So, seriously, when will California finally break??? (New $2B bond axed).....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
But that's just silly. I've heard, and not being a Muslim myself, I can't say for sure, but even in that religion so many think of a backward, there is a provision that folk give 2% to charity, but only, only, I repeat, if they can afford it and have met their own actual personal needs. There is no such moral obligation to give what you do not have. Even a Christian, I think, will give you his shirt if you ask, and add his coat as a further gesture, but I don't recall anything about having to go out first and charge a coat on Visa. You, yourself may give more than you earn, but then, well, you could also be stupid.

I don't believe he said anything about charity. This is about the progressive wet dream of wealth distribution. Try to keep up.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
But that's just silly. I've heard, and not being a Muslim myself, I can't say for sure, but even in that religion so many think of a backward, there is a provision that folk give 2% to charity, but only, only, I repeat, if they can afford it and have met their own actual personal needs.

2%? That's all a Muslim has to give? Christian churches usually expect 10%, which is more, but still less than most gov'ts demand. I have no idea what an observant Jew is expected to donate to their synagogue. Regardless, neither the iman, pastor, nor rabbi can demand any percentage; they can merely request it, unlike the IRS.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,879
6,417
126
Have I mentioned you continue posting dishonest idiocy lately? Oh ya, a couple minutes ago in my last post to another of your posts in another thread.

You don't mention the big problems at all from Republicans here, from their Prop 13 cutting off of taxes to balance the budget to the 1/3 of Republican in the Legislature having a veto over ANY new tax and pledging to pass zero. I think dishonest idiocy fits the post you made quite well. As for the topic you do mention, California like other blue states does indeed pay more in federal taxes while getting less in return compared to red states, in part because the constitution had the Senate very unbalanced to favor low-population states which tend to be Republican, with each Californian getting 1/50 the representation of some Repubs.

This. Tyranny of the Minority. California's Constitution is set up in such a way as to have the cake and eat it too. If, and it appears to be the case, the Voters have over extended their ability to Pay for what they want, the best way to Know is to have Taxes Raised to meet the Demands they are making. Without that side of the Equation, they keep adding more Cost blissfully unaware of the Cost of what they Demand. Think of it as simple Supply/Demand, except without and concept of what the Supply is.

The idea behind it isn't completely bad, as it was to limit the Government's ability to add Cost. However, if the Government is not the Driver of increased Cost, it fucks everything up because the Driver(the Voter) is never asked to bear the Cost. That's not Fiscal Conservatism, it is simple Fiscal Fail.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
If Nebraska can get a break on healthcare, maybe California can get a break on transfer payments to the red states. This reminds me of New York City's crisis in the 70s when folks were wagging their fingers at NYC, ignoring that NYC residents paid out far more in state and federal taxes than they got back in state and federal services, subsidizing the finger waggers.

^This is a persistant myth perpetuated by the 'Blue Staters'.

No one can tell how much businesses of any state pay to the feds. The data doesn't exist.

An example: IBM's HQ is located in Arrmonk New York. So thats their address on their corporate tax return and 100% of their income taxes are credited to NY.

However, IMB has facilities in FL, NC,and AZ etc where they ACTUALLY make products/money that generate profits resulting in income tax revenue to the fed gov. Yet these states are not credited for that.

It's the same for most other large corporations.

Heck, if instead of going by the HQ's address on the tax return you went by the state of incorporation, it would look like Delaware was funding the entire USA.

Stupid Lib talking point based on clearly erroneous data.

Fern
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
CA should go bankrupt and get our nice fat bailout from the Feds. We are too big to fail :)
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
We should just pay cali to start taking all the nuclear waste, and trash from the rest of the country to balance their budget.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Have I mentioned you continue posting dishonest idiocy lately? Oh ya, a couple minutes ago in my last post to another of your posts in another thread.

You don't mention the big problems at all from Republicans here, from their Prop 13 cutting off of taxes to balance the budget to the 1/3 of Republican in the Legislature having a veto over ANY new tax and pledging to pass zero. I think dishonest idiocy fits the post you made quite well. As for the topic you do mention, California like other blue states does indeed pay more in federal taxes while getting less in return compared to red states, in part because the constitution had the Senate very unbalanced to favor low-population states which tend to be Republican, with each Californian getting 1/50 the representation of some Repubs.

