Certainly, do you want to write a letter to the CA legislators? I’ll sign the petition.
Sarcasm aside, the global economy and as technology companies I don’t think a requirement for success is to be in Silicon Valley. Clearly it isn’t, as companies and individuals were already making the move.
State income tax was previously deductible, so it didn’t matter (you would either pay fed or state, same cost to the individual). Now it does for high income earners. Sorry I’m not sorry. People will respond to the incentives.
True. But as I suspect you’ll agree, it’s better if such ‘re-shufflings’ occur organically and at their own pace, rather than suddenly in response to ill-considered tax policy.
No doubt. But the issue is not whether they will respond; the issue is whether said response will be to the advantage of the economic status of the US. I for one doubt it will.
I do agree. I’m curious how people will respond, and of the many gripes I have against the tax policy, the state income tax deduction cap isn’t one of them. If people care about that issue they can move with their feet. If not, deal with it. It also only impacts high income earners who in all likelihood have the ability to move their primary residence.
I don’t see it having a dramatic impact on the US overall, but it certainly will for states like CA if people move. I’m curious to see if the rate of movement changes. I know Silicon Valley already is moving, but tech is a unique market that is vastly different than others.
Yeah, the parents. Whatever the reason, parents in the lower income areas simply do not care about education as much as other, better off demographics. This is first hand information my wife works in a title 1 school coming from private.
I cannot tell specific stories at the risk of violating privacy laws, but some of those little kids have done some horrific shit. Scary, serial killer type of shit and the parents simply don’t care. School is free day care for a lot of these people.
I am not against pot by any stretch of the imagination, but picking your kid up while smoking a blunt isn’t my idea of a fostering an educational environment.
You can throw all the money you want at the schools and as a matter of fact I am for greater funding for schools, but if the families don’t care the schools can only do so much. And for way too many of these kids in title 1 schools, the parents just don’t care and nobody can make them care.
I’d like to add another perspective. Although it is very true that there are a significant number of students who don’t care about education and have parents who feel the same, there are some who do care. Unfortunately a school can’t do much to “fix” a student’s parents and they can’t “fix” the students either. Given that these schools spend more money on those kids and provide all sorts of aid and see poor results, it says that whatever they are doing isn’t working. Then these kids get the official SPED label which allows them to get away with behaviors that other students can’t.
So IMO, the real problem is a system that employs a “no child left behind” policy even though it doesn’t work. When you have, and you do have, 18 year old high school freshmen who are illiterate, what’s the point? That person will not graduate, unless the school fudges the numbers.He just takes up space and resources. The actual anti-social, ill-mannered, vulgar and oftentimes violent behaviors that too many of these kids exhibit, and create a toxic environment for those who are civilized, are probably worse than people believe. The fact that these behaviors are tolerated is unbelievable. Which is the real problem in these schools. Behaviors which negatively affect the learning experience for the good kids are tolerated and in some cases it’s because the state mandates it.
These schools are not seen as educational institutions but a “safe” place for kids to gather and socialize, where they are fed two to three meals a day, and even get medical and dental care.
One of the wife’s student teaching assignments was in an inner city middle school. She said that literally no teaching got done the kids were so disruptive.
She had to protect a pregnant 8th grade girl from ridicule.
What’s your solution? Expel the disruptive ones and have 70% of inner city kids with no diploma or GED?
Friend of mine had something similar. She got the bad draw and drew the east side. 3rd grader brought a knife to school like 2nd week in.
If I had a little douche come at me with a knife I’m not sure what I’d do tbh. Maybe sweep the legs?
Imo, yes. Unless the goal is to increase employee turnover at companies with deadbeat kids that didn’t even earn the GED, society would benefit tbh.
I know PLENTY of inner city kids/adults. Many of them had parents that were drunks or abusive or any number of shit. But the ones that forced their kids to actually learn in life had successful kids anyway, sometimes purely to spite the parents and be better. All these programs that skate kids through do is invalidate and water down the journey the kids that earned it went through. I mean I know a HS diploma isn’t that much of an achievement, but damn.
I’m with you @pfury. But some pols are screaming that the “system”, the “legacy of slavery and jim crow” and “white priveledge” are opressing black kids now.
