Two Californias (vs, budget, expense)

[.highnlite]

2 trillion dollar economy in CA. 13% of US gdp. Total tax burden 10.5%, Debt to gdp, ratio, 1%, as you can see below, your adopted state of Missouri is 9.28%

Second place state gdp, Texas, less than half that. Total tax burden of Texas, 8.4%

Missouri, total tax burden 9.2% Debt 2010: $21.94 billion
Pre-budget Deficit 2011: $730 million
GDP 2009:v $236.46 billion
Debt/GDP Ratio: 9.28 percent

Missouri ranks 22nd in the nation for the size of its deficit.

I know you feel you have to justify leaving, but, do try rationality.

[bluenoter]

Cost of living is much lower in Missouri, and Missouri is the home of throwed rolls.

Originally Posted by .highnlite

I know you feel you have to justify leaving, but, do try rationality.

[nullgeo]

The thread that wouldn't die, huh? ... well, here we go again ... we'll keep trying to figure out who wears which pants and which arm goes in which sleeve until we get it right, dag-gummit!

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

2 trillion dollar economy in CA. 13% of US gdp. Total tax burden 10.5%, Debt to gdp, ratio, 1%, as you can see below, your adopted state of Missouri is 9.28%

Second place state gdp, Texas, less than half that. Total tax burden of Texas, 8.4%

Missouri, total tax burden 9.2% Debt 2010: $21.94 billion
Pre-budget Deficit 2011: $730 million
GDP 2009:v $236.46 billion
Debt/GDP Ratio: 9.28 percent

Missouri ranks 22nd in the nation for the size of its deficit.

I know you feel you have to justify leaving, but, do try rationality.

Yes, let's tax MORE. For future reference, we get it already. You don't have to keep reminding us this fallacy of an argument by quoting the California economy numbers since it doesn't address the legislatures frivolous spending problem.

[Curmudgeon]

No justification required. We like it here and that's all that matters. Numbers comparing a state of just under 6 million to a state with almost 39 million are meaningless. As retirees with pensions, Social Security and lifetime medical and dental coverage we're not terribly affected by the vagaries of the marketplace. At issue for us is that if we wanted to live in a third world country like Mexico, we'd head southwest. But we don't. The heartland suits us just fine.

Of course, we could also return to California where Hispanics make up approximately 37% (vs 3.4% here) of the population and a language other than English is spoken at home by approximately 40% of the population (vs. 5.1% here) and the home ownership rate is just under 57% (vs just over 70% here). Thanks but no thanks. We're quite happy here in America.

Again, the numbers are really quite superfluous because they say nothing about one's personal choices, lifestyle or needs. Besides, we have throwed rolls!

Next?

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by UB50

Fuel taxes pay less than 1/2 of the costs of freeways. Freeways are subsidized by the federal government.

I couldn't find a concise source of information, but the following articles state Federal expenditures of around $40 billion in 2008 and a revenues of about $58-69 billion annually in the last ten years from both state and Federal fuel taxes. State fuel taxes are picking up that portion you state are subsidized by the Federal Government.

Federal Gas Tax Revenue - U.S. highway trust fund veers toward crisis - Los Angeles Times (2008)

The Tax Foundation - State and Federal Treasuries "Profit" More from Gasoline Sales than U.S. Oil Industry (2004 figures)

Note, $58 billion in 2004 is equivalent to $66 billion in 2008.

Both Federal and state fuel taxes are used for both Federal and state highways and public transportation projects. Additionally, voters in many locales have voted for increased sales taxes to help pay for their local transportation projects.

[.highnlite]

Ah dunno, if ah lived in the "Real America" I would not drive a Honda Accord and golf cart, Ah wood have me a Ford Pickemup, an ah would not sit at a computer thingie, ah'd be out shootin' me some possum.

[nullgeo]

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Ah dunno, if ah lived in the "Real America" I would not drive a Honda Accord and golf cart, Ah wood have me a Ford Pickemup, an ah would not sit at a computer thingie, ah'd be out shootin' me some possum.

Honda Accord, yes. Golf cart no. The boat comes first.

No need ta shoot 'em. Them an' coons is takin' turns bein' roadkill. But I got me some .22 sub-sonics fur them pesky squirrels. They's almost as good fer breakfast as fried rabbit an' we got them too!

[UB50]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

In fact that's what the article in the OP is all about, that there is a neglected California where the economy is crumbling, garbage and noxious chemicals are being strewn across the land, building codes and labor and safety codes are not being enforced, and about the only help they get is welfare. Meanwhile all the health and safety enforcement is being focused on the big cities, presumably (my presumption) where there deep pockets able to pay fines. Yet if you sent in a major enforcement campaign to the depressed rural California all you'd succeed in doing is close down any remaining businesses and take away the places people live.

Yet the crumbling California is what Conservatives and Libertarians want! They want less regulation! They actually would prefer to do without welfare, but what the hay. California has a welfare system.

Still, this vision is what Conservatives and Libertarians dream of when they speak of "less regulation, fewer taxes." What they need to do is pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and change things! Sarah Palin would tell them "Don't retreat, just reload!" If people in Alaska and Alabama can do it, why can't Californians?

By the way, garbage and noxious chemicals are hallmarks of red states. Love it or leave it.