Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Oh you mean he lied....again. Don't worry, he'll be back with some ridiculous spin job.
1/3 of all public assistance recipients in the US live in CA. Not 33% of CA residents receive state aid. That would be astronomical. Pretty sure the link I posted was very clear about that. About 12% of US residents live in CA though so we obviously have more than our share. And I’m not particularly angry about people being on aid. Just miffed about why it occurs.
The immense zoning, permit and other land use regulations are a large part of the extreme cost of housing here. And much of that is due to NIMBY residents and (that often weaponize) money hungry local governments. I used to live in a swanky neighborhood in NC and the average person paid less than 5k/yr in property taxes and the public schools were far better than most of the Bay Area ones. Getting a permit was sometimes 1/10 the cost for an identical item than in a lot of CA.
1/3 of all public assistance recipients in the US live in CA. Not 33% of CA residents receive state aid. That would be astronomical. Pretty sure the link I posted was very clear about that. About 12% of US residents live in CA though so we obviously have more than our share. And I’m not particularly angry about people being on aid. Just miffed about why it occurs.
The immense zoning, permit and other land use regulations are a large part of the extreme cost of housing here. And much of that is due to NIMBY residents and (that often weaponize) money hungry local governments. I used to live in a swanky neighborhood in NC and the average person paid less than 5k/yr in property taxes and the public schools were far better than most of the Bay Area ones. Getting a permit was sometimes 1/10 the cost for an identical item than in a lot of CA.
Repeating a lie or disingenuous argument over and over and over doesn't make it true.
The top five states by percentage that collect the most disability benefits are:
West Virginia – 8.9% or 100,254 state residents receive $210 million
Alabama – 8.4% or 251,532 state residents receive $291 million
Arkansas – 8.4% or 149,976 state residents receive $168 million
Kentucky – 8.1% or 223,240 state residents receive $256.1 million
Mississippi – 7.9% or 143,668 state residents receive $159.9 million
Five states with individuals collecting the least amount of disability benefits are:
North Dakota – 3.2% or 15,441 state residents receive $17.0 million
California – 3.1% or 760,162 state residents receive $923.0 million
Utah – 3% or 52,421 state residents receive $61.4 million
Alaska – 2.8% or 13,621 state residents receive $15.8 million
Hawaii – 2.8% or 24,694 state residents receive $30.1 million
Last I checked there are 39 million people that live in California
Ultimately none of this nonsense related to disability, your "gotcha" on government waste, or your bogus comments about weather are going to get anyone to move from California because ultimately the pros outweigh the cons. But do continue with the hogwash.
Last edited by blameyourself; 01-03-2023 at 07:07 PM..
The top five states by percentage that collect the most disability benefits are:
West Virginia – 8.9% or 100,254 state residents receive $210 million
Alabama – 8.4% or 251,532 state residents receive $291 million
Arkansas – 8.4% or 149,976 state residents receive $168 million
Kentucky – 8.1% or 223,240 state residents receive $256.1 million
Mississippi – 7.9% or 143,668 state residents receive $159.9 million
Five states with individuals collecting the least amount of disability benefits are:
North Dakota – 3.2% or 15,441 state residents receive $17.0 million
California – 3.1% or 760,162 state residents receive $923.0 million
Utah – 3% or 52,421 state residents receive $61.4 million
Alaska – 2.8% or 13,621 state residents receive $15.8 million
Hawaii – 2.8% or 24,694 state residents receive $30.1 million
Last I checked there are 39 million people that live in California
Ultimately none of this nonsense related to disability, your "gotcha" on government waste, or your bogus comments about weather are going to get anyone to move from California because ultimately the pros outweigh the cons. But do continue with the hogwash.
Again you’re wrong and only looking at Federal disability. 1/3 families receiving public assistance live in CA. The state has the largest share of impoverished residents when you account for cost too.
And besides the narrow band in the Bay Area, a few other perfectly situated areas in central CA and socal do you truly believe the climate is largely wonderful? Or that Redding or Bakersfield or Eureka are beautiful? There’s far more land area in the Central Valley and almost all of it is ugly.
Last edited by njbiodude; 01-03-2023 at 09:12 PM..
