Something I didn’t mention as part of yesterday’s post, because honestly it was getting a little long winded, was at the end the School Board there was an agenda item which asked the School Board to support the piece of legislation introduced by former Alameda Vice Mayor and now Assemblymember Rob Bonta. The legislation, AB 59, would go toward clarifying language around parcel taxes by adding this section:
The provisions in this section requiring uniform application of taxes shall not be construed as limiting a school district from assessing taxes in accordance with rational classifications among taxpayers or types of property within the school district. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law, and shall apply to transactions predating its enactment.
Given that, most recently, San Leandro Unified School District’s own parcel tax Measure L is under attack as well so the outcome of this piece of legislation and that of the appellate court’s rehearing of their Measure H decision will be closely watched. Given the importance of that piece of legislation, one would think that everyone would support it, right? At least people who are in charge of overseeing and making determinations of the budgets for school districts that may get the money yanked from them if the appeal is unsuccessful.
Turns out in Alameda, not so much.
So despite her positioning on, hey, we don’t need Title I money, the parcel tax will make up for the difference in the funding, Trish Spencer opted to not support Assemblymember Bonta’s legislation. Why? Because she , as an elected School Board member, didn’t feel as if it was her “place” to tell the legislature what their intent is.
?!?!?
A what?
First of all, the thing that the School Board was voting on what to express “support” for the legislation, it didn’t involve screaming into individual congresspeople’s faces and telling them they needed to vote for something. Second of all, the “legislature” is not some sacrosanct entity that works in a vacuum (well at least they aren’t supposed to), they work for us, the people, so damn skippy it’s all of our places to tell them what their intent is on a piece of legislation. Third, as an elected School Board member she is elected to represent the community she serves, maybe Trish Spencer thinks she was only elected to represent those that voted for her, but I’m guessing that those people are really hoping that Bonta’s legislation gets passed and signed by the Governor.
What this reads to me as — once again — is Trish Spencer not stepping up to support parcel taxes in Alameda. What’s disappointing is that San Leandro Unified Board voted unanimously to support the legislation, but the school board for whom this legislation was specifically crafted for couldn’t muster the same unanimity.
And the union supported her why?
Comment by Jack Schultz — February 1, 2013 @ 6:14 am
1. short term political expediency, a wrench to thwart Vital. The body of people ( teachers) who actually cast votes on endorsement was small, not the entire AEA membership. I know lots of teachers who disliked the endorsement, but on the other hand I have repeatedly heard “we need somebody who will at least listen to teachers”. I don’t entirely blame teachers for being too busy doing their jobs to follow BOE meetings all year and don’t get the scope of complaints about Spencer. Have you ever listened to bad advice because you were too busy to do your own homework? But Jack, since you are an avowed union buster, keep throwing that wrench back at AEA to get your ya-yas and help insure we are more likely to stay at impasse. Don’t try to persuade teachers, just keep attacking them.
Comment by M.I. — February 1, 2013 @ 9:38 am
Dear AEA, we told you so.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — February 1, 2013 @ 9:39 am
And neither the union nor she supported Bonta why?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 1, 2013 @ 9:45 am
I don’t, and never have, attacked teachers.
I do, and will unless/until their leadership improves, accurately label the AEA’s leadership as stupid, counterproductive, unprofessional, short-sighted and detrimental to its memebers, the district, the community and the students.
Comment by Jack Schultz — February 1, 2013 @ 10:06 am
I forgot embarassing. Sorry. Please add that to above post.
Comment by Jack Schultz — February 1, 2013 @ 10:08 am
This whole thing hinges on who decides what a ‘rational classification’ is, doesn’t it? Nice try for a freshman lawmaker I guess, but no cigar. Why doesn’t he just try to get the judge that passed the ruling fired, and rescind all his decisions in the last , oh, 90 days? Same result in the end, and we don’t look like some third world dictator changing laws at a whim to benefit himself.
Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — February 1, 2013 @ 10:08 am
Mark, I have and will always support teachers, however I agree with Jacks post#5. at present the AEA leadership is not doing the teachers in Alameda any favors.
Comment by John P.(L) — February 1, 2013 @ 10:14 am
Jack R.: regarding AEA and support of Bonta, I’m not speaking from any inside knowledge, but since the California Teachers Association (CTA) the umbrella organization for teachers unions endorsed Abel Guillen, I’m not sure if AEA could support an alternative candidate even if they had wanted to. The fact that they did not actively endorse Abel Guillen is probably indicative of their support for Rob Bonta.
I can’t speak to how Trish Spencer endorses other than this rumor that circulated during the last election.
NAA: I think what Bonta is doing is fairly similar to what we are all waiting for the courts to do as well, try to understand what the intent of the legislature was around parcel taxes. So we can either complain about “activist judges” or “dictatorial lawmakers” but the point is, the law is open to interpretation and therefore lawsuits, someone needs to do something to clarify the situation.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 1, 2013 @ 10:22 am
Just wanted to point out that AB 59 would protect not only AUSD and SLUSD but about 8-10 (not sure of exact number at this point) other CA school districts that have also passed split roll parcel taxes to supplement diminishing state funds. That means the educations of tens of thousands of students — and the jobs of hundreds of teachers — are at risk.
Comment by Susan Davis — February 1, 2013 @ 10:59 am
When I read the legislation the word “Rational” stood out. I can just see a whole mess of future litigation to determine what exactly that means. Then you may have one Judge who sees something as rational and another who doesn’t.
Comment by frank — February 1, 2013 @ 11:00 am
This basically says that the law will be applied uniformly except in those cases when we don’t want to. Weasel words pandering to a specific power base or “How to Insure Future Campaign Funding 101″. Bonta’s future looks bright.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 1, 2013 @ 1:36 pm
#12 – You’re assuming that the plaintiff’s definition of “applied uniformly” is the correct one. If you read the briefs filed on behalf of AUSD, both the meaning of “uniform” and the legislature’s intent in drafting the relevant section of government code becomes quite a bit more complex.
Comment by Susan Davis — February 1, 2013 @ 2:21 pm
I don’t see them questioning the Legislatures intent when they Raised the Pensions 2000% in 1995 and Put the State and Every City in Financial Peril…….Maybe they might want to retroactively give that money back to the Residents like they want to Retro this.
Comment by John — February 1, 2013 @ 3:45 pm
The Judicial branch may not take kindly to a rookie Assemblyman trying to overturn a judicial finding through legislative declaratory action.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 1, 2013 @ 5:39 pm
Baltimore by three +
Comment by Jack Richard — February 1, 2013 @ 7:46 pm
Jack……..I totally agree……The odeferous scent of the gases being passed by the CTA by their Bought and Paid for Mouthpiece Bonta Just doesn’t pass the smell test .But anything that would help Drive more business out of the State is a Plus for the Bonistas.
Score keeper might need to adjust his Score.
“Here we go again. The enabling statue requires the tax to be uniform, but it is set to be $12 for residential and $72 for commercial. So one could have a house and a commercial building side by side and the same size with the commercial building paying 6 times as much and they both could be next to a 50 unit apartment house, just paying as much as a small house. When California so badly needs jobs and investment, why send this kind of a message?
Comment by Ed Hirshberg — October 25, 2012 @ 3:17 pm ”
17.Hey Hirshberg, your enabling act idea is 0-for-3 in court.
Your attorney, however, is batting 1.000.
Comment by Scorekeeper — October 25, 2012 @ 4:01 pm
Comment by John — February 1, 2013 @ 8:41 pm
Jack you are missing some of the Good Bets for the Super Bowl.
Times “Harbaugh” will be said during game: over/under 21.5
This seems like a clear one to go over, because my word, we’ve heard that name 16,000 times already this week and it’s only Monday. There’s plenty of Harbaugh-riffic props other than this one.
