6 ms·

Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in?

by mejari 10y ago

msandford 10y ago
I'm not sure about that. But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs. There's no telling what could get passed. But seeing the basic income debates rage here on HN it doesn't seem implausible that a huge BI experiment might take place. That could easily cost double the programs it's ostensibly replacing and or augmenting.
- mejari 10y ago
  >But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs There's nothing standing in the way of that now. Colorado just had the opportunity to vote in a single-payer healthcare system. You're saying "what if a government spent more than they had", but that's hardly unique to a seceded California. I don't see how it's at all relevant.
  - msandford 10y ago
    A state having the option to design new programs from the ground up, while simultaneously also needing to implement something to replace federal programs is literally unprecedented in the US. Yes of course the programs could end up being very stingy. I strongly suspect (though I can't prove) that a politically progressive CA would end up passing some politically progressive social programs. Would there be an obstructionist state legislature that actually managed to oppose effectively? Maybe, I don't know. I don't live in CA. My suspicion is no, however.
    - mejari 10y ago
      But that still isn't any different, fundamentally. Any state could come up with such programs now. This dynamic of legislature vs governed liberal populace vs fiscal responsibility exists now, so I don't get your point about how it would somehow be a deathknell for the finances of such a seceded state but not the one still in the union.
      - msandford 10y ago
        Because when there are federal programs in place there is much less pressure to do something, anything to fix the problems. Obviously anything is possible and restraint could win the day also. I won't deny that such an outcome is possible. But is it likely?
wang_li 10y ago
>Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in? California is not a net payer. According to wikipedia (and I realize these are from two different years, but they're the easiest numbers to find), California pays $7,690.66[1] in taxes on a per capita basis and receives $8,967[2] in federal spending on a per capita basis. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#F... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state#Per_capita_federal_spending.2C_by_state.2C_federal_fiscal_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_...

Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in?

by mejari 10y ago

Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in?

I'm not sure about that. But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs. There's no telling what could get passed. But seeing the basic income debates rage here on HN it doesn't seem implausible that a huge BI experiment might take place. That could easily cost double the programs it's ostensibly replacing and or augmenting.

mejari 10y ago
>But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs There's nothing standing in the way of that now. Colorado just had the opportunity to vote in a single-payer healthcare system. You're saying "what if a government spent more than they had", but that's hardly unique to a seceded California. I don't see how it's at all relevant.
- msandford 10y ago
  A state having the option to design new programs from the ground up, while simultaneously also needing to implement something to replace federal programs is literally unprecedented in the US. Yes of course the programs could end up being very stingy. I strongly suspect (though I can't prove) that a politically progressive CA would end up passing some politically progressive social programs. Would there be an obstructionist state legislature that actually managed to oppose effectively? Maybe, I don't know. I don't live in CA. My suspicion is no, however.
  - mejari 10y ago
    But that still isn't any different, fundamentally. Any state could come up with such programs now. This dynamic of legislature vs governed liberal populace vs fiscal responsibility exists now, so I don't get your point about how it would somehow be a deathknell for the finances of such a seceded state but not the one still in the union.
    - msandford 10y ago
      Because when there are federal programs in place there is much less pressure to do something, anything to fix the problems. Obviously anything is possible and restraint could win the day also. I won't deny that such an outcome is possible. But is it likely?

wang_li 10y ago

>Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in? California is not a net payer. According to wikipedia (and I realize these are from two different years, but they're the easiest numbers to find), California pays $7,690.66[1] in taxes on a per capita basis and receives $8,967[2] in federal spending on a per capita basis. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#F... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state#Per_capita_federal_spending.2C_by_state.2C_federal_fiscal_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_...