5 ms·

City Journal is a quarterly magazine, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a free market think tank based out of New York City

by whyenot 16y ago

City Journal is a quarterly magazine, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a free market think tank based out of New York City. This is not an impartial source when it comes to California's problems, not that they are wrong, unions are part of the problem, but there's also the 2/3 rule for raising taxes, corrupt and ineffective politicians who have constructed non-competitive districts for themselves, the initiative system and ultimately California voters who apparently don't give a rats ass about anything unless it is approving more services and lower taxes for themselves.

lionhearted 16y ago
> VOTERS who apparently don't give a rats ass about anything unless it is approving more services and lower taxes for themselves. California has the highest state taxes in almost every tax category, from personal income, to corporate income, to minimum corporate tax ($800 corporate taxes payable if you broke even or lost money, ouch), highest vehicle registration costs, vehicle re-sale taxes, high sales tax, high hotel taxes, etc, etc. It doesn't matter how much money you bring in if you consistently spend more than it.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  That, to me, is the real point here. You could not imagine a state or country with more going for it. Farming, the technological and entertainment hubs of the world along with a climate that produces idealic beaches, snow covered mountains and an ideal enviornment for theme parks (little rain combined with mild temp). California should be studied as what not to do because the fact that it has become so screwed up is almost beyond belief Edit: I forgot shipping. One whole side of the state is along the pacific and we're the closest landlocked state to Asia where all the cheap goods are made
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    landlocked?
    - lazugod 16y ago
      Alaska and Hawaii are closer, but don't share a border with any other states. California does: thus, it's considered landlocked.
      - Charuru 16y ago
        That's not what landlocked means, landlocked means not having a sea coast. Arizona would be landlocked for example.
        lazugod 16y ago
        Ah, that makes more sense. The OP is incorrect, then.
  - rdl 16y ago
    I'm expanding a startup in Texas or Washington State due to not just the high costs of California, but the uncertainty -- the state is basically bankrupt, as are many local municipalities, and it's really unclear what changes will happen as a result. WA's government is better, but not vastly; TX seems like the most solvent state with a viable startup nexus (I don't see Alaska becoming a startup center unless global warming vastly improves things :).
    - protomyth 16y ago
      North Dakota has a budget surplus, but is not going to be a startup culture anytime soon. Although a lot of towns have fiber to the home.
- _delirium 16y ago
  At least as far as the taxes individuals pay (adding all the various kinds together), the anti-tax Tax Foundation seems to think that CA's taxes are a bit above average, but not hugely so: Californians pay 10.5% of their income as state and local taxes, versus a national average of 9.7%. Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html
- whyenot 16y ago
  Overall, on a per capita basis, the state is ranked as having the 6th highest tax rate in the nation by the Tax Foundation (10.5%) [1]. Most California voters apparently want it both ways: spend a lot on services, public employees, prisons and the rest without raising enough money to pay for them. Almost nobody seems to care that this is completely unsustainable. Oh, and our next governor? Yeah, it either Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, who already proved how ineffectual he is a governor, not to mention as mayor of Oakland, which has now gone completely to crap, or Meg Whitman who may have her heart in the right place but seems completely unprepared. Sorry, as someone who has lived my entire life in California, I find this situation extremely frustrating. [1] http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html
jacoblyles 16y ago
Could you point out where they are factually wrong? I don't want to be misled into believing false information. Thanks. Or, if they are not factually wrong but misleading and biased in their presentation, could you point to an alternative analysis that shows California's union obligations to be reasonable?
- bandushrew 16y ago
  I dont have time to go into every point they mention on your behalf, but it is easy to get a little perspective: http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html "Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194." 55000/year average for the people teaching children doesn't seem the slightest bit unreasonable to me given the amount of work they are required to do. The statement 'highest salaries in the country' makes things sound awful, into you take into account that many teachers in many places are (IMO) woefully under paid. The same applies in most of the other industries. Do some research and try to get some perspective on the problem - there are some big problems in california but laying them all at the feet of the unions is just ridiculous and lacks a true sense of perspective.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - bandushrew 16y ago
      "however, they do get 3 months vacation every year, on top of holidays, so what an experienced teacher gets is a pretty nice hourly wage." which is unavoidable, simply because we want them to be available again the following year. The alternative is to underpay them, and thereby force them to find other work during those 3 months and thus ensuring that: (a) they dont get a holiday - which will have a negative impact on their performance and (b) that any other job that does pay them a living wage for the whole year looks attractive to them - which will ensure that we have a high turnover, and have a negative impact on the education system as a whole. Also, my understand is that there frequently is work or various kinds that needs to be done during the summer months, so its not exactly a holiday for them. "If you want better people, yes, you need to pay more, but you must also be more selective. If you just pay more without being selective you will get more applicants, sure, but you will get a lot of mediocre and no-so-good applicants, as well." yes...? Im not sure how this is different from any other job? employers do need to be selective, that is true. "the problem is that teaching, right now, is 'employment of last resort' for many people. So you got yourself a liberal arts degree and have no marketable skills? go back to school for another year and you can become a teacher." right. assuming that this is true, the reason that it is 'employment of last resort' is because in many places the pay is barely adequate, and the working conditions are crap. if we offered a slightly more reasonable salary, and better working conditions we might find people are more enthusiastic about becoming teachers and see it more of a career than a stopgap. I would claim that an average salary of 55k/year is just barely enough to support a family on, the fact that in many other states the average teacher's salary is markedly lower is a bug, not a feature.
houseabsolute 16y ago
I don't see the 2/3rds rule for raising taxes as a problem, considering the per-person tax burden in California is higher than most other states in the country. The problem is not that the taxes are insufficient for reasonable purposes. The problem is that the purposes are unreasonable.
anamax 16y ago
> the initiative system Hasn't produced much in the way of spending as a fraction of CA govt expenditures. (High speed rail may.) Seriously - total up all the initiative driven spending and compare it to what CA spends. (And no, you don't get to count initiatives that the legislature put on the ballot.) Yes, there are billions of dollars of initiative-driven spending, but it's a cup or two in the bucket. The shift to bonds isn't the voters' idea either.