The comeback, of course, is always that low taxes on the rich simply results in reinvestment, which 'trickles down' to all the lower wage earners. This is why Texas has a higher per capita GDP than California.
Oooops... it's California with the (much) higher GDP, $73k compared to $61k for Texas. But rarely do they let reality get in the way of their economic dogma.
Anyway, much of the confusion comes from people who only look at one type of tax (usually income, or sales) and then conclude that one state is much cheaper than the next. It apparently never occurs to them that all states have roads and schools and police and hospitals and courts and whatnot, and all states have to pay for those services. So things like property taxes come into play. California is a low property tax state; Texas is one of the highest.
The comeback, of course, is always that low taxes on the rich simply results in reinvestment, which 'trickles down' to all the lower wage earners. This is why Texas has a higher per capita GDP than California.
Oooops... it's California with the (much) higher GDP, $73k compared to $61k for Texas. But rarely do they let reality get in the way of their economic dogma.
Anyway, much of the confusion comes from people who only look at one type of tax (usually income, or sales) and then conclude that one state is much cheaper than the next. It apparently never occurs to them that all states have roads and schools and police and hospitals and courts and whatnot, and all states have to pay for those services. So things like property taxes come into play. California is a low property tax state; Texas is one of the highest.
Often, the only place that money trickles down to is the pocket of a CEO.
And again (to get back to the topic at hand since some want to keep deflecting into their bashing), ultimately the pros outweigh the cons and that is why "people still want to live in California".
But, but...
They pay too much in disability
The weather's crummy
Pepsi got a subsidy
People are being composted
Yawn...and people will smile at the naysaying Henny Pennies and tell them not only do we not buy your hogwash but we really don't care. All part of the price for paradise (and a small price it is).
And again (to get back to the topic at hand since some want to keep deflecting into their bashing), ultimately the pros outweigh the cons and that is why "people still want to live in California".
But, but...
They pay too much in disability
The weather's crummy
Pepsi got a subsidy
People are being composted
The comeback, of course, is always that low taxes on the rich simply results in reinvestment, which 'trickles down' to all the lower wage earners. This is why Texas has a higher per capita GDP than California.
Oooops... it's California with the (much) higher GDP, $73k compared to $61k for Texas. But rarely do they let reality get in the way of their economic dogma.
Anyway, much of the confusion comes from people who only look at one type of tax (usually income, or sales) and then conclude that one state is much cheaper than the next. It apparently never occurs to them that all states have roads and schools and police and hospitals and courts and whatnot, and all states have to pay for those services. So things like property taxes come into play. California is a low property tax state; Texas is one of the highest.
I moved from California to Tennessee two years ago.
What many people misunderstand about taxes is that not all states provide the same level of services.
A common misconception is that services in the various states are roughly equivalent, and if you don't generate tax revenues from one source, you will make it up from another source. This is clearly false.
Tennessee is a no income tax state. California roads had wide shoulders, often with sidewalks, and street lighting. Traffic signals were mounted on steel supporting arms and there were additional traffic lights for varous line-of-sight use. In Knoxville, roads are narrow -- just as wided as needed and no more, usually lacking reflectors on the pavement, with no street lighting in most places, and traffic signals hang from loose cables draped across intersections.
This is one example of how Tennessee simply spends much less on roads than California does. It is not a matter of Tennessee having to make up the cost elsewhere, so much as Tennessee providing the bare minimum of road features required to get around vs. California which gold-plates all of its road features, so California just spents far more per mile of road than does Tennessee.
I definitely like California roads better. I definitely like paying no state tax in Tennessee and I can adapt to the darker, narrower Knoxville roads while enjoying my extra spending money saved on taxes, to use in any manner I want.
Roads are just one example. The concept applies to all public spending, and is a basic philosophy. You can choose to let government confiscate a high amount of your money throught taxes, and then they get to spend it however they want. You may or may not benefit. You may or may not agree. In Tennessee, we choose to starve government of tax money, which forces the governemnt to cut to the quick, and just spend on what it absolutely necessary rather than on boondoggles, luxuries, and unnecessary things.
Low tax states often simply spend far less public money per capita than high tax states. You get a lower level of service, but you keep more of your money to spend in ways you choose, not ways the government chooses for your.
