The Myth of High-Benefits/High-Tax Government of California

Posted by Alex in Politics on November 1, 2009 at 2:06 pm

While it's chic to complain about the evil of taxes and government, there's an implicit assumption that higher taxes translate to more government services (the age old argument between liberals and conservatives generally revolve around how much government services, and therefore government size, is optimal.)

But do higher taxes actually bring about superior public goods? William Voegeli, in this op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, doesn't think so. He compared California (a high-benefit (supposedly)/high-tax state) to the low-tax state of Texas:

One way to assess how Americans feel about the different tax and benefit packages the states offer is by examining internal U.S. migration patterns. Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau. Over the same period, Texas had a net weekly population increase of 1,544 as a result of people moving in from other states. During these years, more generally, 16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.

These folks pulling up stakes and driving U-Haul trucks across state lines understand a reality the defenders of the high-benefit/high-tax model must confront: All things being equal, everyone would rather pay low taxes than high ones. The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class."

As a long-time resident of California (whose paycheck got even smaller as the State forcibly imposed a higher withholding), I don't mind paying higher taxes if I got something out of it - so it's intriguing to find out that the reality may just be the opposite: Link

 
Comment (24)    Permalink   Please share:  email this         

Neatorama Shop » Food & Drink » Offbeat Mints & Candies

2 Out of 5 Californians Are Jobless

Posted by Alex in Money & Finance on September 6, 2009 at 1:09 pm

Out of a job? If you live in the Great State of California, you’re in good company: two out of five working-age Californians do not have a job!

“The current recession stands apart from prior downturns for both the depth and breadth of destruction in the job market,” the report says. “California has lost more jobs at a faster rate in the past two years than during any prior recession for which data are available, and employment has fallen in nearly every major sector of the economy.”

Because of the decline in the number of jobs coupled with growth in the labor force, the report finds that the percentage of working-age Californians who hold jobs has fallen to its lowest level in 32 years. Citing U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the report says just 57.5 percent of California adults are working.

The last time the percentage was that low was in 1977, a time when many women voluntarily chose not to work outside their homes. The percentage of employed adults peaked in 1989 at 64.9 percent.

Timm Herdt of Ventura County Star has the grim news: Link | California Budget Project Press Release [PDF]

 
Comment (15)    Permalink   Please share:  email this         


Judge Rules "Crunchberries" Are Not Real

Posted by Queuebot in Crime & Law, Food & Drinks on June 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Here’s proof that people will sue just for about anything: a plaintiff named Janine Sugawara sued the makers of Cap’N Crunch Crunch Berries cereal because she found out that the "crunchberries" are not really berries!

In another proof that the judicial system works,  the judge dismissed her complaint:

On May 21, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who said she had purchased “Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries” because she believed “crunchberries” were real fruit. The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, alleged that she had only recently learned to her dismay that said “berries” were in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit. She sued, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers who also apparently believed that there are fields somewhere in our land thronged by crunchberry bushes.

Cap’n According to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word “berries” in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product’s namesake, Cap’n Crunch, aggressively “thrusting a spoonful of ‘Crunchberries’ at the prospective buyer.” Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a “combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries.” Yet in actuality, the product contained “no berries of any kind.” Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Link – via kevinunderhill

From the Upcoming ueue, submitted by dradell.

 
Comment (38)    Permalink   Please share:  email this