LOL. Not only do you still only see it as the fault of Republicans, and see nothing wrong with perpetually increasing spending, the bolded is just a work of sheer brilliance, even by your standards.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Should I remind people that the Republican controlled Orange county went bankrupt in the 90s?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,408
8,596
126
As for the topic you do mention, California like other blue states does indeed pay more in federal taxes while getting less in return compared to red states, in part because the constitution had the Senate very unbalanced to favor low-population states which tend to be Republican, with each Californian getting 1/50 the representation of some Repubs.

i just took a look at all the states that are smaller than my county, and the total is 28 senators who caucus with the dems and 20 senators who caucus with the republicans.

in fact, of the 10 smallest states, there are all of 5 republicans.

edit: n/m don't want to go down that road.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,981
6,809
126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
But that's just silly. I've heard, and not being a Muslim myself, I can't say for sure, but even in that religion so many think of a backward, there is a provision that folk give 2% to charity, but only, only, I repeat, if they can afford it and have met their own actual personal needs. There is no such moral obligation to give what you do not have. Even a Christian, I think, will give you his shirt if you ask, and add his coat as a further gesture, but I don't recall anything about having to go out first and charge a coat on Visa. You, yourself may give more than you earn, but then, well, you could also be stupid.

I don't believe he said anything about charity. This is about the progressive wet dream of wealth distribution. Try to keep up.

Ah but it all began as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWing
If Nebraska can get a break on healthcare, maybe California can get a break on transfer payments to the red states. This reminds me of New York City's crisis in the 70s when folks were wagging their fingers at NYC, ignoring that NYC residents paid out far more in state and federal taxes than they got back in state and federal services, subsidizing the finger waggers."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So California, the bastion of such wet dreams as wealth distribution, and where their own wealth is being given to others with less. It's just that little serpents like you like to hiss when we get in trouble and re prioritize our charitable giving. As folk that are morally superior to you we have no obligation to be so at all. We are just that way because we are superior. Some day, if you ever feel rich inwardly, as opposed to having money, you will understand how we feel. Homo Californicus, as it happens, is the most advanced human on earth. We are the future and our past is more and more rapidly becoming your present. We are the Borg.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,600
1,005
126
Excuses, excuses by the left who do not want to address the issue of a CA's state lib dominated legislators not working within the means of a budget and sticking to it. Anyone asserting that somehow federal taxes are the reason behind CA's current budgetary woes is nothing more then a left wing hack. Those "payments to red states" were/are not the reason behind the sinking the state. You have to really be grasping at straws in a dishonest manner to make that assertion.

You mean like the conservative run federal government during the last 8 years?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Way too many deadbeats and not enough producers. People like my mom for example, a retired UCI professor, getting $140K per year from calpers and she probably has 30-40 years left god willing. There are millions like her from cops to prison guards to teachers. Unsustainable.

By definition if you take out more than you contribute you are a liability - deadbeats are another whole subset of liabilities who contribute absolutely nothing but take from the system - school children, state retirees and prisoners for example - issues California will need to address to fiscal responsibility since they make up the most spending.
 
Last edited:

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Way too many deadbeats and not enough producers. People like my mom for example, a retired UCI professor, getting $140K per year from calpers and she probably has 30-40 years left god willing. There are millions like her from cops to prison guards to teachers. Unsustainable.

By definition if you take out more than you contribute you are a liability - deadbeats are another whole subset of liabilities who contribute absolutely nothing but take from the system - school children, state retirees and prisoners for example - issues California will need to address to fiscal responsibility since they make up the most spending.

Damn those school children!
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
I eagerly await the downfall of the Liberal Mascot.

As a Californian hearing that I just want to say I hope wherever your live things go very well and the people in your state do not suffer even if all of them are as big a bunch of puss sacks as you are.

As a Californian I would also like to wish the people of your state a good year and I hope things will look up. On the bright side please accept our tax dollars as we understand that inbreeding, chemical plants and strip mining of the country side has left your kind slow.