how-to block ads
|
ksw_92
join:2001-05-13
La Verne, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to jig
Re: State IOUs...Who will get them on Thursday....
said by jig  :if you made $10m by employing 50 workers and providing services around the state, the state earned a LARGE portion of your income. Let's assume that we buy into this assertion. Who sets the compensation rates to the state?
If you own a business do you let your employees select their own compensation?
Let's ask GM and the UAW how that worked out for them over the past 30 years, shall we?
Just highlighting (again) the huge fallacy of socialism: forcing values into social-economic variables results in an unsolvable system. Further proof of this statement is already in the daily news: the burst of the housing/credit bubble, caused by the forcing of cheap debt into a global system. | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
1 edit | reply to jig
said by jig :if you drive on any public road to reach work, the state earned a portion of your income. if you stay at home and hear a siren every now and again, the state earned a portion of your income. if you breath air that isn't completely laden with soot, the state earned a portion of your income. if you made $10m by employing 50 workers and providing services around the state, the state earned a LARGE portion of your income. That's our difference. You see residents of California as chattel of the state. And as such everything that the state's property earns belongs to the state. What the state doesn't take as generosity on the part of the state. Rather like the feudal system, mafia protection rackets, or even soviet Marxism.
On the other hand I see a free people, that are free to use their stills and risk their saving to get ahead and that everything that they earn is theirs to keep. What the state extracts from them has to be carefully measured, absolutely minimized, and must never be a penalty for success or hard work. Instead their success should be celebrated and further successes encouraged. It's just an opposite outlook on society and economics.
Unfortunately many of our uneducation institutions teach your flavor of economics as a form of social "justice", and our legislature has adopted it as their religion. The old "you have more than me and I'm going to get my big brother to take it away from you and give some of it to me." In this case government is playing big brother in both a figurative and more and more in a 1984ish role.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| no, i see residents as choosing to live here, and you see them chained to the post. the only reason why its a hard CHOICE to live elsewhere is because there are lots of BENEFITS to living here. benefits that aren't free.
you see yourself free to keep what you earn. i see that what you earn in CA is in some direct way related to the services that CA provides, including the courts and police to enforce your rights to actually get paid those earned wages, not to mention exclude others from your property.
we're all here based on a series of contracts - some with the state, some with each other, many are simply implied. by being here, by doing business here, we're subject to the terms of the contract with the state. we (and now i'm using the royal, timeless "we") structured that contract over the years to be a particular way. we the voters. our relative freedom comes at a cost, and it's real, and it's part of that contract with the state. some people just pay taxes, some people shoot bullets in wars, but we all pay. your "penalty" is just compensation (again, we can quibble about what the real numbers should be) for the benefits we receive, and clearly, CLEARLY, those that earn more receive more benefits. the more they earn, the more they're dependent upon those services being provided by the state. if you don't think so, come up with an example.
point: if you want to be absolutely free to keep what you earn, go find an un-nationalized island, set up your infrastructure, link up your sat phone, and start earning. i'd love to see your balance sheet. have fun with the pirates.
maybe the problem is that you think you don't have to pay if you don't like the quality of the work done. two problems: 1) that's not true under the law or otherwise, and 2) if you think the state does nothing useful with your "penalty", then you are galactically blind.
and, hey, the fair part is that you can rescind the contract any time you want. Alaska (or your island) beckons.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| said by jig :you see yourself free to keep what you earn. i see that what you earn in CA is in some direct way related to the services that CA provides, including the courts and police to enforce your rights to actually get paid those earned wages, not to mention exclude others from your property. So what your saying then is that by paying more for police, fire, paramedics etc that a person is entitled to a proportionately higher level of service than those that pay less or nothing. Interesting.
we're all here based on a series of contracts - some with the state, some with each other, many are simply implied. by being here, by doing business here, we're subject to the terms of the contract with the state. we (and now i'm using the royal, timeless "we") structured that contract over the years to be a particular way. we the voters. our relative freedom comes at a cost, and it's real, and it's part of that contract with the state. some people just pay taxes, some people shoot bullets in wars, but we all pay. your "penalty" is just compensation (again, we can quibble about what the real numbers should be) for the benefits we receive, and clearly, CLEARLY, those that earn more receive more benefits. the more they earn, the more they're dependent upon those services being provided by the state. if you don't think so, come up with an example. Again you are saying that those that pay more are entitled to a higher lever of service. Priority police protection, paramedic access, and priority access to the courts. In intrigued.
If that's not what your saying then how are they any more dependent that the freeloaders? As thing stand now the paramedics don't roll past a dieing poor man to save a rich man.
