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.
Yes. By omitting contrary evidence, It makes the premise of the article, that the Red State economic model works best, invalid.
gee...dont you think cali should have the biggest growth...in fact it has the biggest population...the growth is MINIMAL compared to other states based on population
Most importantly, California and Texas, alike in many ways, have diametrically opposed public policies. California’s state and local tax burden ranks as America’s 4[SIZE=2]th-highest compared to Texas at 45th. California taxes a 42 percent larger share of state income than does Texas, California’s restrictive energy policies discourage oil extraction, even though it has the largest proven shale oil reserves in the nation; while its industrial electrical rates are 88 percent higher than in Texas.
They're all in inland counties which tend to be red areas in this state. Also they are the cities with the fewest government workers, tend to have the lowest pension obligations, and mostly rural areas with limited tax bases. Also most of them got very big into subsidizing land developer speculation during the realestate boom; basically they took out massive loans to extend roads and city utilities out to new developments thinking that the tax dollars from those new developments would enable them to pay the loans back. Sadly, the no one ever bought those homes so those new tax dollars never materialized but locals were still on the hook for all the loans they took out to subsidize the out of town developers who speculated. It's a classic case of Republican corruption where out of town business interests make big promises, Republicans corruptly give them tons of money out of city treasuries and co-sign loans in exchange for campaign contributions, only to see the whole thing go bust and taxpayers are on the hook for everything.
We don't allow this sort of government-developer collusion in the wealthy, desirable coastal areas and instead if a developer wants to build here we require them to pay the cost to extend roads and utilities out to their development site. Yes, that does tend to drive up costs modestly but it also means the DEVELOPER is on the hook for costs instead of taxpayers being on the hook and buyers of those homes themselves end up paying for the cost of their development. We find this a much better solution compared to the how the inland Republican controlled areas stick taxpayers with the bill and then end up bankrupt.
Just garbage, complete utter garbage. Their mythical "average tax rate" averages it out reguardless of tax bracket while literally 90% of the population doesn't pay anything close to that. Further more it only talks about nominal tax rates instead of effective tax rates, I.E. the ACTUAL rates paid. So, as usual, the right wing has nothing but lies by omission and misrepresentations. FACT: Businesses pay a higher effective tax rate in Texas than in California. FACT: Your average home owner pays less in state and local taxes in California than in Texas. The fictitious "averages" just get spiked by the higher rates on the wealthy which only a few percent of the population ever pays yet those wealthy still don't leave their Malibu beach house or Vineyards in Napa because its still better than any where else they could live.
And the vast majority of them are Republican controlled cities in inland red counties. FACT!
And? I don't see a correlation. There are certainly plenty of Republican counties here in California, that doesn't mean they actually have much control over their jurisdictions. Everything is controlled by the liberal elites here, individual counties have zero control over tax rates, wages, gun laws etc...I fail to see the point you are trying to make, no offense intended.
You're also wrong about the bankrupt counties all being Red. The good majority of them are actually Blue such as Oakland.
It was a response to the previous poster who claimed, falsely, that some how liberal politics was what caused those bankruptcies when in fact it was mostly the least liberal areas which experienced those bankruptcies in the last 10-15 years. He was just factually incorrect which is why I felt the need to set the record straight wrt his spurious and uninformed allegations.
And the vast majority of them are Republican controlled cities in inland red counties. FACT!
Vallejo, CA went bankrupt in 2008 and it's in a Democrat-Controlled county.
Stockton, CA went bankrupt and it's in a Democrat-Controlled. (You know it's also tied with Montgomery, Alabama for having the highest obesity rate in the country?? Of course, you won't hear THAT when elitist liberals are bashing southerners for their eating habits.)
San Bernadino, CA went bankrupt and it's in a Democrat-Controlled county.
Mammoth Lakes, CA requested Bankruptcy and is in a Democrat-Controlled county
Atwater, CA is about to become bankrupt, and it's in a county that is Democrat-Controlled
Compton, CA is about to become bankrupt and it's in a county that is Democrat-Controlled.
Not seeing any Republican-Controlled counties.
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.