Length of postgame handshake/hug between Harbaugh brothers: over/under 7.5 seconds
That’s a long hug, even for brothers.
Times Jack Harbaugh shown during game: over/under 2.5
The father of John and Jim Harbaugh will get plenty of air time, don’t worry.
How long will it take Alicia Keys to sing National Anthem: over/under 2 minutes, 15 seconds
A quick search for “Alicia Keys national anthem” on YouTube didn’t turn up any good research material. It’s probably always best to take the over on this anyway. A singer doesn’t get an audience of a few hundred million people very often, so she won’t be trying to wrap it up in less than 2:15.
Will Alicia Keys be booed? Yes is +500 (bet $ 100 to win $ 500)
Who boos the national anthem singer?
Will Alicia Keys mess up the lyrics? Yes is +170
Ah, there you go. Parlay this one with the prop bet above if you’re feeling lucky.
Will Jay-Z join Beyonce on stage during halftime show? Yes is +110
Hova ain’t passing on a chance like this – yes is an easy play here.
Will Beyonce’s hair be straight, not curly? Yes is +110
Color of Gatorade dumped on winning coach: clear/water: +$ 200; orange: +$ 250; yellow: +$ 250; blue: +$ 700; green: +$ 700; red: +$ 700
Comment by John — February 1, 2013 @ 9:01 pm
Eddie Boy,
Back then you were 0 for 3, now you’re 1 for 4, and you’re gonna lose again in the Court of Appeals (how often do they reconsider opinions like this?) and then because you’re an obstinate SOB you’ll go to the Supremes and lose there too.
Final count will be 1 for 6 with a reputation in the toilet, but your attorney will be happy with the Mercedes you bought him.
Comment by Scorekeeper — February 2, 2013 @ 8:00 am
Scorekeeper……I don’t know Ed …….But it appears he is one of the few in this town who doesn’t Bend Over and actually has principles and values.and can actual Critically Think . I know in your World standing up for a persons right is bad for your reputation.. I have read two of your posts……You are 2 -0 on being a AH…..
Comment by John — February 2, 2013 @ 2:35 pm
“In real estate investments we would look for a gross return of about 4 million on a 37 million dollar investment and hope to retain 2.5 million of that after expenses. We would also expect to pay 500-600 thousand per year in property taxes. This is a fine example of why governments should not do real estate investment. Those making the decisions have no skin in the game, and when the investment does not pan out, they can merely retire on a comfortable pension. In our industry if the investment does not pan out, you lose your home and your bank account. It tends to focus the mind a bit.”
Ed Hirshberg
So With the new rent windfall we now receive about 7% of the going market rate for this type of investment and lose about 500-600,000 in property taxes.
Kinda like building 100 new houses at a cost 370,000 to the City of Alameda and now receiving 236.00 and month in rent vs 95.00 a month rent and Celebrating. Plus Receive No Property Tax.
Hard to believe we have financial problems in the city.
“I am very excited that the Alameda community is so supportive of the theater,” said Mayor Marie Gilmore. “This is a win/win project for all.”
Jennifer Ott, deputy city manager and former manager for the theater project, added, “This is a great example of how a public/private partnership can realize positive fiscal benefits to the city and the surrounding Park Street business district.
http://alameda.patch.com/articles/alameda-theatres-rent-takes-a-welcome-jump
Comment by John — October 17, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
Comment by John — February 2, 2013 @ 2:52 pm
Ed doesn’t live here; he owns property here.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 2, 2013 @ 3:08 pm
John, I have known Ed Hirshberg for many years and find him a man of integrity , a friend to many and an honorable man.
The subject here is not Ed, but Bonta’s Assembly Bill. I find it rather vague and muddled. He suggests ” rational classification ” , who will determine the definition , they already had problems with deciding on the word ” uniform “.
