Prop 30: Southern California vs Texas

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on November 22, 2012 - 11:39pm

Following the passage of Prop 30 and to a lesser extent Prop 32, I'm convinced that life in California for producers/private sector workers is going to become increasingly difficult...and expensive.

By far the prime benefactors of Prop 30 are public employee/millionaires, and it's clear that public employees/unions absolutely control nearly every facet of California.

I guess California is finally governable - in the tradition of socialism.

Prop 30 was just the beginning now that the public employee unions own the majority assembly, not to mention the public employee unions raised the scare tactics to an art form.

Let's boil down Prop 30:

No Vote: Make cuts and live within our means

Yes Vote: Let's take money from hard working people and get them to pay for what we want.

What happened to the lotto money?

Nevermind, I think it's time for a Plan B: Move to Texas. And here's why:

TX vs CA

*Lower median home: $148,000 vs. $297,000

*Lower income tax rate: 0% vs. 9.3% avg.

*Lower jobless rate: 7% vs. 11%

*Less Regulations and government/More Freedom

*Cost of living in California is 42 percent higher than it is in Texas.

*The Government serves the Public in Texas, in California the Public Serves the Government. Texas keeps it's gov't small.

*In California, there are 252 non-education government employees per 10,000 citizens. In Texas, that number is 22 percent lower: 196 per 10,000 citizens

*Tax burden: In California, it is $11,302 per person; in Texas, it is $7,756 per person (the national average is about $9,450). 32% less.

*The Texas Legislature only convenes once every 2 years.

*California gov't workers are the highest paid in the country.

*Texas was recently ranked #1 for business, California was dead last at #50

*So, a better way to compare public-sector spending is to look at what proportion of the states’ economies are spent on state and local government. Across America, spending on local and state governments made up 19.8 percent of the average state’s economy in 2008. California spent 22.5 percent, compared with Texas’s 15.4 percent. Simply put, Californians spend 46 percent more of their income on their government than do Texans.

Last month, Texas added 27,900 jobs. The official unemployment rate is 7.1 percent in Texas, compared with 8.3 percent nationally. California added 4,000 jobs and has an official unemployment rate of 10.9 percent.

California’s model of government-led prosperity, aided by the nation’s best weather, appears to be in serious jeopardy. Texas’s model of freeing jobs creators to do what they do best through low taxes, less regulation, and a better lawsuit climate is looking stronger by the month. [National Review]

Submitted by spdrun on November 23, 2012 - 12:10am.

What about one of the non-Mass. New England states? Generally educated/civilized population, strong tradition of good/locally-based governance, beautiful towns and landscape, NH and VT both have unemployment rates lower than TX.

Also, look at TOTAL tax burden, not just income tax. Property taxes in TX are often much higher than CA.

Submitted by AN on November 23, 2012 - 12:28am.

spdrun wrote:
Also, look at TOTAL tax burden, not just income tax. Property taxes in TX are often much higher than CA.
Percentage wise, yes. But $ wise, not really. You have to account for the fact that housing is A LOT cheaper.

paramount, you're not the only one. I know a couple of people who are currently pondering/looking into the possibility of moving to TX after the election.

Submitted by CA renter on November 23, 2012 - 1:03am.

Paramount,

The primary beneficiaries of Prop 30 are the capitalist parasites who don't pay market rate property taxes, particularly the commercial/industrial RE owners and landlords whose profits are all heavily subsidized by taxpayers, including those dreaded public sector workers who pay every bit as much in taxes as you do, and probably more if you're not a W-2 worker.

Time to fix Prop 13 and make it applicable to a single primary residence ONLY. Our state's budget problems have nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with Prop 13. Do some research, paramount, and stop regurgitating the propaganda from Fox News.

BTW, you still didn't answer my question in the other thread: are you one of those people who constantly votes for bonds without ever thinking about where the money is supposed to come from to pay them off?

There are many reasons for our financial mess, but unions are NOT the ones who bear primary responsibility.

