Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,167,795 times
Reputation: 7373

Advertisements

Lot's of pretty valid comments both in the article and this thread.

I think the national revenue sharing formula needs to be reexamined. The contribution by California appears to be rather unfair. I wonder how the formula was set, and how it has evolved to accommodate evolving economic circumstances. Frankly, I think this is one of the topics that needs a more comprehensive discussion at the national level, and I really wonder if Senators Boxer and Feinstein are helping reevaluate the process of General Revenue Sharing between the states.

I think the article is right that we have an antiquated tax system, that overly relies on capital gains and bonuses for tax revenue. I read the proposal developed by Arnold's 21st Century Tax Commission, and thought that they had a lot of good ideas about how to alter our revenue stream, to make it more predictable and stable, while staying revenue neutral.

Our pension plans at the state and local levels are not reasonable. I support keeping some form of a defined benefit plan, but the current formula isn't sustainable, and isn't fair in comparison to private sector employees.

I also agree that the illegal aliens are a significant financial problem for this state. I have no idea how much they and their "anchor babies" cost the state, but I'd be willing to bet it is at least in the $5 billion a year range, maybe quite a bit more.

We need to be reasonably compassionate to the old, poor and legitimately disabled.

The most significant problem in this state is the failure to have adult discussions in the legislature about how to reasonably resolve problems, both in the long and short term. Rather, much effort is spent posturing and "legislating by slogan". By the way, this applies to both parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:23 PM
 
20 posts, read 79,005 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
I am aware of the drain on the economy due to illegals. But I also don't think it is the whole problem.

It is the main problem. Every illegal student costs California 12.5k EACH year for school. Then add in the cost of healthcare, law enforcement, prison for violent criminals, and the court system. Now you can subtract all the Americans that used to work and pay taxes that lost thier jobs because the illegals undercut the prices and the result is a welfare state on the verge of bankruptcy.


The cost of school alone is enough to put most states out of business. A million illegals will cost California 12.5 BILLION each year. That is will over 100 billion if the kids to go from K-12.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:40 PM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,978,766 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximus1 View Post
How about 20?

The number changed every year. It went from 20-43.
No, it didn't.

Scroll down to California:
The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

2005 - California ranked 43rd
2004 - California ranked 43rd
2003 - California ranked 43rd
2002 - California ranked 42nd
2001 - California ranked 42nd
2000 - California ranked 44th
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:50 PM
 
20 posts, read 79,005 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
No, it didn't.

Scroll down to California:
The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

2005 - California ranked 43rd
2004 - California ranked 43rd
2003 - California ranked 43rd
2002 - California ranked 42nd
2001 - California ranked 42nd
2000 - California ranked 44th

If you want to distort the facts by omission.

How about 1981 -2000? How about 2005 -2010?

1981- Califronia ranked 26
1982- 21
1983- 23


It is funny. You post a link and then want to ignore most of the info on the site. Most years California was ranked in the 30s which is about the middle.

Let's face it. California liberals are lazy and you are all looking for handouts. Most of you sit around all day smoking dope. You probably think you are going to smoke your way out of debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 04:01 PM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,978,766 times
Reputation: 1379
[quote=maximus1;14318614]If you want to distort the facts by omission.



Distort facts? You outright lied:
The number changed every year. It went from 20-43.
First off, you couldn't even get the number straight - it was 21 IN 1981, 29 YEARS AGO. But here's a clue - I wasn't talking about where California was three decades ago, I was talking about where it was recently. Most specifically, for the most recent set of numbers I could find. And since the trend is very gradual, they don't look to be much different now as compared to give years ago.

Quote:
How about 1981 -2000? How about 2005 -2010?
I already posted the 2005 numbers, genius. And 2010 isn't over yet; sorta hard to crunch those numbers on May 24, don't you think?

2006 - 2009? Go ahead, post them. I'll wait.

Quote:
1981- Califronia ranked 26
1982- 21
1983- 23

It is funny. You post a link and then want to ignore most of the info on the site. Most years California was ranked in the 30s which is about the middle.
Most of us were talking about as close to the present for which we can find data. You're the buffoon whining about the early 1980s. And, no, "in the 30s" isn't "about the middle" on a scale of 1-50.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,167,795 times
Reputation: 7373
Very predictable, the California State University presidents have banded together to urge that Arnold's budget be passed by the state legislature. Naturally, they had minimal cuts proposed to their budgets:


College presidents from the 23 campuses in the California State University system are in the Capitol today, lobbying for their share of the state budget...the administrators are giving a big thumbs-up to Gov. Schwarzenegger's May budget proposal. They're urging lawmakers to approve it, saying the additional $366 million the governor has proposed for CSU in 2010-11 will allow campuses to end employee furloughs and admit 29,000 more students.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office had a different perspective:


not give the two university systems as much money as the governor has proposed. The LAO says lawmakers instead should put some money toward saving programs for the needy, such as child care and CalWORKS, which Schwarzenegger has proposed eliminating.

Read more: CSU presidents urge passage of governor's budget proposal - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/24/2773615/csu-presidents-urge-passage-of.html#ixzz0ot2vUIxe - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2010, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
23,145 posts, read 28,915,048 times
Reputation: 32494
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post

Furthermore,
I, as a Californian will NOT stand by and allow that idiot Governor to cut aid to sick people and old people. Maybe some states could give a rat's @ss about its elderly and sick, but California is NOT one of them.
There are any number of elderly in nursing homes who could "benefit" greatly from cutting their aid. I work in one of these facilities, where any number of these elderly people hooked up to tubes secretly pray that a Doctor-assisted suicide law will come to their aid some day.

I don't get it! California is suppose to be so liberal and such a trend-setting state, yet the first Right to Die provision originated with CA's neighbor to the north. And now, recently, Washington and Montana.

What's taking CA so long?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,540,053 times
Reputation: 7477
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximus1 View Post
If you want to distort the facts by omission.

How about 1981 -2000? How about 2005 -2010?

1981- Califronia ranked 26
1982- 21
1983- 23
California still had all of its military bases at the time, most of which were later closed by President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Also, California benefited from a Californian in the White House, something that probably will not happen again any time in the near future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,096,671 times
Reputation: 9270
California has the largest delegation in Congress including the Speaker of the House. CA has proven experts in earmarks like Dianne Feinstein. CA in general is a strong supporter of the President and his policies.

It is a bit of a surprise more Federal money doesn't flow to California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 08:09 AM
 
7,713 posts, read 12,585,212 times
Reputation: 12365
You know I'm surprised California didn't fall yet. And I have no idea what exactly happens what one state runs out of money. For some reason I have an image in my head of something similar to the LA Riots.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 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. The time now is 06:58 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top