into your bomb shelter

Yeah, uh, don't think that was a bomb shelter he crawled out of ... just sayin'

[atvwife]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

A good chunk of that can be made up on lower heating bills (Mass****s love to use oil-burning furnaces... checked the price of heating oil lately?) and cars that don't turn to rust buckets in 3 years.

True, I'll give you that. At least we don't have to deal with rolling blackouts, mudslides, and earthquakes though.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

A good chunk of that can be made up on lower heating bills (Mass****s love to use oil-burning furnaces... checked the price of heating oil lately?) and cars that don't turn to rust buckets in 3 years.

Depends on where you live in CA. If you live near the coast, the weather in wonderful. You are in the IE like myself. I pay an additional $200 a month in natural gas to heat in the winter, and my electricity spikes $300-500 in the summer for AC. Granted, the dynamics of your house makes a big difference. I would not pay much more keeping my home comfortable in New England than I do here. Might not be any more.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

I am totally aware of federal vs state tax dollars. Your theories are your opinion to which I (mostly) disagree.

My point was that maybe recipient states will increase their STATE taxes and rely less on my FEDERAL dollars.

Maybe An equalization of Taxes would level out the playing field and employers would be less anxious to leave CA.

The whole donor vs. recipient state thing is about as meaningful as a disfigured toenail. It's just one of many shallow studies done by both sides to rally their base. Take away all spending on federal facilities and lands from the data and maybe you get closer to the truth. Even then you have data that is deceptive. Alaska appears to be one of the states that "takes your money". That is BS.

Maybe there are some more ratianal studies out there, but everything I have seen lends credence to the ole saying "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."