{{ A person’s being unemployed wasn’t a deal breaker for Ms. Doty, 27, a marketing analytics manager in San Diego. But she felt uneasy about what she viewed as her dates’ lack of initiative to find work and worried about the instability of dating someone who might land a job across the country at any moment.
She turned to TikTok to share her frustrations about dating unemployed men. One of the top-liked user comments read: “Honestly, an unemployed person shouldn’t be looking for anything serious. They need to be locked in on getting a career as a priority.” }}
Yeah, we’re running 2 trillion dollar deficits because of what happened 40 years ago.
When Reagan was Governor of CA, he inherited at the time a significant deficit. He signed the largest tax hike and cut spending and ended his term with a surplus. He also then returned money back to taxpayers through a series of rebates and credit programs.
How’s it going now under essentially one party rule? The annual budget is 30x larger, the tax rates have never been higher, the affordability problem worse than ever and they face structural shortfalls in pension obligations nearing a trillion dollars. How do they plan to fix it, an unheard of seizure of property through a wealth tax. Is this Newsonomics or are we going to blame Reagan for this as well?
Only question I have is, didn’t Ms Doty realize that folk have a tendency to embellish their assets (aka lie like rugs) on dating sites? If not the first time, maybe after that??. She’s truly fortunate that the ones she did get to meet were transparent in their intentions.
I’m wondering what you mean by this. The Presidency has swapped back and forth six times since then. Control of Congress has flipped from Democrat to Republican and back again and back again, onlhy the USSC has made a long march to the Right over that time.
So what “one party” are you referring to?
It certain.ly appears there was stability in the early Republican, and reasonably stable “one party” rule from the 50’s through the 80’s, (when the economy grew nicely, income inequality declined, and the debt was in check) but since then it appears to have traded back and forth pretty regularly.
That specific comment was only in reference to California. My larger point is it is absurd to pin our current mess on economic policies from 1980’s. My other point was that looking at where the opposite party has largely retained control, the results are no better. In fact, they undid much of what Reagan tried to correct during his term as governor. At the federal level, there is plenty of blame to be handed out to both parties.
Income and Capital Gains: California features high marginal income tax brackets that scale up quickly, and it treats capital gains as ordinary income rather than offering preferential rates.
Russell Investments +1
Consumer and Excise Fees: The state levies high specific consumption and excise fees, such as the nation’s highest gasoline taxes at the pump and elevated local sales taxes.
Sales and Use Tax: A baseline state rate of 7.25%, combined with local district taxes that bring total rates up to roughly 10.25% or higher depending on the city
California has high income taxes because they collect less revenue from property taxes since Proposition 13 was enacted in 1978.
States need “X” amount of revenue to operate. If you’re exempting a large portion of the state’s assets from taxation, you need to make it up elsewhere.
(( In August 2003, billionaire investor Warren Buffett used his own real estate holdings in a The Wall Street Journal interview to highlight the striking inequities and low property taxes created by California’s Proposition 13. [1, 2]
The Buffett Property Tax Comparison
Omaha, Nebraska Home: Buffett pointed out that his modest home in Omaha, valued at roughly $500,000, carried an annual property tax bill of $14,401. [1]
Laguna Beach, California Home: In contrast, his beachfront home in Laguna Beach, California, valued at $4 million (eight times the value of the Omaha house), incurred an annual property tax bill of just $2,264. [1] }}
Buffett sold the Laguna Beach home in 2018 for $7.5 million. The new owner then started paying taxes at an $80,000/yr annual rate.
Same thing with the Federal tax code and the huge carve out for inherited wealth with the stepped up cost basis at death.
California is now enacting a wealth tax. Let’s stop kidding ourselves that tax rates across all areas of California are not accelerating. Just in Los Angeles, there is a 5% sales tax on property sales over $5million. California has spending a problem not a tax problem.
That’s great take a look at California when we are talking the US as a whole. Then deny or not even know we are under the supply side economics ideology still. The risk now is a crazy who will reorganize the US debt.
How a party or ideology impacts a state is a window into how it might unfold on a national level.
The greatest risk is forgetting the lessons of history, tearing down the institutions and abandoning a belief system that protects the individual in favor of the collective.
It is not the collective. It is the USA versus taking trillions of dollars elsewhere. We might want to call that treason. Dressing up the defense as anticommunism is missing the point entirely.
Higher corporate taxes would have the US reinvesting in a factory buildout and economies of scale.
Well, since we are talking California, the state with the 3rd or 4th largest GDP in the world, I’m OK with that. 3rd in GPD/Capita in the US. NY and MA are 1 and 2. Yep - I’m sure I’d rather live in high tax CA than low tax TX, or where ever the GOP utopia is these days. Maybe it’s Mississippi.
Sure, California is 3rd in GDP in spite of those policies not because of it. If you look at where GDP is now growing, it’s the expansion of govt which is the fastest growing sector in CA. It’s amazing how people throw out GDP like it really tells me anything about the effectiveness of California’s govt, its policies or tax rates.
CA, NY, and MA are all ranked pretty high in unaffordability, if that matters. Given all the criticism about income inequality, you would think it does.
State spending has more than doubled in less than a decade as the population declines. Again, the GDP growth is in part due to the spending. If things are going so well, why does California now need a wealth tax? Also, let’s not forget about almost $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. Seriously, I don’t need to hear any more bogus stats and talking points on CA’s fiscal situation. The math is the math.
Again, I’ll ask the question. Why does California now need a wealth tax? GDP and the spending as a % of it is irrelevant.
If you add a 100 million to the GDP by adding a 100 million in govt spending, do you understand how the ratio can remain the same and yet you still can end up with a fiscal crisis?