I moved from California to Tennessee two years ago.
What many people misunderstand about taxes is that not all states provide the same level of services.
A common misconception is that services in the various states are roughly equivalent, and if you don't generate tax revenues from one source, you will make it up from another source. This is clearly false.
Tennessee is a no income tax state. California roads had wide shoulders, often with sidewalks, and street lighting. Traffic signals were mounted on steel supporting arms and there were additional traffic lights for varous line-of-sight use. In Knoxville, roads are narrow -- just as wided as needed and no more, usually lacking reflectors on the pavement, with no street lighting in most places, and traffic signals hang from loose cables draped across intersections.
This is one example of how Tennessee simply spends much less on roads than California does. It is not a matter of Tennessee having to make up the cost elsewhere, so much as Tennessee providing the bare minimum of road features required to get around vs. California which gold-plates all of its road features, so California just spents far more per mile of road than does Tennessee.
I definitely like California roads better. I definitely like paying no state tax in Tennessee and I can adapt to the darker, narrower Knoxville roads while enjoying my extra spending money saved on taxes, to use in any manner I want.
Roads are just one example. The concept applies to all public spending, and is a basic philosophy. You can choose to let government confiscate a high amount of your money throught taxes, and then they get to spend it however they want. You may or may not benefit. You may or may not agree. In Tennessee, we choose to starve government of tax money, which forces the governemnt to cut to the quick, and just spend on what it absolutely necessary rather than on boondoggles, luxuries, and unnecessary things.
Low tax states often simply spend far less public money per capita than high tax states. You get a lower level of service, but you keep more of your money to spend in ways you choose, not ways the government chooses for your.
How does that change the fact that states like Texas tax the poor disproportionately to the rich?
Just so wrong. I lived in SF, the Inner Richmond, not too long, not much more than a year, but by far the best weather I've ever had year round. Never really needed heat, never needed A/C. Just about perfect. Not once did I wear anything heavier than a sweatshirt. Literally it would be the absolutely ideal weather.
The weather is what makes that region so perfect.
That, and the incredible varied natural resources / ecosystems.
I wasn't far from you, and for a solid 3 months every summer, it was freezing cold with wet, corrosive, salty fog. Every time I rode my Harley Davidson, I had to rinse off the entire bike to prevent immediate rust speckling from the salt water fog. If you left the windows open in the house, I would have to close the windows and turn on the heat. If you never used the heater, you must have bundled up a lot.
Or maybe you were just further from the beach than I was, because I was not close to the beach. The fog often extended to past Twin Peaks.
One thing I remember about SF is, you never went anywhere without a jacket. Once day it would be warm and calm. The next day there would be a wind off the bay and you would freeze without a jacket. You could never acclimate to one level of temperatures because they would change every day.
I agree that SF weather is mild and generally comfortable. Heat waves were few and far between. Snow and ice is unheard of. I get it, but I had plenty of chilly days where I forgot a jacked, and that fog was just downright freezing for 2 months solid in summer and again in winter.
The comeback, of course, is always that low taxes on the rich simply results in reinvestment, which 'trickles down' to all the lower wage earners. This is why Texas has a higher per capita GDP than California.
Oooops... it's California with the (much) higher GDP, $73k compared to $61k for Texas. But rarely do they let reality get in the way of their economic dogma.
Anyway, much of the confusion comes from people who only look at one type of tax (usually income, or sales) and then conclude that one state is much cheaper than the next. It apparently never occurs to them that all states have roads and schools and police and hospitals and courts and whatnot, and all states have to pay for those services. So things like property taxes come into play. California is a low property tax state; Texas is one of the highest.
You like to pick and choose your arguments with data? So do i and i would rather pay property tax on my 400k house on a acre with a pool and 800 sq ft shop that is frozen by homesteading and being 65 than the 1m or more it would cost to have the same in so calif where i came from.
On top of that gas is $2.40 here and is calif almost 5 bucks. I pay no state taxes on my 401k, SEPA account and other income. After living in Texas i can tell you that the col is at least 30% lower here.
Your so called low property tax rate is a lie - its the actual property tax paid that count.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