by whyenot 16y ago

lionhearted 16y ago

> VOTERS who apparently don't give a rats ass about anything unless it is approving more services and lower taxes for themselves. California has the highest state taxes in almost every tax category, from personal income, to corporate income, to minimum corporate tax ($800 corporate taxes payable if you broke even or lost money, ouch), highest vehicle registration costs, vehicle re-sale taxes, high sales tax, high hotel taxes, etc, etc. It doesn't matter how much money you bring in if you consistently spend more than it.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
That, to me, is the real point here. You could not imagine a state or country with more going for it. Farming, the technological and entertainment hubs of the world along with a climate that produces idealic beaches, snow covered mountains and an ideal enviornment for theme parks (little rain combined with mild temp). California should be studied as what not to do because the fact that it has become so screwed up is almost beyond belief Edit: I forgot shipping. One whole side of the state is along the pacific and we're the closest landlocked state to Asia where all the cheap goods are made
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  landlocked?
  - lazugod 16y ago
    Alaska and Hawaii are closer, but don't share a border with any other states. California does: thus, it's considered landlocked.
    - Charuru 16y ago
      That's not what landlocked means, landlocked means not having a sea coast. Arizona would be landlocked for example.
      - lazugod 16y ago
        Ah, that makes more sense. The OP is incorrect, then.
- rdl 16y ago
  I'm expanding a startup in Texas or Washington State due to not just the high costs of California, but the uncertainty -- the state is basically bankrupt, as are many local municipalities, and it's really unclear what changes will happen as a result. WA's government is better, but not vastly; TX seems like the most solvent state with a viable startup nexus (I don't see Alaska becoming a startup center unless global warming vastly improves things :).
  - protomyth 16y ago
    North Dakota has a budget surplus, but is not going to be a startup culture anytime soon. Although a lot of towns have fiber to the home.
_delirium 16y ago
At least as far as the taxes individuals pay (adding all the various kinds together), the anti-tax Tax Foundation seems to think that CA's taxes are a bit above average, but not hugely so: Californians pay 10.5% of their income as state and local taxes, versus a national average of 9.7%. Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html
whyenot 16y ago
Overall, on a per capita basis, the state is ranked as having the 6th highest tax rate in the nation by the Tax Foundation (10.5%) [1]. Most California voters apparently want it both ways: spend a lot on services, public employees, prisons and the rest without raising enough money to pay for them. Almost nobody seems to care that this is completely unsustainable. Oh, and our next governor? Yeah, it either Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, who already proved how ineffectual he is a governor, not to mention as mayor of Oakland, which has now gone completely to crap, or Meg Whitman who may have her heart in the right place but seems completely unprepared. Sorry, as someone who has lived my entire life in California, I find this situation extremely frustrating. [1] http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html