Imagine a world where only 30% of black inner city kids could get jobs better than illiterate immigrants (if the schools actually flunked people and didn’t pull a Detroit and pass seniors with 3rd grade reading levels). The political fallout would be more than school boards, mayors and governors could handle.
I worked in the inner cities for a year doing door to door sales as a white kid in a suit. Spent a lot of time in barber shops. They pointed out that these “failing” schools always seem to send a few kids to the ivy league with full academic scholarships. What was different about those kids? Mean mommas who wouldn’t let their kids slack.
I believe we need to accept that there are lost causes and kick them out. What they do now isn’t and hasn’t been working.
About those few who get full rides at Ivy Leagues, it’s lowered standards often and studies have shown that they struggle. Those who flunk out of the Ivy League schools don’t end up going to a less competitive school but give up on college all together. It’s all about the school appearing to care.
There’s pretty good ground for an argument with that. If you subscribe to America’s history of “persuasive” housing suggestions, it’s pretty easy to show these low income high minority areas used to receive an unbalanced portion of funding per capita. The obvious counter argument is that lower tax revenue (ie, poor) will always have that effect, but then it just becomes a chicken/egg debate on which came first.
Much of this doesn’t actually exist. The tests for things like “end grade reading level” don’t/can’t account for the kids who are so past giving a shit that they answer every test with the letter A for every question. My teacher friend is actually super adamant on teachers having the discretion to pitch tests that kids obviously didn’t try for, but imo that opens a bigger can of worms.
Lol in truth those are almost always either scholarships targeted at lower income areas, or college level adjustments for the same reason. I had a friend on the south side in high school get a slightly lower GPA and ACT than me, yet his yearly scholarship to our college was ~4x higher. Both basic white guys who couldn’t get laid.
I’ve worked as an education consultant for 12 years now and I can tell you this problem exists big time in rural impoverished areas as well. Actually to hear most teachers in the area talk about it sometimes kids aren’t as disruptive but they literally don’t do anything at all ever. The water down journey is an issue all over the country and not just an inner city one.
Looking at the issues in education as a black kid inner city problem completely ignores the fact that numerous areas that aren’t inner city and don’t have black kids have the exact same problems. The south is full of places with limited minorities and horrible scores. These are the same people who end up on welfare and social services like their parents.
I wish it was that easy to paint it as an inner city black problem. It’s not. No one knows the solution or whatever has been tried hasn’t worked. That’s why it’s always been a problem even though everyone knows some of the issues. Hard to fix bad parenting and anymore the worse the parent the more likely they are to have a lot of kids.
Educated middle-upper class people are rarely having big families anymore. Some people are too stupid to figure out the whole contraceptive thing or they think it’s a sin or something from sky man.
Black kids perform worse than other kids in aggregate. Whatever’s wrong with public school education/parenting/society etc… it’s worse for black kids. I don’t think its unfair to try and help them, or to focus more energy on dense urban areas.
I understand this. My point was that the problems in education go much further beyond the inner city. I apologize if my post seemed construed as an attack on the points you were making because it was not intended that way.
I completely agree urban areas are a great place to focus energy on. What I often see is that the problems with students who perform poorly are often the same root causes regardless of race or location. It is also important to remember that a quality education for blacks hasn’t really been focused on that long historically and that the gap has narrowed over time though anyone would say the process should be quicker than it has been.
I’d wait. They’re real busy right now with a HUGE sexual harassment scandal in Sacramento. Literally hundreds of cases since 2006 that were settled quietly by the legislature are going to be disclosed to the public.
Sure. As I mentioned before, Apple is still here. They just started a subsidiary with the clever name of Braeburn Capital, in Nevada where there’s no Corporate tax rate.
Some of you might find these informative regarding regulation, taxation, lawsuits, and cost of living, which is impacted in part by the first three.
@ Regulation. This article by The Economist is a must read.
"Joseph Vranich, an Orange County-based business relocation specialist, offers these top 10 reasons why businesses are departing California:
#1 – Excessively Adversarial: For eight years in a row, Chief Executive magazine found California to be the worst state for business . Editors said the state appears to have slipped deeper into the “ninth circle of business hell,” a reference to Dante’s Inferno. “The economy, which used to outperform the rest of the country, now substantially underperforms.” They’ve called California the “Venezuela of North America.”