However I think what you're really trying to say is "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need", and then trying to wrap it the flag of some sort of social contract.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to jig
said by jig :no, i see residents as choosing to live here, and you see them chained to the post. the only reason why its a hard CHOICE to live elsewhere is because there are lots of BENEFITS to living here. benefits that aren't free. you see yourself free to keep what you earn. i see that what you earn in CA is in some direct way related to the services that CA provides, including the courts and police to enforce your rights to actually get paid those earned wages, not to mention exclude others from your property. we're all here based on a series of contracts - some with the state, some with each other, many are simply implied. by being here, by doing business here, we're subject to the terms of the contract with the state. we (and now i'm using the royal, timeless "we") structured that contract over the years to be a particular way. we the voters. our relative freedom comes at a cost, and it's real, and it's part of that contract with the state. some people just pay taxes, some people shoot bullets in wars, but we all pay. your "penalty" is just compensation (again, we can quibble about what the real numbers should be) for the benefits we receive, and clearly, CLEARLY, those that earn more receive more benefits. the more they earn, the more they're dependent upon those services being provided by the state. if you don't think so, come up with an example. point: if you want to be absolutely free to keep what you earn, go find an un-nationalized island, set up your infrastructure, link up your sat phone, and start earning. i'd love to see your balance sheet. have fun with the pirates. maybe the problem is that you think you don't have to pay if you don't like the quality of the work done. two problems: 1) that's not true under the law or otherwise, and 2) if you think the state does nothing useful with your "penalty", then you are galactically blind. and, hey, the fair part is that you can rescind the contract any time you want. Alaska (or your island) beckons. The problem is not population growth but government growth in excess of it. Since Wilson our government spending has grown on average 5% per year in excess of the population growth for an over 25% increase in government above what our population should require.
What's weird is that under economies of scale the average cost per citizen should go down not up as population increases. I still have never been able to find a reasonable example of why we spend 2x what Nevada does per student for exactly the same school performance.
I have no problem with paying my fair share the costs of providing the various services but paying many times more for less service (as I have found with every state agency I deal with.) makes it a rip off.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to sholling
said by jig :no, i see residents as choosing to live here, and you see them chained to the post. ... and, hey, the fair part is that you can rescind the contract any time you want. Alaska (or your island) beckons. jig is in rare form and spot on here.
sholling , you are framing the issue as if the "State" was some jack-booted alien life form occupying the countryside by force à la some 1950's Sci-fi B-Movie or a Twilight Zone episode. You suggest the "State" is acting as some uncontrollable Robin Hood character who steals from the rich to give to the poor.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Not because the States actions are inconsistent with your observations (which I generally agree with), but because the State is not the enemy here. Or better yet, if the state is the enemy, we have met the enemy, and it is us...the citizens of the State. The citizens of the State have full and unfettered control of how it's elected Representatives manage the State.
Here is a statement both immutable and absolute:
The State politicians are doing exactly what their constituency wants them to do. It may not be what you or I would like them to do, but in the free society that we cherish, the majority of the voters have spoken. If the voters wanted a change of priorities, and wanted them NOW, the voters would act on their authority and have a recall election. But the voting citizens choose not to, thus the voters are aiding, abetting and are fully complicit ...as a group... in the actions of the current State legislature and Executive.
Again, this fact is absolute and unquestionable because the State politicians govern at the pleasure of the citizens.
Them's the rules. There is only one way to change the direction of the State, and that is to convince the simple majority of voting citizens to elect representatives that will plot and execute other solutions.
Running up and down the aisles screaming like a banshee and saying the State is socialist or communist is irrelevant. Assuming this were indeed the case, it's only because the people want it that way. | |
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to cmaenginsb
said by sholling : Again you are saying that those that pay more are entitled to a higher lever of service. Priority police protection, paramedic access, and priority access to the courts. In intrigued. no. i'm saying that those that earn higher income use more services in earning that higher income. as in, the state is entitled to take a larger chunk from high earners than from the low earners because high earners rely more on the services of the state to earn their high income.
said by cmaenginsb :The problem is not population growth but government growth in excess of it. Since Wilson our government spending has grown on average 5% per year in excess of the population growth for an over 25% increase in government above what our population should require. What's weird is that under economies of scale the average cost per citizen should go down not up as population increases. I still have never been able to find a reasonable example of why we spend 2x what Nevada does per student for exactly the same school performance.
two things:
1) we've discussed the economies of scale thing before. at some point, cramming more people into a limited resource starts costing more per person than less. i think we've reached that point in CA. certainly we have in the major metro areas - which probably means all of SoCal.
2) we don't spend 2x what nevada does per student, and we also don't have exact same school performance. i posted all the stats a few weeks ago. both CA and NV spend about 10k/student, across all districts +- 4%. Northern NV has about a 2% drop out rate for grades 9-12, while LAUSD has a drop out rate of 6%. Out here, the Hacienda Unified School District has a 12% drop out rate (i think, i'd have to check my post).