jacoblyles 16y ago

Could you point out where they are factually wrong? I don't want to be misled into believing false information. Thanks. Or, if they are not factually wrong but misleading and biased in their presentation, could you point to an alternative analysis that shows California's union obligations to be reasonable?

bandushrew 16y ago
I dont have time to go into every point they mention on your behalf, but it is easy to get a little perspective: http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html "Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194." 55000/year average for the people teaching children doesn't seem the slightest bit unreasonable to me given the amount of work they are required to do. The statement 'highest salaries in the country' makes things sound awful, into you take into account that many teachers in many places are (IMO) woefully under paid. The same applies in most of the other industries. Do some research and try to get some perspective on the problem - there are some big problems in california but laying them all at the feet of the unions is just ridiculous and lacks a true sense of perspective.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - bandushrew 16y ago
    "however, they do get 3 months vacation every year, on top of holidays, so what an experienced teacher gets is a pretty nice hourly wage." which is unavoidable, simply because we want them to be available again the following year. The alternative is to underpay them, and thereby force them to find other work during those 3 months and thus ensuring that: (a) they dont get a holiday - which will have a negative impact on their performance and (b) that any other job that does pay them a living wage for the whole year looks attractive to them - which will ensure that we have a high turnover, and have a negative impact on the education system as a whole. Also, my understand is that there frequently is work or various kinds that needs to be done during the summer months, so its not exactly a holiday for them. "If you want better people, yes, you need to pay more, but you must also be more selective. If you just pay more without being selective you will get more applicants, sure, but you will get a lot of mediocre and no-so-good applicants, as well." yes...? Im not sure how this is different from any other job? employers do need to be selective, that is true. "the problem is that teaching, right now, is 'employment of last resort' for many people. So you got yourself a liberal arts degree and have no marketable skills? go back to school for another year and you can become a teacher." right. assuming that this is true, the reason that it is 'employment of last resort' is because in many places the pay is barely adequate, and the working conditions are crap. if we offered a slightly more reasonable salary, and better working conditions we might find people are more enthusiastic about becoming teachers and see it more of a career than a stopgap. I would claim that an average salary of 55k/year is just barely enough to support a family on, the fact that in many other states the average teacher's salary is markedly lower is a bug, not a feature.

houseabsolute 16y ago

I don't see the 2/3rds rule for raising taxes as a problem, considering the per-person tax burden in California is higher than most other states in the country. The problem is not that the taxes are insufficient for reasonable purposes. The problem is that the purposes are unreasonable.

anamax 16y ago

> the initiative system Hasn't produced much in the way of spending as a fraction of CA govt expenditures. (High speed rail may.) Seriously - total up all the initiative driven spending and compare it to what CA spends. (And no, you don't get to count initiatives that the legislature put on the ballot.) Yes, there are billions of dollars of initiative-driven spending, but it's a cup or two in the bucket. The shift to bonds isn't the voters' idea either.