• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Fleeing - A Question

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh....yeah...plenty of Cali folks headed up there, and Washingtonians may or may not be thrilled, but you'll do fine up there.
It's not like a Californian moving to Texas or anything.
Click to expand...

Or Montana. They get down right hostile if they find you are from California. Its a good thing I have family that is established up here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
I'm not gonna complain. The wife and I make just as much with five pensions coming in every month as we did when we were working. And that doesn't count the tax free withdrawals from the ROTH. So I personally don't care how high they raise taxes to pay these pensions. They made the pension deals to get the votes, now pay for them.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Or Montana. They get down right hostile if they find you are from California. Its a good thing I have family that is established up here.
Click to expand...
Yeah...they don't want those California spend and tax ideas in their state. If the California migrants ruin the Montana's, there won't be anywhere to go.
 
Waddy said:
Yeah...they don't want those California spend and tax ideas in their state. If the California migrants ruin the Montana's, there won't be anywhere to go.
Click to expand...

I dont blame em.
 
We Californians refer to those who flee to
Arizona or Texas as, California Failures!


Moi of California



PS California made Bill Maher rich
and he speechifies more social services
to the poor, needy, etc.
WHILE complaining his California taxes are too high!



What Needs Fixing Is The popular
Initiative process.
No Signature Gatherer Should Receive Compensation​
Otherwise $1,000,000 gets any absurd
Initiative on the ballot.
 
I don't know but maybe Califonia has greater unemployement figures or Washington has more high income taxpayers a s o.
 
skeptic llc said:
My family and I recently (as in, this week) left California for a state that doesn't require 10+% of our income to provide, as best I can tell, the same services - roads, schools, etc. My question: what on earth does California spend all the state income taxes on that other states don't need?

While I am indifferent to political correctness, the new state is blue too, so I'm not really soliciting mindless partisanship here. I would actually like to hear others' thoughts or information.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Are still voting blue?
 
American said:
Are still voting blue?
Click to expand...
Yes, at the politician level, until there's a sane alternative again. If and when that comes back, I'll be an independent again. At the individual ballot initiative level, I vote issue by issue and tend to poll pretty much all over the map, because my political views don't map onto party platforms well.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Could be the $50B spending on Pensions has something to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Why they let teachers retire at 55 with a pension is beyond comprehension.
 
Waddy said:
So I personally don't care how high they raise taxes to pay these pensions. They made the pension deals to get the votes, now pay for them.
Click to expand...

The "they" who made the pension deals are not the ones who have to pay for them.
 
skeptic llc said:
My family and I recently (as in, this week) left California for a state that doesn't require 10+% of our income to provide, as best I can tell, the same services - roads, schools, etc. My question: what on earth does California spend all the state income taxes on that other states don't need?

While I am indifferent to political correctness, the new state is blue too, so I'm not really soliciting mindless partisanship here. I would actually like to hear others' thoughts or information.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The general fund is $153 Billion.

For starters, California spends $47 billion on “Health and Human Services” bureaucracy. IOW, mostly supporting the poor, disabled, addicted, homeless, illegal, etc. everyone who needs “help”. Add this to our weather, we are a magnet for those seeking a better life on the taxpayers dime. (A significant, but un quantifiable amount is redirected to funding retirements)

We spend ~ $60 billion on K-12 education, and we are approaching the coveted last place in education. A big issue too many elementary school students who don’t speak English at home. As more school work is expected to be done as homework, many parents lack the English speaking skills needed to be of any use, so additional money has to be spentbto keep them engaged so they don’t drop out. (A significant, but un quantifiable amount is redirected to funding retirements)

Unfunded public pensions is just south of $200 billion. Compounding matters there are ~ 340,000 public employees with $100,000+ paychecks costing taxpayers $45 Billion

These two areas gobble up most of the budget and a lot of tax money is redirected from other agencies by swapping state bonds for revenue needed, for example, to build road, etc.
 
skeptic llc said:
Yes, at the politician level, until there's a sane alternative again. If and when that comes back, I'll be an independent again. At the individual ballot initiative level, I vote issue by issue and tend to poll pretty much all over the map, because my political views don't map onto party platforms well.
Click to expand...
So you're not an independent, it's just for show.
 
joko104 said:
California is the illegal immigrant magnet of the USA - and all the associated costs.