Submitted by paramount on November 23, 2012 - 1:26am.

CA renter wrote:

BTW, you still didn't answer my question in the other thread: are you one of those people who constantly votes for bonds without ever thinking about where the money is supposed to come from to pay them off?

If I understand your question, I campaigned strongly against Measure Y, which was a "bond measure" in the Temecula school district.

This recent election was a real wake up call in so many ways, and BTW I am not a republican at all.

Submitted by paramount on November 23, 2012 - 1:58am.

By the way, you have to respect a state that tried to pass a TSA anti-groping law.

Submitted by EconProf on November 23, 2012 - 10:38am.

U haul truck prices are based on supply and demand.
It costs 983 to take a truck from San Antonio to San Francisco, and 1693 to go the other direction.

Submitted by patb on November 23, 2012 - 10:47am.

Ever spend teh summer in Texas?

WIth Global warming cutting in Texas may become uninhabitable.

Submitted by moneymaker on November 23, 2012 - 11:39am.

East Texas around Lufkin/Nacodogches is greener,has better hunting and far enough away from Houston to be bearable. I've never lived there but my mom and her brother own property there, which is now paying for itself many times over with gas royalties.

Submitted by paramount on November 23, 2012 - 2:10pm.

spdrun wrote:
What about one of the non-Mass. New England states? Generally educated/civilized population, strong tradition of good/locally-based governance, beautiful towns and landscape, NH and VT both have unemployment rates lower than TX.

Also, look at TOTAL tax burden, not just income tax. Property taxes in TX are often much higher than CA.

New England is awesome, I have family there and have spent a lot of time in Boston and even Vermont.

Here's the thing: I want to be free, I want to live in Freedom.

That can't be done in any state that is controlled by public employee unions, with massive gov't regulation.

California and Vermont and New England in general are about the same in terms of the freedom deficit.

Now, I realize the federal government has rendered the constitution meaningless, so in a sense it doesn't matter where you go in the U.S., but at least Texas does assert it's independence.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on November 23, 2012 - 2:16pm.

EconProf wrote:
U haul truck prices are based on supply and demand.
It costs 983 to take a truck from San Antonio to San Francisco, and 1693 to go the other direction.

LOL! Excellent analysis. Goes to show big matters can be proved in simple terms.

I once investigate the same thing only it was sending a 44,000 Kg shipping containner to China. It was only 550 bucks to go to China but coming the other direction was entirely different.

CE

Submitted by EconProf on November 23, 2012 - 3:07pm.

And your point is...

Submitted by EconProf on November 23, 2012 - 3:11pm.

Whoops. Just retread your post. Didn't mean to sound snarky.

Submitted by EconProf on November 23, 2012 - 3:14pm.

Reread, not retread.
Too much turkey.
Zzzzzzzz...

Submitted by paramount on November 23, 2012 - 3:19pm.

George Carlin: You have no Rights!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgj4ARfAq...

Submitted by spdrun on November 23, 2012 - 3:50pm.

California and Vermont and New England in general are about the same in terms of the freedom deficit.

You'd of course be very wrong. New Hampshire (and to some extent Vermont) have tended to be very libertarian. Oh right, and VT has a less restrictive pistol carry law than TX if you're into that sort of thing. Not to mention not being controlled by the pseudo-Christian right, so they're more socially libertarian than Texas. Gay marriage is legal, etc/so forth.

The difference is that, being reserved New Englanders, they tend not to flaunt their "libertarianism" in people's faces, just practice it quietly.

Submitted by 5yes on November 23, 2012 - 6:00pm.

Our house in Temecula is rented and we are spending some time in Texas for the holidays. Life would be so much cheaper here, houses cost less, jobs are easier to find, people smile and are generally very nice, and yet... I can't exactly say what it is, but I don't like it here. I miss the ruggedness of mountains and cold ocean, I feel that people are more segregated than I am used to at my local grocery store and on my street, and I worry that I will get into regular political fights with the nice conservative folks here. Plus I agree that with global warming this may not be a good area to settle in and raise my family. Has anyone moved to Texas and felt that it was a good move?