Right out of the starting block we had irrational classifications, with houses paying 120 per year and commercial 15 cents per foot. When the commercial property owners complained the classification got more irrational with smaller buildings paying as much as 80 cents per s.f., assuming a 2.5 floor area ratio, meanwhile, the rate for large properties was lowered from a low of one-half cent per s.f. to a new low of .0045 per s.f. So the small properties are paying a rate that is 17,777 times as much as the largest properties. (80/.0045).
Then there is the danger of changing a law retroactively. What other laws are going to be changed retroactively? If laws are going to be changed retroactively, what does any law actually say or mean? Maybe our income tax will be changed retroactively. This law would be a huge leap towards becoming a banana republic, where laws are changed at the whim of the ruling junta and the population lives in fear of the government.
Comment by GCOBRE — February 2, 2013 @ 3:34 pm
Come on, Kate. Your comment sandwiched between two laudable comments is unbecoming of you. Is it that someone who doesn’t live here but owns property here supposed to mean something or is your comment an attempted trick of the mind?
GCOBRE hit the nail on the head. Kudos!
Comment by Jack Richard — February 2, 2013 @ 3:55 pm
GCOBRE, Great stuff…….We already have seen the start of RETROACTIVETY with the passage of Proposition 30….
Bananas R US
Proposition 30 passed in November, 2012, the income tax will apply retroactively to all income earned or received since the first of the year (1 January, 2012).
What Proposition 30 Means for California’s Entrepreneurs
So it’s all the more puzzling that California, home of Silicon Valley and the densest concentration of entrepreneurs in the nation (possibly the world) would pass Proposition 30 in last month’s election. Regardless of your personal views on the issues of taxing and spending, there is one thing that cannot be overlooked. Prop 30 includes a gigantic retroactive tax increase on legitimate capital gains and ordinary income that dates back to Jan. 1, 2012.
The top marginal rate jumps by 29.13 percent to a staggering 13.3 percent of income. Oddly, California doesn’t distinguish between ordinary income and capital gains in the way the federal government does. The result is that we have nearly doubled the 15 percent federal capital gains tax rate, and this applies to income earned in the past, for which taxes have already been paid.
How This Happened
As is the case with many propositions, the voters may have been fooled by the governor and his allies who aggressively pitched it as a way to “save education in our state.” In fact, the money from Prop 30 simply replaces money the governor redirected from education to other priorities in his 2013 budget. So a more honest and fair characterization of Proposition 30 is a general purpose tax hike in the state which already has the highest income tax rates in the nation.
It isn’t clear that most voters had a very good understanding of the tax increase’s magnitude or retroactive nature. Campaign workers were reportedly paid $3.00 per signature to qualify it for the ballot, and the two largest public sector unions (California Teachers Association and Service and Service Employees International Union) spent $22 million campaigning for its passage.
But even with all that campaign money, it took a very creative Official Title and Summary in the California Voter Guide prepared by the Attorney General to push the measure over the finish line. Take a look and you’ll see that there is no explicit mention of retroactivity or the new top rate of 13.3 percent in the summary!
Prop 30 Hits Entrepreneurs the Hardest
California’s entrepreneurs are hit particularly hard by Prop 30. Why? Because entrepreneurs often invest their life savings and go for years with a low or zero salary. Most start-up ventures end up failing in the end. But in those rare cases when something of great value is created and a meaningful liquidity event takes place (usually in the form of an acquisition or IPO), nearly all the money earned from the undertaking hits at one time. Instead of the income being spread evenly over the life of the company (the average time to exit for venture-backed start-ups is 7 or 8 years), a single once-in-a-lifetime event occurs such that eight years of income shows up in the single year, making entrepreneurs highly vulnerable to the top marginal tax rate.
Exhibit A of this phenomenon is Facebook, which might have been the impetus for Prop 30 in the first place. Thousands of workers toiled long hours and worked for low pay (at least in the beginning) to build one of Silicon Valley’s generational companies. When their deferred reward hit eight years later in the form of a $90 billion IPO, it proved an attractive tax target for California’s politicians. The only problem was that the IPO occurred before the tax hike, hence the need for the retroactivity in Prop 30.
What Prop 30 Will Mean for California’s Entrepreneurs
A precedent has been set with Prop 30. What would stop voters or legislators from passing a 100 percent top marginal rate extending back to 2010? You might scoff at the notion, but the state has now determined it can legally reach into individuals’ savings accounts and take money out on a whim.
This creates a feeling of fear, resentment and uncertainty — the worst possible environment for investment to take place. It discourages both angel and venture investing because it reduces the return on potential capital gains. Already, we’re seeing rumblings from investors, such as this tweet from prolific angel investor Scott Banister.
Dear Entrepreneurs: I promise that I will never again try to sell you on moving to California. Sorry.
I don’t think entrepreneurship overall will decrease — most start-up founders do it for the love of the entrepreneurial journey, or because they have a passion for a particular vision that they want to bring to fruition. But Prop 30 may just dampen enthusiasm for starting new businesses in California specifically.
Contrary to popular opinion, entrepreneurs aren’t crazy cowboys. In reality, we think carefully through risk-reward tradeoffs (John Dickerson does an admirable job covering the thoughtful risk calculations we made at my last start-up, Redbeacon, in this Slate article). Given the inherent risks entrepreneurs take just to start a new company, will they want to now take on additional tax and regulatory risk? The truth is, great tech start-ups can now be built almost anywhere.
It seems California’s population exodus may have begun already with a net migration of 3.4 million people out of California since 1990. Many of the people “voting with their feet” are the wealthy and productive classes we need to stay and rebuild the Golden State to its former glory.
Entrepreneurs are job creators, risk takers and innovators who generate new wealth. We know that small businesses generate nearly two out of three new jobs in the U.S., and we also know California is suffering greatly with the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation. So why would it kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? As bank robber Willy Sutton replied, when asked why he robs banks, “because that’s where the money is.”
Ethan Anderson is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He is a former Google Product Manager and the founder and CEO of Redbeacon, the 2009 TechCrunch50 winner, which was acquired by the Home Depot earlier this year.
http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-proposition-30-means-for-californias-entrepreneurs/
Prop. 30: The top 5 contributors
San Jose Mercury News - 1 day ago
California Teachers Association spent $36 million to lead the way in campaigns to win Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown s tax-hike measure
Comment by John — February 2, 2013 @ 7:25 pm
Doooooooo wants us to worry about Trish Spencer……It’s frkn Laughable.
Comment by John — February 2, 2013 @ 7:44 pm
Yeah but, John, you’ve got to admit if it weren’t for Lauren…
Comment by Jack Richard — February 2, 2013 @ 7:56 pm
RLOL..so true Jack…….I would have missed all the 747′s you have flown over this crew for years..It should be called Bayport Airport…….I have had so many great laughs….The propaganda these people throw out there is embarrassing to 3rd graders.
Comment by John — February 2, 2013 @ 9:01 pm
Reno Gazette Headlines
California’s Prop. 30 could boost economy
Nevada’s pitch to business owners just became a little more persuasive with the recent passage of Proposition 30, a $6-billion tax increase targeting high-income Californians.
The economic pitch that Northern Nevada has been making — a business-friendly climate, no state income tax, less regulation — is suddenly being made even more striking by the up-to-3-percent increase in income tax on high-income Californians enacted by Prop. 30.
While no one expects the passage of Prop. 30 to open the floodgates and release a torrent of business relocation to Nevada, it certainly could play an important role in the decision-making processes for certain types of business owners as they plan ahead for business development, growth or relocation:
Startups:
For true startups, the income-tax issue is not as high a priority because a company in the startup stage is investing in the foundations of its company and not generating much revenue. But if you are putting down roots as a business and can choose any community in which to launch your idea, savvy start up leaders will look for a location where their business can develop and expand. Prop. 30 sends a clear tax message to startups about the tax environment they will have to deal with when they convert their startup to a successful company.