Remember: "All the Gold in California is in a bank in the middle of Beverly Hills in somebody else's name." To be somebody in California you must either be rich or impoverished. There is no middle ground allowed.
Click to expand...
What costs? My lifestyle is subsidized by the illegal labor that makes our food cheaper and our motel rooms cheaper and our construction costs cheaper. And illegals, like other immigrants, have lower crime rates than our rascal citizens. What's not to like? If you resent illegals, strap on a leaf blower yourself, or support unions and policies that raise wages and better working conditions.

It is sadly true that the enormous wealth in some California communities makes life difficult for poorer folks, some of which commute extraordinary distances or are in terribly crowded living situations in to work in service jobs. And for all its progressive policies, California has repeatedly done dumb things by way of excessive development. LA itself is a prime example, a city with no logical reason for being its enormous size, except for "Chinatown" type corruption.
 
American said:
So you're not an independent, it's just for show.
Click to expand...
I'm not currently a political independent when it comes to voting for politicians. I am currently an independent when it comes to specific issues and votes that are about issues rather than selecting a candidate. I'm not sure any of that is "for show" -- who do you think I am trying to show what to?
 
skeptic llc said:
The "they" who made the pension deals are not the ones who have to pay for them.
Click to expand...
They run the state, and no matter who makes the deal, or when, the state has to honor it's obligations. A contract is a contract. You might live in a house inherited from your parents, but you will still have to pay the mortgage they signed off on.
 
Tlrmln said:
Yeah. Why they let teachers retire at 55 with a pension is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...
No, it's very understandable. Politicians agree to generous pension agreements, among other things, to secure the support of the teacher's unions. Buying off public unions, like teachers, fire and police is how they get re-elected. The politician gets re-elected with the support, usually including generous campaign donations; in return the public unions get great pensions, favorable work rules, and job security for life. Sweet!!!!
 
Waddy said:
You might live in a house inherited from your parents, but you will still have to pay the mortgage they signed off on.
Click to expand...

Not the right comparison IMO. No one is forced to inherit any asset. If the house they leave you is underwater, you don't have to take it. With pension obligations, (1) you have no choice but to pay them, and (2) it is unclear what you are getting in return -- what asset from prior generations of taxpayers is being passed down to offset the liabilities they dumped on current taxpayers?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh....yeah...plenty of Cali folks headed up there, and Washingtonians may or may not be thrilled, but you'll do fine up there.
It's not like a Californian moving to Texas or anything.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, I have lots of family here and have lived in or visited the area on and off for decades. That said, I have been happily surprised at the lack of anti-CA backlash so far. Neighbors are as welcoming as can be.
 
skeptic llc said:
Not the right comparison IMO. No one is forced to inherit any asset. If the house they leave you is underwater, you don't have to take it. With pension obligations, (1) you have no choice but to pay them, and (2) it is unclear what you are getting in return -- what asset from prior generations of taxpayers is being passed down to offset the liabilities they dumped on current taxpayers?
Click to expand...
It's a good comparison. It reflects the binding nature of contracts. According to your thinking, why should current citizens be responsible for any of the public debt incurred in the past? It's just a "liability dumped on current citizens". Yet the world expects us to pay our debts no matter who made them.
 
Waddy said:
It's a good comparison. It reflects the binding nature of contracts. According to your thinking, why should current citizens be responsible for any of the public debt incurred in the past? It's just a "liability dumped on current citizens". Yet the world expects us to pay our debts no matter who made them.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it is not akin to inheriting, in which one *voluntarily* assumes obligations and receives an asset with them.
 
Waddy said:
It's a good comparison. It reflects the binding nature of contracts. According to your thinking, why should current citizens be responsible for any of the public debt incurred in the past? It's just a "liability dumped on current citizens". Yet the world expects us to pay our debts no matter who made them.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, I agree with the rest of your post. We have no choice but to honor these obligations, and they are akin to all other sorts of public debt.
 
skeptic llc said:
Incidentally, I agree with the rest of your post. We have no choice but to honor these obligations, and they are akin to all other sorts of public debt.
Click to expand...
The heart of the problem is how we fund elections. We should have eliminated private contributions and made elections publicly funded. But Citizens United was a poor way to curb corporate money. Corporations have ALWAYS been considered "individuals"; they have to for contracts to work. What is needed is a Constitutional amendment making the funding of elections public. At the same time they could forbid third party campaigning (PAC ads) and limit the length of campaigning (to reduce costs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom