said by jig :

1) you've eliminated the dole, so that benefit is out. more people paying taxes is fine, but they're just paying their own share for schools and living etc, what about the employer who has access to all these employees? not only do they have to pay for themselves, but they have to pay a little for that access to the benefits their employees and clients get from the state.

3) low tax rates are one way, and a good living environment is another. businesses seem unable to regulate themselves,

so i'm not crying for them when they feel restricted in how they can rape the system.

the current mortgage securities crap to make that point? it's staring us in the face - businesses need to be regulated or they screw everyone over, including themselves.

said by ghostpainter :

ear mussels

said by sholling :

The people of the State of California benefit most by encouraging the growth of private business and the accumulation of wealth.

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.

said by dogma :

Notice how this is worded? "...it's customers".

said by dogma :

You know how much I despise broadcast TeeeVeee.

many folks think I am the nutjob.

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.

said by sholling :

A perfect storm of corruption and ignorance.

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.

said by jig :

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/

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.

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.

said by jig :

it's not a matter of special, it's a matter of how much, and the derived benefits therefrom.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

said by jig :

3) the state earned a portion of your paycheck, so it belongs to them - we're just haggling over details.

4) i think talking about geese and golden eggs is silly.

said by SOLdesign :

Did I miss it or did the article mention SDI (disability)? Wells Fargo is my bank, so I guess I can finally move my account if they won't accept the IOU. Any suggestions for a bank?

said by nirvansk815 :

Is your argument completely subjective?

said by sholling :

The LA Times is a socialist rag - period. Nobody takes their opinions seriously anymore.

The fallacy in your theory is that you see all money as belonging to the government, and anything that they let us keep as "spending". Money belongs to those who earn it, and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is silly.

said by sholling :

»www.davemanuel.com/2009/04/18/ca···n-march/

quote:

---

It should be noted that the 11.2% unemployment rate that was posted in March is the U-3 rate - some have publicly stated that they believe that the U-6 unemployment rate is approaching the 20% mark in the state. The U-6 rate is a broader measure of unemployment, and includes people who want full-time work but have given up the search, as well as people who want full-time work but are forced to accept part-time jobs due to "economic" reasons.

---

said by sholling :

Yes. They certainly couldn't do a worse job.

said by No_Strings :

No, just the only one with a sig that hums Katrina and the Waves who can't stand the pseudo-happiness.

said by nirvansk815 :

Am I the only one who can't stand the pseudo happiness in the line?

said by CurtesyFlush :

Why can't you understand the workers?

said by sholling :

Yes. They certainly couldn't do a worse job. Include a service level agreement in the contract, and in the case of DMV put the offices out to 2 vendors. Let people pick. Competition will force good service.

said by No_Strings :

BTW, outsourcing the DMV surely couldn't make it worse, could it?

said by dogma :

But wouldn't it be easier to simply have an automatic, iron-clad, "pay as you go" system written into the state constitution?

said by dogma :

Do you really want a lowest bidder run DMV, or transit system?

This is a difficult trick. But wouldn't it be easier to simply have an automatic, iron-clad, "pay as you go" system written into the state constitution?

said by sholling :

The LA Times is a socialist rag - period. Nobody takes their opinions seriously anymore.

The fallacy in your theory is that you see all money as belonging to the government, and anything that they let us keep as "spending".

said by sholling :

(youtube clip)

said by sholling :

No those that live off the taxpayers want those things. Those that work their asses off in the private sector want spending cuts and more bang for our hard earned tax dollars.

said by ghostpainter :

Somehow I dont think that my retirement payment equals that much against what I earned.

said by TearAbite :

Everybody wants everything (healthcare for all the illegals, smaller classroom sizes, more teachers, higher pay, open border, etc), yet nobody wants to pay..
What could possibly go wrong?