I have no problem with paying my fair share the costs of providing the various services but paying many times more for less service (as I have found with every state agency I deal with.) makes it a rip off.
well, we aren't paying that much, and we have about the same or better coverage of service. the problem is, there are some quality issues, and some people are drinking too deeply from the trough. with pensions and prop 13, man, it must be nice to retire from a state job in CA.
here are some interesting links:
»img72.imageshack.us/img72/3064/0···8481.jpg
wonder what the Norwegian tax rate is?
»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31680883/ns···T1=43001
want to live there?
»latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2···rer.html
how about this for a solution?
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| reply to dogma
You forget many thing in your response. An uneducation/[propaganda system that has indoctrinated people to ask not what you can do for your country, but rather to demand more mothering from the state.
A media that acts to keep the populace uninformed of what is really going on in Sacramento. Half of the people in this state couldn't find Sacramento on a map.
Gerrymandered districts and campaign finance laws designed to preserve the status quo.
A perfect storm of corruption and ignorance.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| reply to jig
said by jig :no. i'm saying that those that earn higher income use more services in earning that higher income. as in, the state is entitled to take a larger chunk from high earners than from the low earners because high earners rely more on the services of the state to earn their high income. Pray tell what additional state provided services a high wage earner uses more of to make that higher income.
Please don't say employees because the employer pays them not the state government.
Please don't say land or facilities because the wealthy person pays for those.
Please don't say weather because the state government doesn't control that.
Please don't say customers because the state government has no control over that.
Transportation is paid for by fuel taxes so that's all taken care of, and the wealthy person has no higher priority over police or fire services. What special services did the government provide that it does not offer to the regular joe or jane?
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | it's not a matter of special, it's a matter of how much, and the derived benefits therefrom.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| said by jig :it's not a matter of special, it's a matter of how much, and the derived benefits therefrom. In other words the state government doesn't contribute to wealth building except by staying out of the way of commerce and innovation. Hardy something anyone should have to pay extra for.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jig
said by jig :i'm saying that those that earn higher income use more services in earning that higher income. as in, the state is entitled to take a larger chunk from high earners than from the low earners because high earners rely more on the services of the state to earn their high income. What...?
--
.:|:. Go Wheatley or Go Home! | |
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to sholling
said by sholling :In other words the state government doesn't contribute to wealth building except by staying out of the way of commerce and innovation. Hardy something anyone should have to pay extra for. funny, that's not even close to what i said.
want to move to arizona? you like guns...
»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/ns···ws-life/
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
| said by jig :said by sholling :In other words the state government doesn't contribute to wealth building except by staying out of the way of commerce and innovation. Hardy something anyone should have to pay extra for. funny, that's not even close to what i said. want to move to arizona? you like guns... » www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/ns···ws-life/ Why bother, it's already the law in 40 states and it's coming to California. Oh and BTW I don't drink.
But back on the subject at hand. The people of the State of California benefit most by encouraging the growth of private business and the accumulation of wealth. That creates jobs in a state with a combined un/under employment rate between 18 and 20%. More private sector jobs mean more money to spend in stores which translates into still more jobs, more jobs translates into fewer people on the dole (reduced state outlays) and more people paying taxes. Encouraging businesses to come to California and those already here to expand is a win-win for everybody except the power hungry bureaucrats. Attracting employers, and encouraging those already here to expand here requires low tax rates and a business friendly regulatory environment. Without those two things then businesses will continue to follow your advice and relocate outside of California. We all lose when that happens.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to sholling
said by sholling :A perfect storm of corruption and ignorance. ...and ultimately, just who's fault is that? Using your words in another recent post: "...nobody has a gun to their heads".
You know how much I despise broadcast TeeeVeee. You know my opinion of TeeeVeee stems from how it's programming and commercials influence a populace too damn lazy to think for themselves. But when I sermonize the evils of TeeeVeee, many folks think I am the nutjob. So I have effectively given up that crusade, except for the occasional rant to clear my system. As long as the GenPop get their panem et circenses, god bless 'um, because there is no law against abject ignorance.
Odds are, at some point, you too will come to that conclusion.
said by sholling :Encouraging businesses to come to California and those already here to expand is a win-win for everybody except the power hungry bureaucrats. Attracting employers, and encouraging those already here to expand here requires low tax rates and a business friendly regulatory environment. Without those two things then businesses will continue to follow your advice and relocate outside of California. We all lose when that happens. If you are a student of basic capitalism, you are no doubt familiar with the economic model of supply and demand. You are probably also aware of the fact that the land mass of California is not increasing, yet California's population is continuing to grow, literally as we speak in spite of it's economic woes and high unemployment. (...just ask FutureMon ). There are currently 40,000,000 people crowded into the State, with an additional 10 Million expected over the next 8-10 years.