Established businesses:
For some businesses that have struggled through the recession and are seeing their revenue disappear into high rent, high taxes and high labor costs, relocation may be a real option. For some business owners, Prop. 30’s $6-billion tax hike may signal more than just a 3-percent increase in taxes, it may also signal an uncertain business environment where taxes may continue to rise. Nevada’s stable and business-friendly tax environment could be attractive to businesses that are barely making money in California, or businesses that desire a more predictable and affordable place to do business. Nevada has no income tax, no corporate tax and no franchise tax.
Business owner relocation:
Northern Nevada’s proximity to Silicon Valley also makes it a popular place for business owners to relocate, even if their business remains in California. For the very wealthy, a permanent residence in Nevada could mean huge personal tax savings. Advancement in mobile communication and computer technology allows business owners to work seamlessly with co-workers and employees from any location. Some business owners may find Prop. 30 is the added incentive to buy a permanent residence in Nevada. This business owner migration not only boosts the housing market and the local economy, it also brings entrepreneurs into Northern Nevada with a track record of business success. Their next business, or their next business expansion, may very well be located in the community where they now live.
Prop. 30 was put on the California ballot to fix California’s significant budget deficit. In the long term, it also may help boost Nevada’s economy, by advertising to California businesses the advantages of Nevada.
John Solari is the managing partner of J.A Solari & Partners.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20130127/OPED/301270015/California-s-Prop-30-could-boost-economy
Comment by John — February 2, 2013 @ 11:48 pm
California State Teachers Union Sales Pitch
Were 49th of 50 in Education but Our Teachers are # 1 in Pay and we just raised the Taxes to Pay them More
Only 57 % of our Students live in Poverty but we don’t Care…..We Got Our Raises
The Golden State
Comment by John — February 3, 2013 @ 12:04 am
Here is something else to consider,
Once the courts establish what the enabling statute means than it is a simple matter that state law trumps local law no matter what percentage of votes a tax received. It appears that many local school districts went outside of the allowable guidelines
While some very liberal district may favor taxation by irrational classification at wildly unpredictable rates, many parts of the state are more conservative and will not want to head down the path of economic ruin and destroy their tax base and employment opportunities. So this law will likely face stiff opposition from responsible lawmakers.
Comment by GCOBRE — February 3, 2013 @ 7:51 am
Bonta’s first Bill after he takes Boxer’s seat as U.S. Senator:
(1) The provisions in this section requiring Congress to make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, establishment of religion; or the right of people peaceably to assemble is not to be construed as limiting a State or local municipality from placing limits in accordance with rational classifications among citizens or types of speech, press, religion or the right to peacefully assemble within the State. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law, and shall apply to all predating its enactment.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 3, 2013 @ 9:52 am
Why not this while we’re at it:
(2) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(A) It was the intent of Congress in enacting Amendment 2 to assess the amount of security necessary for a free State. The provisions in this Amendment (2) shall not be construed as ad infinitum or as an unlimited right. It is the intent of the Congress, in enacting Section (A) of this act, to clarify, and not change, existing law, by confirming that Congress may assess security in accordance with rational classifications and determine who among the people shall bear arms necessary for a free State. It is further the intent of the Congress to fully state that the state of the State is free and secure thereby abrogating the need for the people to bear arms.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 3, 2013 @ 10:30 am
#23 “other laws going to be changed retroactively”..:FYI: Bonta’s bill, AB174, would apparently turn Alamedans into felons unless we turn in our guns! Maybe even if we turn in our guns! Thank God it was voted down.
AB 187 [Bonta]=new tax on ammo. Rob “Tax-Em-2-The-Max” Bonta!
