Just sold my last CA property

[bob2007]

If I read EconProf’s original post and intent correctly, I think he has the right idea (sorry if I am missing your point).

CA needs to run completely out of money and break the pension funds and unions before it can recover. Most companies (other than local services) are trying to find ways to move revenue generation out of CA, so that the inevitable tax increase will not destroy them. The best scenario is to find a way to live here and not pay huge taxes to CA.

Once the revenue generators are gone and not paying taxes, the only people left will be gov’t employees who pay tax on what the gov’t pays them. That will be the death spiral. Hope it happens as soon as possible. No ex city employee is worth $100k * 20 years = $2M, and many are higher than that.

To avoid any political slant I will point out that I am an Independent, and really don’t like either party. This is strictly an economic issue.

[paramount]

[quote=bob2007]If I read EconProf’s original post and intent correctly, I think he has the right idea (sorry if I am missing your point).

CA needs to run completely out of money and break the pension funds and unions before it can recover. Most companies (other than local services) are trying to find ways to move revenue generation out of CA, so that the inevitable tax increase will not destroy them. The best scenario is to find a way to live here and not pay huge taxes to CA.

Once the revenue generators are gone and not paying taxes, the only people left will be gov’t employees who pay tax on what the gov’t pays them. That will be the death spiral. Hope it happens as soon as possible. No ex city employee is worth $100k * 20 years = $2M, and many are higher than that.

To avoid any political slant I will point out that I am an Independent, and really don’t like either party. This is strictly an economic issue.[/quote]

This is exactly the message we need to broadcast.

[paramount]

[quote=bob2007]If I read EconProf’s original post and intent correctly, I think he has the right idea (sorry if I am missing your point).

CA needs to run completely out of money and break the pension funds and unions before it can recover. Most companies (other than local services) are trying to find ways to move revenue generation out of CA, so that the inevitable tax increase will not destroy them. The best scenario is to find a way to live here and not pay huge taxes to CA.

Once the revenue generators are gone and not paying taxes, the only people left will be gov’t employees who pay tax on what the gov’t pays them. That will be the death spiral. Hope it happens as soon as possible. No ex city employee is worth $100k * 20 years = $2M, and many are higher than that.

To avoid any political slant I will point out that I am an Independent, and really don’t like either party. This is strictly an economic issue.[/quote]

This is exactly the message we need to broadcast.

[paramount]

[quote=bob2007]If I read EconProf’s original post and intent correctly, I think he has the right idea (sorry if I am missing your point).

CA needs to run completely out of money and break the pension funds and unions before it can recover. Most companies (other than local services) are trying to find ways to move revenue generation out of CA, so that the inevitable tax increase will not destroy them. The best scenario is to find a way to live here and not pay huge taxes to CA.

Once the revenue generators are gone and not paying taxes, the only people left will be gov’t employees who pay tax on what the gov’t pays them. That will be the death spiral. Hope it happens as soon as possible. No ex city employee is worth $100k * 20 years = $2M, and many are higher than that.

To avoid any political slant I will point out that I am an Independent, and really don’t like either party. This is strictly an economic issue.[/quote]

This is exactly the message we need to broadcast.

[paramount]

[quote=bob2007]If I read EconProf’s original post and intent correctly, I think he has the right idea (sorry if I am missing your point).

CA needs to run completely out of money and break the pension funds and unions before it can recover. Most companies (other than local services) are trying to find ways to move revenue generation out of CA, so that the inevitable tax increase will not destroy them. The best scenario is to find a way to live here and not pay huge taxes to CA.

Once the revenue generators are gone and not paying taxes, the only people left will be gov’t employees who pay tax on what the gov’t pays them. That will be the death spiral. Hope it happens as soon as possible. No ex city employee is worth $100k * 20 years = $2M, and many are higher than that.

To avoid any political slant I will point out that I am an Independent, and really don’t like either party. This is strictly an economic issue.[/quote]

This is exactly the message we need to broadcast.

[paramount]

[quote=bob2007]If I read EconProf’s original post and intent correctly, I think he has the right idea (sorry if I am missing your point).

CA needs to run completely out of money and break the pension funds and unions before it can recover. Most companies (other than local services) are trying to find ways to move revenue generation out of CA, so that the inevitable tax increase will not destroy them. The best scenario is to find a way to live here and not pay huge taxes to CA.

Once the revenue generators are gone and not paying taxes, the only people left will be gov’t employees who pay tax on what the gov’t pays them. That will be the death spiral. Hope it happens as soon as possible. No ex city employee is worth $100k * 20 years = $2M, and many are higher than that.

To avoid any political slant I will point out that I am an Independent, and really don’t like either party. This is strictly an economic issue.[/quote]

This is exactly the message we need to broadcast.

[EconProf]

Thanks for all the feedback.
My basic philosophy is to invest according to long term secular trends, especially demographic and political, and following from them, the economic health of a city or state. Looking back, we can all see that Michigan’s decline, along with other union-dominated neighboring cities in the midwest became inevitable with the predictable rise of foreign competition. The high-tax, high regulation states in the northeast are now losing population and businesses to the south and southeast.
If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.
While AZ, like CA, NV, and FL was not a great choice for my investments because it had an even worse housing bubble than CA, it has the ingredients to come back, as will NV and Fl. CA will not, because of its entrenched liabilities and decline relative to the neighboring states.

[EconProf]

Thanks for all the feedback.
My basic philosophy is to invest according to long term secular trends, especially demographic and political, and following from them, the economic health of a city or state. Looking back, we can all see that Michigan’s decline, along with other union-dominated neighboring cities in the midwest became inevitable with the predictable rise of foreign competition. The high-tax, high regulation states in the northeast are now losing population and businesses to the south and southeast.
If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.
While AZ, like CA, NV, and FL was not a great choice for my investments because it had an even worse housing bubble than CA, it has the ingredients to come back, as will NV and Fl. CA will not, because of its entrenched liabilities and decline relative to the neighboring states.

[EconProf]

Thanks for all the feedback.
My basic philosophy is to invest according to long term secular trends, especially demographic and political, and following from them, the economic health of a city or state. Looking back, we can all see that Michigan’s decline, along with other union-dominated neighboring cities in the midwest became inevitable with the predictable rise of foreign competition. The high-tax, high regulation states in the northeast are now losing population and businesses to the south and southeast.
If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.
While AZ, like CA, NV, and FL was not a great choice for my investments because it had an even worse housing bubble than CA, it has the ingredients to come back, as will NV and Fl. CA will not, because of its entrenched liabilities and decline relative to the neighboring states.

[EconProf]

Thanks for all the feedback.
My basic philosophy is to invest according to long term secular trends, especially demographic and political, and following from them, the economic health of a city or state. Looking back, we can all see that Michigan’s decline, along with other union-dominated neighboring cities in the midwest became inevitable with the predictable rise of foreign competition. The high-tax, high regulation states in the northeast are now losing population and businesses to the south and southeast.
If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.
While AZ, like CA, NV, and FL was not a great choice for my investments because it had an even worse housing bubble than CA, it has the ingredients to come back, as will NV and Fl. CA will not, because of its entrenched liabilities and decline relative to the neighboring states.

[EconProf]

Thanks for all the feedback.
My basic philosophy is to invest according to long term secular trends, especially demographic and political, and following from them, the economic health of a city or state. Looking back, we can all see that Michigan’s decline, along with other union-dominated neighboring cities in the midwest became inevitable with the predictable rise of foreign competition. The high-tax, high regulation states in the northeast are now losing population and businesses to the south and southeast.
If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.
While AZ, like CA, NV, and FL was not a great choice for my investments because it had an even worse housing bubble than CA, it has the ingredients to come back, as will NV and Fl. CA will not, because of its entrenched liabilities and decline relative to the neighboring states.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]

We already spend way too much on health care. We spend about twice as much as most other developed economies with longer life expectancies than us. What we need most out of health care is dramatically lower spending, not more.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Our economy spends twice as much on health care than other developed economies.

It isn’t the case for the government.

What I’m suggesting is to use the government (through legislation or direct intervention) to help reallocate and LOWER total spending on health care.

Some people will have their benefits restricted and taxed, perhaps rationed. But that will be to our common advantage.

Sure, at first, the health care bill will increase expenses. But over the long run, if we can bring health care cost spending down to the same level of GDP as France or Canada, then I’ll be perfectly happy with socialized medicine. Our economy will be better off and our companies won’t be burdened with the high cost of health care.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]

We already spend way too much on health care. We spend about twice as much as most other developed economies with longer life expectancies than us. What we need most out of health care is dramatically lower spending, not more.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Our economy spends twice as much on health care than other developed economies.

It isn’t the case for the government.

What I’m suggesting is to use the government (through legislation or direct intervention) to help reallocate and LOWER total spending on health care.

Some people will have their benefits restricted and taxed, perhaps rationed. But that will be to our common advantage.

Sure, at first, the health care bill will increase expenses. But over the long run, if we can bring health care cost spending down to the same level of GDP as France or Canada, then I’ll be perfectly happy with socialized medicine. Our economy will be better off and our companies won’t be burdened with the high cost of health care.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]

We already spend way too much on health care. We spend about twice as much as most other developed economies with longer life expectancies than us. What we need most out of health care is dramatically lower spending, not more.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Our economy spends twice as much on health care than other developed economies.

It isn’t the case for the government.

What I’m suggesting is to use the government (through legislation or direct intervention) to help reallocate and LOWER total spending on health care.

Some people will have their benefits restricted and taxed, perhaps rationed. But that will be to our common advantage.

Sure, at first, the health care bill will increase expenses. But over the long run, if we can bring health care cost spending down to the same level of GDP as France or Canada, then I’ll be perfectly happy with socialized medicine. Our economy will be better off and our companies won’t be burdened with the high cost of health care.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]

We already spend way too much on health care. We spend about twice as much as most other developed economies with longer life expectancies than us. What we need most out of health care is dramatically lower spending, not more.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Our economy spends twice as much on health care than other developed economies.

It isn’t the case for the government.

What I’m suggesting is to use the government (through legislation or direct intervention) to help reallocate and LOWER total spending on health care.

Some people will have their benefits restricted and taxed, perhaps rationed. But that will be to our common advantage.

Sure, at first, the health care bill will increase expenses. But over the long run, if we can bring health care cost spending down to the same level of GDP as France or Canada, then I’ll be perfectly happy with socialized medicine. Our economy will be better off and our companies won’t be burdened with the high cost of health care.

[Author]

Posts