To put this into perspective, California is rapidly approaching the per square mile population density of Japan. When California's population reaches 50M, it will have 1 resident per every .003 square miles. Japan currently has one resident per every .002 square miles. The obvious Difference of course is Japan enjoys a real world-class diversified industrial base and a very highly educated workforce, and California...well, not so much.
Supply = California's finite land & resource assets (Perfectly Inelastic Supply). Demand = 50 Million people. Outcome = Very high cost of living and basic resources.
The reality is businesses that are labor intensive leave California...not for the tax issues (and yes, comparatively they are higher), but because said companies can not possibly be competitive in a global marketplace when they have to pay a premium for both human resources and material resources.
So again, it's not a "Fascist bureaucrat conspiracy" in SacTown. It's the waves and waves of people immigrating into the state looking for streets paved with gold, in conjunction with businesses relocating to areas that provide a lower cost workforce and lower cost raw materials. | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to ghostpainter
I predict we will not have new budget in place till September or even October. Government is still functioning fine and until public gets really hurt legislators will have no real reason to compromise to get new budget passed.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet | |
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
1 edit | reply to dogma
said by dogma :You know how much I despise broadcast TeeeVeee. Broadcast TV is only a portion of it. Yes broadcast news has become the unofficial propaganda arm of the left wing of the Democrat Party and decieve the hell out of the public. The last round of the state budget mess was a prime example. You'd leave with the impression that sainted Democrats only want to raise taxes to keep Republicans from throwing old ladies out in the street. None of which was true, but that was the spin on every channel. And god forbid an in depth investigation. They only have time give us a sound byte and move on to American Idle news.
But the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper. The socialists running the government uneducation system fail to teach kids anything about their country and how it was ment to work. But what can you expect from a system that in 12 years can't teach a kid to balance a checkbook.
many folks think I am the nutjob. Well yeah. 
If you are a student of basic capitalism, you are no doubt familiar with the economic model of supply and demand. You are probably also aware of the fact that the land mass of California is not increasing, yet California's population is continuing to grow, literally as we speak in spite of it's economic woes and high unemployment. (...just ask FutureMon ). There are currently 40,000,000 people crowded into the State, with an additional 10 Million expected over the next 8-10 years. To put this into perspective, California is rapidly approaching the per square mile population density of Japan. When California's population reaches 50M, it will have 1 resident per every .003 square miles. Japan currently has one resident per every .002 square miles. The obvious Difference of course is Japan enjoys a real world-class diversified industrial base and a very highly educated workforce, and California...well, not so much. Supply = California's finite land & resource assets (Perfectly Inelastic Supply). Demand = 50 Million people. Outcome = Very high cost of living and basic resources. The reality is businesses that are labor intensive leave California...not for the tax issues (and yes, comparatively they are higher), but because said companies can not possibly be competitive in a global marketplace when they have to pay a premium for both human resources and material resources. So again, it's not a "Fascist bureaucrat conspiracy" in SacTown. It's the waves and waves of people immigrating into the state looking for streets paved with gold, in conjunction with businesses relocating to areas that provide a lower cost workforce and lower cost raw materials.
Economics 101: Without private sector jobs the standard of living in California will continue to fall as more and more companies leave. Excessive taxes and regulation accelerate that process. Why would we allow our government to turn a recession into a depression.
But getting to the bottom line your argument takes us to where all of your arguments take us. That everything is wrong with the world but cheer up - there is no hope and we should all just hole up in bunkers. That there is no fixing any problem because it's all going to hell anyway and it's better to just let things continue to fall apart. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here".
Your new sig line... “Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate“ 
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- | |
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to ghostpainter
For what its worth:
said by Marketwatch.com :
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Wells Fargo & Co. said Thursday it will accept (IOU's, AKA scrip) warrants issued by the state of California from its customers for a limited time starting July 2 to July 10.
said by Reuters :
Bank of America said it will accept the warrants from its customers, at least through July 10.
Notice how this is worded? "...it's customers".
With this commitment, the state should print up $24B in IOU's, run down to both of these banks, cash them in, balance the budget with the cash, refuse to honor the IOU's in October citing predatory lending practices (The banks are acting like "payday lenders"), and demand a modification plan. | |
CurtesyFlush
Bababooey, fafafooey, tatatoothy.
Premium
join:2002-08-23
Fontana, CA
| said by dogma :Notice how this is worded? "...it's customers". Well, it wasn't worded exactly like that...
--
My dog walks on water. | |
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to dogma
Here is problem With July 10 date. State will send some but not all of the checks that were printed tomorrow but a result of holiday, post office will likely not deliver the check till 7 or 8. The rest likely will not get their check till after July 10 deadline. So basically boa/wells fargo are not going to be getting that many IOU
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet | |
-
|
