4 ms·

The article is full of excuses to argue California has simply experienced lots of bad luck, burying the lede. Really, its just that California’s spending has be

The article is full of excuses to argue California has simply experienced lots of bad luck, burying the lede. Really, its just that California’s spending has been and continues to be unsustainable and it’s primary efforts to raise revenue - raising taxes - has the side effect of encouraging those with mobility (citizens and businesses) to relocate elsewhere.

bcrosby95 7y ago
For states, California is actually middle of the pack when it comes to per capita budget. Given that, you're going to have a difficult time convincing me there's a spending problem.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  It's not necessarily the spending that is a problem. Its the fact California relies on a very small percentage of high earners to carry the majority of the tax burden. At some point people will decide its too much as the state continues to increase taxes to pay for its overzealous spending and leave, creating an even bigger problem.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
The problem is that Prop 13 for so long restricted the legislature from modernizing the tax structure or directing funds appropriately that taxes on new residents are very high and basic services are not appropriately funded.
RangerScience 7y ago
> raising taxes - has the side effect of encouraging those with mobility (citizens and businesses) to relocate elsewhere. This kind of argument always seems a little... short-sighted, to me. Sure, raising taxes has a chilling effect, but spending that money in the right-enough ways has an attractive effect. AFAIK, LA wants to / has raised taxes in order to put in far more parks (addressing "green deserts") and to address food deserts. This makes more neighborhoods more desirable, which then has an overall attractive effect. Looking at one part of a system and saying "well, this is bad because it doesn't achieve terminal values", well, look at the _entire_ system, and _then_ measure achievement of those values.
vkou 7y ago
Not raising taxes, and letting public services decay, or having to rely on a car-centric transportation system that made sense in 1960, but is exploding under its own weight in 2019 also has the side effect of encouraging those with mobility to relocate elsewhere - or better yet, not move to California at all. I would never relocate to California if I had any other options, because of how wretched the transportation infrastructure is in all of its metro areas.
mdorazio 7y ago
Your last argument is actually not true. It's kind of the opposite, actually - high-earning people move to California and less-wealthy people leave because they can't or don't want to pay the cost of living anymore. See [1]. [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-census-migration-20181221-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-census-mig...

bcrosby95 7y ago

For states, California is actually middle of the pack when it comes to per capita budget. Given that, you're going to have a difficult time convincing me there's a spending problem.

at-fates-hands 7y ago
It's not necessarily the spending that is a problem. Its the fact California relies on a very small percentage of high earners to carry the majority of the tax burden. At some point people will decide its too much as the state continues to increase taxes to pay for its overzealous spending and leave, creating an even bigger problem.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

The problem is that Prop 13 for so long restricted the legislature from modernizing the tax structure or directing funds appropriately that taxes on new residents are very high and basic services are not appropriately funded.

RangerScience 7y ago

> raising taxes - has the side effect of encouraging those with mobility (citizens and businesses) to relocate elsewhere. This kind of argument always seems a little... short-sighted, to me. Sure, raising taxes has a chilling effect, but spending that money in the right-enough ways has an attractive effect. AFAIK, LA wants to / has raised taxes in order to put in far more parks (addressing "green deserts") and to address food deserts. This makes more neighborhoods more desirable, which then has an overall attractive effect. Looking at one part of a system and saying "well, this is bad because it doesn't achieve terminal values", well, look at the _entire_ system, and _then_ measure achievement of those values.

vkou 7y ago

Not raising taxes, and letting public services decay, or having to rely on a car-centric transportation system that made sense in 1960, but is exploding under its own weight in 2019 also has the side effect of encouraging those with mobility to relocate elsewhere - or better yet, not move to California at all. I would never relocate to California if I had any other options, because of how wretched the transportation infrastructure is in all of its metro areas.

mdorazio 7y ago

Your last argument is actually not true. It's kind of the opposite, actually - high-earning people move to California and less-wealthy people leave because they can't or don't want to pay the cost of living anymore. See [1]. [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-census-migration-20181221-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-census-mig...