I told you so…
Comment by vigi — February 3, 2013 @ 3:54 pm
This is the Sad Part……..
I have friends that are packing up their Business and Family and Leaving here in the Next Month…They are voting with their feet…….They are shutting down family business because of huge increases to Workman’s comp, Medical Insurance and Taxes….They have kids ready to start two new Business’s and makes financial sense to do it elsewhere…….Two of their sons in laws started very sucessful tech companies that were bought out and have already relocated….
So why would any Young person starting a Business want to do it in California…….Bring up your family in the 49Th rated education System in the Country………A third of U.S. welfare recipients live in California…. High state taxes and bundles of red tape make operating a business in the state unaffordable to many companies, critics say.
California narrowly edged out New York in what the survey called “the ninth circle of business hell,” sharing the bottom five spots with Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan.
And Bonta will not help our Image……..
55 Reasons Why California Is The Worst State In America
December 13th, 2012
Why in the world would anyone want to live in the state of California at this point? The entire state is rapidly becoming a bright, shining example of everything that is wrong with America. It is so sad to watch our most populated state implode right in front of our eyes. Like millions of Americans, I was quite enamored with the state of California when I was younger. The warm weather, the beaches, the great natural beauty of the state and the mystique of Hollywood all really appealed to me. At one point I even thought that I wanted to move there. But today, hordes of Californians are racing to get out of the state because it has become a total nightmare. It is the worst state in the country in which to do business, taxes were just raised even higher, unemployment is more than 20 percent higher than the national average and the state government is drowning in debt. Meanwhile, poverty, gang activity and crime just seem to get worse with each passing year. On top of everything else, the insane politicians in Sacramento just keep on passing more laws that make the problems that the state is facing even worse. Unfortunately, what is happening in California may be a preview of what is coming to the entire nation. The old adage, “as California goes, so goes the nation”, has been proven to be true way too many times.
In dozens of different ways, the state of California is showing the rest of us what not to do. Will we learn from their mistakes, or will we follow them into oblivion? Please share the list below with as many people as you can. In addition to a large amount of new research, this list also pulled heavily from one of my previous articles and from outstanding research done by Richard Rider. The following are 55 reasons why California is the worst state in America…
1. One survey of business executives has ranked California as the worst state in America to do business for 8 years in a row.
2. In 2011, the state of California ranked 50th out of all 50 states in new business creation.
3. According to one recent study, California is the worst-governed state in the entire country.
4. Thanks to Proposition 30, California now boasts the highest state income tax rate in the nation.
5. Even though California just raised taxes dramatically on the wealthy, state revenues are falling like a rock. State revenue for November 2012 was 10.8 percent below projections.
6. California has the highest sales tax rate in the United States.
7. California has the 8th highest corporate income tax rate in the country.
8. California has the highest “minimum corporate tax” in the country. Each corporation must pay at least $800 to the state even if a corporation does not make a single dollar of profit.
9. California is tied with New York for the highest gasoline tax rate in the country.
10. California is the only state in America that taxes carbon emissions.
11. The state of California issues some of the most expensive traffic tickets in the nation. This is another form of taxation.
12. As of October, only Nevada and Rhode Island had higher unemployment rates than California.
13. The unemployment rate in California is more than 20 percent higher than the overall unemployment rate for the rest of the nation.
14. The state of California requires licenses for 177 different occupations (the most in the nation). The national average is only 92.
15. California teachers are the highest paid in the nation, but California students rank 48th in math and 49th in reading.
16. California accounts for 12 percent of the U.S. population, but a whopping 33 percent of Americans that receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) live there.
17. Only the state of Illinois has a lower bond rating than the state of California does.
18. Including unfunded pension liabilities, the state of California has more than twice as much debt as any other state does.
19. Average pay for California state workers has risen by more than 100 percent since 2005. That is good news for those state employees, but it is bad news for the taxpayers that have to pay their salaries.