Submitted by CA renter on November 23, 2012 - 6:17pm.

paramount wrote:
CA renter wrote:

BTW, you still didn't answer my question in the other thread: are you one of those people who constantly votes for bonds without ever thinking about where the money is supposed to come from to pay them off?

If I understand your question, I campaigned strongly against Measure Y, which was a "bond measure" in the Temecula school district.

This recent election was a real wake up call in so many ways, and BTW I am not a republican at all.

Not just bond measures for schools, but for multiple other uses like transportation, parks, etc. People like myself, who don't have kids in public schools, have to pay for those whose children attend public schools.

Everybody likes to complain about paying for someone else's benefit, but we ALL have to do this in a civilized, democratic society. Nobody is exempt. I just find it funny that, all too often, the ones who complain the loudest are usually some of the biggest beneficiaries of public funding and are also those who are already paying some of the lowest effective tax rates.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on November 23, 2012 - 6:56pm.

EconProf wrote:
Reread, not retread.
Too much turkey.
Zzzzzzzz...

LOL! You're cracking me up Econ. :p

No need to apologize!

I was just agreeing that looking at simple things like what it cost to ship something in one direction versus the other can show true supply / demand of the destinations under study.

I also use to have a friend that said that you could deduce the true cost of living in a city by only looking a the cost of a jug of milk.

Twinkie defense... Turkey defense... Pretty much the same effect...

CE

Submitted by paramount on November 24, 2012 - 12:37am.

5yes wrote:
I feel that people are more segregated than I am used to at my local grocery store and on my street,

The method/tool of segregation in California is called gentrification.

Submitted by spdrun on November 24, 2012 - 2:47pm.

For what it's worth, San Diego area feels more segregated than many East Coast cities. In a town where more people drive, there are simply fewer opportunities for contact between different "classes."

Submitted by gzz on November 24, 2012 - 3:40pm.

I totally agree with CA renter, no reason to give commercial property the same low rate as residential. Even better most of this commercial property is owned by people out of state or out of country.

From the stats in the OP, CA taxes per person are only a little higher than Texas. We should do a better job if taxing large out of state corps and cutting the state personal income tax. 12% is just crazy. I pay over 50% marginal rate on much of my income being self employed.

Submitted by spdrun on November 24, 2012 - 3:49pm.

Why not just do a better job of taxing income of foreign and out-of-state entities? Real-estate tax on either commercial or residential properties is essentially a regressive tax.

Submitted by cvmom on November 24, 2012 - 3:51pm.

CDMA ENG wrote:
I also use to have a friend that said that you could deduce the true cost of living in a city by only looking a the cost of a jug of milk.

Reminds me of the Big Mac index that the Economist uses to compare cost-of-living.

Submitted by barnaby33 on November 24, 2012 - 5:22pm.

Seems to me everyone argues the taxes they pay are regressive. CARenter, we seem to have entered a phase of civil discourse where everyone is a victim. Somehow it strikes me as a symptom of something deeper.

As to moving to Texas for fucks sake stop talking about it and do it. Obviously not enough of ya'all are actually doing it, because housing here is still ridiculous.
Josh

Submitted by paramount on November 25, 2012 - 12:41am.

barnaby33 wrote:
Seems to me everyone argues the taxes they pay are regressive. CARenter, we seem to have entered a phase of civil discourse where everyone is a victim. Somehow it strikes me as a symptom of something deeper.

As to moving to Texas for fucks sake stop talking about it and do it. Obviously not enough of ya'all are actually doing it, because housing here is still ridiculous.
Josh

If you're not a local or state govt worker and lucky enough to work, you probably are their victim.

Submitted by CA renter on November 25, 2012 - 3:26pm.

