Census Shows Americans Fleeing High-Tax States (university, tax rates, living)
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.
Sorry but you can't deny reality, it's the case
Congressional seats have been lost in high-tax states
Correct, don't deny reality. I've known many people, of all ages who move to the South (including myself) for one reason in particular - warmer climate. Period.
If AC was never invented, you would look more silly than you do now.
Quote:
Low-taxes states = congrats to be competitive and for your smart economic polic
Southern states are an absolute mess. They refuse to invest properly in anything or think long term.
But at the end of the day, they can count on what they always do, getting more from the Federal Gov't per dollar, than other states who subsidize the South.
Yeah, especially when most of the nurses (including most of my aunts and uncles), doctors (including my mom), and engineers (including my dad) in California are foreign born. I didn't know they are low paid, welfare leeches off the system.
The foreign born in California isn't as cut-and-dry as most people assume. The vast majority of low paying jobs AND high paying jobs nowadays are taken up by the foreign born. That mostly is a function of the fact that 27% of Californians are foreign born.
Yes, it "helps" but it also helped make the US what it is. If you go down that line of logic, we don't "need" anything but food, shelter, and clothing. Like it or not, every single state is an integral part of this country. If things were any different than they are now, then things wouldn't have turned out the way they did, for better and for worse.
But this thread isn't ABOUT regulations or unions, its about taxes. And taxes in California have been the same since the 1970s, that's an empirical fact. Taxes didn't discourage people from moving here before during the 1980s and 1990s.
On regulations and unions, I agree with you that its stupid. I'm not saying California doesn't need to be fixed because it's obvious that it does. What I'm trying to say is that it's not only one or two factors that determine the way people move; its a host of things that need to be addressed.
The biggest thing, at least for CA, that needs to be fixed is the fact that California institutions weren't meant to handle 40 million people. The last time California wrote its constitution was back in 1878, when the state only had 870,000 people, mostly around San Francisco and Sacramento.
Due to Prop 13, most of the governing power in California went to Sacramento. It's nearly impossible to run a place that not only has 2 large metropolitan areas in its borders (LA and Bay Area), but also 2 medium sized metros (Sacramento and SD) with many smaller-medium sized cities strewn about the state, all with vastly different interests and needs that need to be addressed. It can't be done all from Sacramento, and as the initiative and voter process has shown, it can't be left to every voter in CA because it's pretty clear that LA and the Bay will run the show. There needs to be a bit of decentralization. Let Bay Area voters control their thing, and let the Central Valley farmers do theirs. As if voters in LA and SF know how to run farms better than farmers....
I'm not going to deny that, but keep in mind that since the 1960s, California's population has DOUBLED from around 19 million to around 37-38 million today while the US population has only increased 1/3 from 200 million to 300 million.
I know you're a Republican, but you do realize that California's executive has been ran by the Republicans for 30 out of the last 40 years (exceptions are Davis and Brown) who didn't know how to work with an increasingly Democrat tilted legislature (again, thank LA and SF for that one). Before then, California's greatest economic expansions were under administrations that knew how to talk to both sides and consistently manage to keep up infrastructure with the growing population. It's only during the 1970s and after wards that the state has become more and more negligent.
Even during the 1990s when the US economy recovered from the late 80's recession, things weren't as strong as they could have been due to the loss of the industrial base in the Midwest. How did it benefit the US as a whole when most of the manufacturing went to China, or an increasing amount of the service sector to India? Where's the net-gain for the United States?
Again, I think its a great thing that the South and West are growing because at the end of the day, it means that more areas of the country become strong. However, without an adequate way to address the problems of the anemic Midwest and Northeast, it only leaves the US as a whole vulnerable to more problems and dependent on forces that we can't necessarily control. That's what I mean that we can't simply run away from our problems. At some point, we have to address it like adults.
I didn't mention anything about business there. It's geostrategic reality. Business or not, geography is still geography. It's much easier to have free trade with an area if it's part of your country than if it wasn't.
Businesses can do business anywhere. I'm talking about the more obvious implications. Again, what would happen to US national defense if the US West Coast suddenly got 2/3 smaller? We'd have a longer land border that would need defending, and less of an outlet to the Pacific. That's reality.
Proof? Do you have the dollar by dollar amount given by every single registered Republican vs. every single registered Democrat, or is this all conjecture?
Out of the top 20 congressional districts by income:
7 are Republican
13 are Democrat
Out of the top 10 congressional districts by income
5 are Republican
5 are Democrat
And do you know what the gap between #1 and #2 is? Didn't think so....here I'll help
Governor Schwarzenegger Leads Asia Trade Mission to Promote California, Boost Economy (http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/15948/ - broken link)
That doesn't include the emerging Southeast Asian markets (couldn't find the data)
Texas sends less than HALF the amount California does to Asia.
Great information and some of what you mentioned about California again is similar to NY. People don't realize that NY has had it's share of mostly Republican assemblies and Republican governors. So, to put it all on Democrats is silly. When politicians learn to have some crossover appeal, that's when states and the country tends to do better.
NY is 2nd or 3rd in terms of the foreign born population and many run the gamut in terms of levels of pay in the job market in NY.
Correct, don't deny reality. I've known many people, of all ages who move to the South (including myself) for one reason in particular - warmer climate. Period.
If AC was never invented, you would look more silly than you do now.
Southern states are an absolute mess. They refuse to invest properly in anything or think long term.
But at the end of the day, they can count on what they always do, getting more from the Federal Gov't per dollar, than other states who subsidize the South.
Southern states are an absolute mess. They refuse to invest properly in anything or think long term.
But at the end of the day, they can count on what they always do, getting more from the Federal Gov't per dollar, than other states who subsidize the South.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
Ahem you forgot the powerful Northeastern GDP.....
No I just didn't want it to be controversial. So I left it out. The Northeast is the most compact powerhouse in the entire country if we're talking about the region. Especially the stretch from Boston to Washington DC (NoVa).
Before I post this, I am not a regionalist nor am I a fan of these retarded regional divisions in our country. We're one unified America, whether its Mississippi or New York. That's all I care for.
And outside of my city (s) (Washington DC, Houston, Chicago, & Austin) and the cities I like (Quite a few to list) I really don't follow or care to follow with whats going on in the rest of the country. I do love New Jersey though, along with Upstate New York, New Jersey has to be my favorite state as a whole.
Anyways by per capita income, the Northeast is the richest nation. But by economic output (even with the Southern state of Virginia) it is not the largest nor the most populated either. Larger population is a direct correlation to higher economic output (GDP).
The Northeast:
New York: $1.14 Trillion
Pennsylvania: $553 Billion
New Jersey: $475 Billion
Vermont: $25 Billion
Maryland: $273 Billion
Virginia: $397 Billion
Rhode Island: $47 Billion
Massachusetts: $364 Billion
New Hampshire: $60 Billion
Maine: $49 Billion
Connecticut: $216 Billion
West Virginia: $61 Billion
District of Columbia: $97 Billion Total:$3.757 Trillion
Haha , there not that progressive outside the cities though......they also have alot of issues in the social dept....intill that happens there lower then any Northern state...
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.