#2 – Severe Existing Tax Treatment: The Tax Foundation in its 2012 State Business Tax Climate Index lists California at No. 48. CFO Magazine ranked California the worst state for tax treatment, as do many other rankings.
#3 – Future Tax Increases: Businesses will face higher income and sales taxes. The state has the largest budget deficit of any state. Employer costs will rise in 2013 as payroll taxes increase to bail out the Unemployment Insurance Fund (insolvent by $10 billion) and to cover excessive borrowing from the Disability Insurance Fund. Future bond borrowing costs will grow because California is S&P’s lowest-rated U.S. state. (Bloomberg News, May 18, 2012: "Gov. Jerry Brown is seeking a 38,000 percent spending increase for a proposed high-speed rail system” despite a $15.7 billion deficit.)
#4 – Worst Regulatory Burden: California approved global warming cap-and-trade initiatives with 262 pages of new regulations and fees going into effect in early 2013 even though the state contributes less than 1 percent of the worlds’ green house gases. The draconian measures ignore Bain & Co.’s “regulatory hassle index” that found “California is far worse than any other state by a very significant margin.”
#5 – Unprecedented Energy Costs: California’s commercial electrical rates already average 50 percent higher than in the rest of the country. The new 2013-2018 “green energy” mandates will boost rates by a minimum of another 19 percent in many California localities, which will harm companies in every industry.
#6 – Dreadful Legal Treatment: The Civil Justice Association of California said the state ranks 44th in legal fairness to business. In 2010, the Institute for Legal Reform found Los Angeles’ courts were the second worst in the nation for legal fairness, after Chicago’s, while San Francisco’s courts were the sixth worst.
#7 – Most Expensive Locations: The Milken Institute found that California businesses pay 23% more than the national average in operating costs. McAfee avoids hiring in California and saves about 30 percent to 40 percent every time it hires outside of the state.
#8 – Oppressive Permitting Procedures: Obtaining permits from public agencies is extraordinarily expensive and time consuming because of confusing, extraneous and harsh requirements. Example: It can take 2 years to obtain permits just to build a restaurant in California while in other states it can be as little as 1-1/2 months.
#9 – Unfriendly Even to Small Businesses: In 2012, Thumbtack.com and the Kauffman Foundation gave California an “F” grade from small businesses for overall business unfriendliness, difficult regulations, tax code, licensing and health and safety. The finding echoes the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council in Virginia 2011 conclusion that California ranked 49th overall in terms of business friendliness.
#10 – ‘Composite’ Findings Put California Last: Development Counselors International in a 2011 survey of executives found that ranked California as having the worst business climate of any state based on operating costs, taxes and deficits. That reinforced the “Pollina Corporate Top 10 Pro-Business States for 2010” study that placed the state at the bottom based on labor costs, taxes, litigation abuse, crime rates, demographics, school dropout rates and other factors."
For @H_factor. You put up a link to an OC Register article from January 2017. This was published by the same paper a few months later.
This one has a list of some of the larger companies that have moved, and why.
This one details a plan to give companies tax credits to try to encourage them to stay.
Just to be clear. Are business people who move to other states petulant children, or keen on human rights abuse? In what nearby states are these human rights abuses happening? I’m sure my brother-in-law who relocated his small business to AZ because of the regulations and taxes here would be curious about what you think. He had a really hard time paying for his boys Little League dues when they were in CA, and left with their credit cards maxed out. These are just regular people.
AZ=Bangladesh now? Having less regs than California makes you Bangladesh? Or are you saying there’s a binary choice between the least competitive state in the union (regs/taxes/permits) and complete anarchy?
Reducto ad absurdum much?
California should by hypersensitive to taxpayers leaving. Given that their debt is $1.3 Trillion and they can’t print money like the feds.
Yeah gonna have to take this side here. It’s alright for CA to admit they’re not as attractive for businesses. They’ve chosen a direction that leads to more social programs and that nearly always equates to higher taxes which = less attractive for business.
People denying things like CA simply not being as attractive to own a business in fights a fight that can’t be won and shouldn’t even be fought.