20. More than 5,000 California state troopers made more than $100,000 last year.
21. One highway patrol officer ended up bringing home almost $484,000 in 2011.
22. One state psychiatrist in California was paid $822,000 in 2011.
23. Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.
24. Sadly, an astounding 60 percent of all students attending California public schools now qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches.
25. The American Tort Reform Association has ranked the state of California as the worst “judicial hellhole” in America.
26. Businesses all over the state of California are being absolutely suffocated to death by ridiculous regulations.
27. According to the Milken Institute, operating costs for California businesses are 23 percent higher than the national average.
28. According to CNN, the state of California had the worst “small business failure rate” in America in 2010. It was 69 percent higher than the national average.
29. The number of people unemployed in the state of California is roughly equivalent to the populations of Nevada, New Hampshire and Vermont combined.
30. Residential customers in California pay about 29 percent more for electricity than the national average.
31. So many poor people and illegal aliens have taken advantage of the “free” healthcare at emergency rooms that many of them have been forced to shut down in California. As a result, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.
32. Political correctness is totally out of control in California.
33. One California town is actually considering making it illegal to smoke in your own backyard.
34. The traffic around the big cities is horrific.
35. Los Angeles
36. San Francisco
37. Oakland
38. Stockton
39. Sacramento
40. The rampant gang activity in the state gets even worse with each passing year.
41. Crime continues to rise all over the state.
42. Just recently, the city attorney of San Bernardino, California told citizens to “lock their doors and load their guns” because there is not enough money to pay for adequate police protection any longer.
43. The murder rate in San Bernardino is up 50 percent this year.
44. In Oakland, burglaries are up 43 percent so far this year.
45. Today, Oakland is considered the 5th most violent city in the United States.
46. There have been more than 250 gold chain robberies in Stockton, California just since the month of April.
47. In Stockton, the police budget cuts got so bad that the police union put up a billboard at one point with the following message: “Welcome to the 2nd most dangerous city in California. Stop laying off cops.”
48. Jerry Brown.
49. The absolutely insane California state legislature.
50. Wildfires.
51. Mudslides.
52. The state of California lies directly along the infamous “Ring of Fire“. Approximately 90 percent of all the earthquakes in the entire world happen along the Ring of Fire and the “Big One” could hit the state at any moment.
53. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 100,000 more people moved out of the state of California in 2011 than moved into it.
54. During 2011, more than 58,000 people moved from California to the state of Texas.
55. Overall, the state of California has experienced a net loss of about four million residents to other states over the past 20 years.
Written By Michael Snyder
Michael has an undergraduate degree in Commerce from the University of Virginia and a law degree from the University of Florida law school. He also has an LLM from the University of Florida law school. Michael has worked for some of the largest law firms in Washington D.C., but now is mostly focused on trying to make a difference in the world.
Read more at http://marketdailynews.com/2012/12/13/55-reasons-why-california-is-the-worst-state-in-america/#0Adfvyyf4wdHeB5t.99
Comment by John — February 3, 2013 @ 7:39 pm
Jack…….Nice handicapping on the Football Game……You nailed it!!!!!!!
But can you Handicap the Bayport Superbowel Game
How many vooddoo dolls does Lauren have of Trish Spencer
1 100/1
> 6 4/1
> 10 even money
How many blow up dolls does JS have of Fireman
How many consultants does it take to buy a paper clip for city hall
How many environmental impact studies are required to buy that paper clip
What type of Wood when Water Boarding would Lauren like to use on Doug DeHann
Redwood 6/1
Cherry 3/1
Teak even money
How many batteries are there in JS Self Back Patting machine.
Will John Russo use his pay raise to donate to ride attendants at Disney to get by the Height Requirements For the Rides.
Yes 1/10000000
No 10000000/1
Who will be Driver on the Tandem Bike in the 4th of July Parade between JKW Or JS
Comment by John — February 3, 2013 @ 8:47 pm