California is the top welfare state: 33% of welfare recipients live in CA (retire, percentage)

[Think4Yourself]

Your own link says "nearly 4% of the state's population receives welfare assistance". I've shown a map that California is middle of the pack when it comes to percentage of the population on welfare.

Oh, and your own link to factcheck says this about your source:

But Baldwin’s definition of individuals “dependent on government” is stated incorrectly in the viral email as simply those on “welfare.” Baldwin wrote that, among the dependents, he included current state and local government employees, as well as former workers receiving government pensions. And he only counted Medicaid recipients as those on “welfare.”
And none of the 11 states on his list has more Medicaid recipients than workers. Also, none of the states has more recipients of other kinds of “welfare,” such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or food stamps (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

In other words, like virtually every thing out of the Heritage Foundation it is a complete lie! Your own link to factcheck says so. Unless, of course, you couldn't retirees on Social Security and Medicare as being on "welfare". Just more lies and you weren't even bright enough to read your own link.

[texdav]

Not a surprise if you ever heard Bill Clinton speak on poverty and the appeal he makes for private giving to fight poverty. He points out that 80% of poverty in US is in two rural areas. Yet they get 20% of all government spending on poverty. 8o% goes to urban areas with 20% of poverty. Its the politics of poverty. its why more and more of the rich are deciding to contribute to foundations that control the money privately and cut out the middleman; government who even consumes so much of it before anything is done.

[theunbrainwashed]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

So what? What matters is total population and domestic migration is mostly in two catagories; poor people leaving because they can't afford the price of a house and elderly people selling their much appriciated homes so they can move some where dirt cheap to spend their golden years. Neither poor people nor retirees are all that economically dynamic so I'll happily accept young immigrants who are more likely to contribute more to the economy in future years.

You're delusional if you think it is the wealthy giving up their Malibu beach houses and winery estates in Napa. Hell, even Mitt Romney, after bashing the state to appease right wing dullards in the primaries, packed his bags and moved here after he lost because the state has the best quality of life in the country for those who can afford it. That's why he bought a brand new $40 million beach house in La Jolla. This state is a magnet for the wealthy because it offers amenities you just can't get dog crap flats, OK no matter how low the taxes there are.

That toally puts the nail in the coffin of "high taxes scare rich people away", no they don't. They rich will live anywhere that offers the amenities they seek, no matter the tax rate. They are not moving to Baja California where the cost of living is less than half of California for a reason. This talking point really needs to end, it's one of the most misleading ones out there, today. the ones that do move out of the state or country because of high taxes here, I can count them with one hand. Hell, even the European rich are not moving out of their French châteaus or extremely high priced London flats despite sky high tax rates on the rich compared to here. The wingers really need to stop defending people that do not have their best interests at heart

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

Your own link says "nearly 4% of the state's population receives welfare assistance". I've shown a map that California is middle of the pack when it comes to percentage of the population on welfare.

Oh, and your own link to factcheck says this about your source:


In other words, like virtually every thing out of the Heritage Foundation it is a complete lie! Your own link to factcheck says so. Unless, of course, you couldn't retirees on Social Security and Medicare as being on "welfare". Just more lies and you weren't even bright enough to read your own link.

I did read the link, factcheck was dismissing a viral email claim, but you seem to be talking about the welfare rate now instead of the number of people on welfare. What is the point in changing the metric?

How can CA spend the most and not have the most people on welfare? I know that CA has generous welfare programs, but they aren't that generous.

Compare Welfare Spending By State 1957-2018 - Charts

2009 wasn't much different.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...able.html?_r=0

[Think4Yourself]

It has the most people, period. So even though the number of people on welfare as a percentage of the population is lower than half the states it can still have more in absolute numbers. The total burden is still less though because you're dividing it up among more people. That's why the only logical and accurate way to judge is to normalize the rate as a percentage of total population.

Also, of course the numbers were up in 2009 as that was in the middle of the great recession. The numbers always go up during a recession.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

That toally puts the nail in the coffin of "high taxes scare rich people away", no they don't. They rich will live anywhere that offers the amenities they seek, no matter the tax rate. They are not moving to Baja California where the cost of living is less than half of California for a reason. This talking point really needs to end, it's one of the most misleading ones out there, today. the ones that do move out of the state or country because of high taxes here, I can count them with one hand. Hell, even the European rich are not moving out of their French châteaus or extremely high priced London flats despite sky high tax rates on the rich compared to here. The wingers really need to stop defending people that do not have their best interests at heart

You're right. It's the middle and upper middle class who are leaving.

The urban areas will be like Latin American cities with the very wealthy and the teaming masses.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

It has the most people, period. So even though the number of people on welfare as a percentage of the population is lower than half the states it can still have more in absolute numbers. The total burden is still less though because you're dividing it up among more people. That's why the only logical and accurate way to judge is to normalize the rate as a percentage of total population.

Also, of course the numbers were up in 2009 as that was in the middle of the great recession. The numbers always go up during a recession.

So you don't actually have an issue with what I said, you were just arguing to argue. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

Which states are the failures with the most people on welfare again? It sure as hell isn't California.

Originally Posted by lycos679

That would indeed be California. CA is the most populous state though.

Welfare: How California stacks up | UTSanDiego.com



‘Death Spiral’ States?

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

That toally puts the nail in the coffin of "high taxes scare rich people away", no they don't. They rich will live anywhere that offers the amenities they seek, no matter the tax rate. They are not moving to Baja California where the cost of living is less than half of California for a reason. This talking point really needs to end, it's one of the most misleading ones out there, today. the ones that do move out of the state or country because of high taxes here, I can count them with one hand. Hell, even the European rich are not moving out of their French châteaus or extremely high priced London flats despite sky high tax rates on the rich compared to here. The wingers really need to stop defending people that do not have their best interests at heart

Indeed. Despite the relatively high taxes London's biggest problem is TOO MANY billionaires and multimillionaires from around the world want to move there. They're going in and knocking down a whole row of historicly middle class homes just so they can build one giant multi-million pound mega house. Now, the city's government loves it because it means more property tax income but there are a lot of people with low to medium income who are upset because so much of the affordable housing is getting demolished to create mansions for the ultra-wealthy jet set who only live in the city a few months a year.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by lycos679

So you don't actually have an issue with what I said, you were just arguing to argue. Gotcha.

Nope, you are failing to listen. Absolute numbers are meaningless and instead what matters when you're comparing between different places with different populations is the RATE. I.E. How many people as a percentage of population.

We use such standardized comparisons for everything we want to get an accurate comparison on. For instance the poverty rate is expressed as a percentage of the population, crime is X per 100,000, births are expressed as X per woman, everything has to be normalized or you can't make any sensible comparison. Other wise we'd see claims like "there are more billionaires in India than in Luxemburg" which is true in absolute numbers but India has 1.2 billion people and Luxemburg only has a few tens of thousands near all of whom are millionaires and billionaires so the percentage of population who are wealthy is far higher in Luxemburg than in India.

That's why rates expressed in percentage terms matter. They help us make meaningful comparisons despite all the other variables. It's also why California's welfare rate in middle of the pack while so many red states actually have far, far higher welfare rates.

[theunbrainwashed]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

You're right. It's the middle and upper middle class who are leaving.

The urban areas will be like Latin American cities with the very wealthy and the teaming masses.

Yes. That is why their taxes need to be cut and balanced with the rich's. I'm glad you are endorsing progressive taxation, which is what we need the rich need to pay their fair share. The middle classes shouldn't have to finance their luxuries while having our necessities and amenities cut