Once again, Paramount, do your research and find out what's **really** behind our state's budget crisis. The public pensions comprise ~3-5% of our state's budget. Unions and government workers did NOT cause the financial crisis. The crisis that caused our problems on a global, national, state, or local level had nothing at all to do with unions. Get your fact straight before spewing your nonsense. You don't like unions or government workers (even though your paycheck comes from taxpayers as a govt contract worker); we get it.

Submitted by desmond on November 26, 2012 - 8:18am.

Just got back from a road trip to Houston to deliver some furniture, etc. to my two kids living there. (btw, u-haul is $1600 to Houston but I went with Penske, 16' for $983). Both are doing well (son was salesman of the 3rd and maybe 4th quarter for his company)daughter also working and dating $$$ texas boy. Anyway, much better quality of life for them out there. Gas was $2.97/gal, rent cheaper, better roads, rest stops, etc. Getting started is crucial in life, saving money and getting ahead for them far outway any petty weather or other concerns. The writing is on the wall here in CA and now has turned to permanent paint.

Submitted by bearishgurl on November 26, 2012 - 11:26am.

desmond wrote:
Just got back from a road trip to Houston to deliver some furniture, etc. to my two kids living there. (btw, u-haul is $1600 to Houston but I went with Penske, 16' for $983). Both are doing well (son was salesman of the 3rd and maybe 4th quarter for his company)daughter also working and dating $$$ texas boy. Anyway, much better quality of life for them out there. Gas was $2.97/gal, rent cheaper, better roads, rest stops, etc. Getting started is crucial in life, saving money and getting ahead for them far outway any petty weather or other concerns. The writing is on the wall here in CA and now has turned to permanent paint.

I couldn't agree more, desmond. A former CA resident who is a college graduate can always return to Cali if they wish to accept a job there.

I've been trying to interest my youngest to attend college out of state in any of three "flyover" states where they are either eligible for in-state tuition or nearly a "full-ride" scholarship for all four years. In those colleges, lower-level (GE) classes are actually taught by FULL PROFESSORS (avg 25-30 yrs tenure) and the class sizes are 19-35 students (avg 23 students) as opposed to 514 students in Cali taught by an "underpaid" grad student and where the student is just a "number" getting lost in the shuffle. In addition, the student in these OOS schools gets an academic advisor chained to their ankle (who calls them periodically) so they don't make any (expensive) class-selection mistakes and are able to graduate in four years. Free tutoring in all subjects is also available in two of the schools.

And best of all, students actually graduate in four years!

In one of the colleges, my kid can qualify for a 2br on-campus apt (sm LR/KIT and one bath) with only ONE roommate. Cost to me? $181.50 per mo (incl all utils, cable and wireless internet).

fwiw, I just saw on the UCLA website last month that for the Fall 2012 semester, just 19% of the freshmen they admitted were actually in-state residents. 34% were foreign students and the rest were from out of state.

I would surmise the percentages are similar for UCB, UCSB, UCD, UCSD, etc.

So much for CA's "flagship schools" (that its "resident" taxpayers are supporting) offering priority admission to its in-state HS grads over outsiders.

I think CA's public universities have a "duty" to educate "qualified" CA residents first over other applicants. Other states surely do. But it looks like those days are gone forever. Why is this so? It's simple .... $$$$$ :=0

Submitted by Diego Mamani on November 26, 2012 - 11:30am.

desmond wrote:
Just got back from a road trip to Houston to deliver some furniture, etc. to my two kids living there.
Thanks for sharing Desmond! Were your kids born and raised in So. Cal.? Weather is not a petty concern for me, but hey, I'm a chicken when it comes to extreme temps.

Submitted by Diego Mamani on November 26, 2012 - 11:33am.

bearishgurl wrote:
I've been trying to interest my youngest to attend college out of state in any of three "flyover" states where they are either eligible for in-state tuition or nearly a "full-ride" scholarship for all four years.
BG, it looks like you've done your homework. Would you mind sharing a few school names that you particularly like?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.