socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.

Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.

---

What is diabolical? Pointing out a fact? I offered no opinion of my own.

---

Sorry, should have been clearer. It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the progressive policies that are actually creating more wealth gap and forcing the poor to leave.

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

Except in Anaheim where they have tried to clean up the bicycle trail and house the homeless in motels. Seems to be working so well that homeless from other cities, counties, and states are heading to Anaheim for the great homeless benefit. Who knew the homeless operated the laws of supply and demand so well? (All this written with tongue in cheek).

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.

Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.

---

What is diabolical? Pointing out a fact? I offered no opinion of my own.

---

Sorry, should have been clearer. It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the progressive policies that are actually creating more wealth gap and forcing the poor to leave.

---

I'm a big pro housing guy, and one thing I can say from this perspective is that the left and the right are both fully committed to a California that is zoned to be just unaffordable enough. From Marin liberals down to OC and San Diego conservatives. This is the way affluent California has decided to structure the state, no matter how you vote.

Anyway, this notion that California is going to scare away the rich, from a state and culture they have built no less, is silly when you consider that tiny San Francisco has more billionaires than LA. And that LA, SF, and the rest of CA combined have more billionaires than all countries except the US and China.

JMO:

Health care costs are far more out of control than college costs. If the state is going to undertake a project of this size, they should work on controlling health care costs first.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.

I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

---

Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.

But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.

At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.

---

And the data shows wealthy people are not moving out. Poor people are moving out - wealthy people are moving in. And why? Because California is awesome.

---

Oh boy. I don't know what to say about this other than this is a cold and callous way of viewing getting rid of the poor folks you suggest are undesirable.

---

Keep your suggestions to yourself. If I ever need you to provide context to clarify my comments I'll let you know.

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.

Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.

---

California ranks right next to Texas in terms of inequality (43rd and 44th). Inequality is a national issue not a state issue and it's being driven by national and global forces.

California is becoming unaffordable to the poor because of market forces. The wealthy want to be in California and drive up the prices. If you are looking for a culprit then blame capitalism.

All this talk about the wealthy leaving California is just some sort of Ayn Randian pipe dream.

I thought adults are suppose to stop believing in Santa Claus.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.

Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.

---

California ranks right next to Texas in terms of inequality (43rd and 44th). Inequality is a national issue not a state issue and it's being driven by national and global forces.

California is becoming unaffordable to the poor because of market forces. The wealthy want to be in California and drive up the prices. If you are looking for a culprit then blame capitalism.

All this talk about the wealthy leaving California is just some sort of Ayn Randian pipe dream.

---

The Ann Rand reference undoubtedly is from a recent article about New Jersey.
Just for the record, New York is first in income inequality.

I agree with essentially all of the comment. Income inequality is based on market forces, but state taxes are part of the equation as are zoning rules and impediments to expanding the housing base for lower income. They all impact local markets. Not in my backyard may as well be the motto of California, which segregates land use decisions based on wealth.

The very wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes and stay where they want for quality of life, or business reasons (e.g., California, Texas and New York have strong and large economies). Moreover, the impact on higher taxes will be seen in the long run (to the extent it exists) since business siting selection and similar decisions that consider taxes, don't have short run impacts.

The following article shows IRS migration numbers from California. High income and poor are predominantly leaving, but not in huge numbers. (BTW, $10 Billion sounds like a lot, but not compared to the overall California economy). Despite the hysteria of the article, there is not huge migration or immigration currently.

Link: http://gvwire.com/2017/10/31/poor-wealthy-alike-fleeing-california/

Also, those of who live in California, we do so because we like it here. We grumble about policies and taxes, but we like living in our community silos, away from those of opposite views (e.g., the city I live in amazingly diverse but has the highest GOP registration in the State). And those well off are segregated to beach cities away from those that work for us and commute to where we work from inland areas.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.

I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

---

Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.

But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.

At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.

---

And the data shows wealthy people are not moving out. Poor people are moving out - wealthy people are moving in. And why? Because California is awesome.

---

Oh boy. I don't know what to say about this other than this is a cold and callous way of viewing getting rid of the poor folks you suggest are undesirable.

---

Keep your suggestions to yourself. If I ever need you to provide context to clarify my comments I'll let you know.

---

Wow. For someone who is constantly misrepresenting others' comments, you are a bit sensitive about others interpreting yours. This is right next to you complaining about personal attacks while making personal attacks. How about this? You give yourself a smack upside the head every time you do the same here.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.

Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.

---

California ranks right next to Texas in terms of inequality (43rd and 44th). Inequality is a national issue not a state issue and it's being driven by national and global forces.

California is becoming unaffordable to the poor because of market forces. The wealthy want to be in California and drive up the prices. If you are looking for a culprit then blame capitalism.

All this talk about the wealthy leaving California is just some sort of Ayn Randian pipe dream.

---

I never said wealthy folks are leaving. You are the one gleefully pointing out that poor are leaving California and that California is awesome. What I take away from this is that all of the wealth redistribution, high taxes, and other progressive measures haven't even come close to solving the income gap or made the lives of the poor any better.

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.

Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.

---

What is diabolical? Pointing out a fact? I offered no opinion of my own.

---

Sorry, should have been clearer. It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the progressive policies that are actually creating more wealth gap and forcing the poor to leave.

---

I'm a big pro housing guy, and one thing I can say from this perspective is that the left and the right are both fully committed to a California that is zoned to be just unaffordable enough. From Marin liberals down to OC and San Diego conservatives. This is the way affluent California has decided to structure the state, no matter how you vote.

Anyway, this notion that California is going to scare away the rich, from a state and culture they have built no less, is silly when you consider that tiny San Francisco has more billionaires than LA. And that LA, SF, and the rest of CA combined have more billionaires than all countries except the US and China.

---

So am I. Housing is one of the main drivers of education, dignity, and safety. And I agree with you that both the right and the left are trying to keep the poor out of their vicinity while blathering on about how moral they are and then crossing the street to avoid the homeless on their way to the gentrified neighborhood and tracking their equity grants from the tech companies. The way we treat the poor and the homeless in this society is shameful (both the patronizing and enslaving attitude of the left and the apathetic attitude of the right). And throwing money randomly is not the solution as long as the solution does not enable them to regain their dignity and ability to be productive. We need better and more affordable housing, better and mandatory training for those displaced, etc. so that we are not creating a society of enslaved takers and benevolent masters. I could be down with contributing my money for a cause that truly bring poor of every color (even white) to a place of self-reliance. This free college for everyone when we already have financial aid is nonsense and warped sense that government is the solution for all our needs (whether we are needy or not).

Which adults?

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.

I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

---

Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.

But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.

At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.

---

The problem with the argument that wealthy people will leave California is that the thriving economy that is supported by taxes to provide the best public college education system in the world is producing wealthy people at a higher rate than people would move out. Where did Mark Zuckerburg move to, to create facebook? And why? Because of the nearby colleges producing so much talent he needed.

And the data shows wealthy people are not moving out. Poor people are moving out - wealthy people are moving in. And why? Because California is awesome.

I'm all for changing pensions and tenure. We should get rid of tenure and nobody should have a lifetime pension. We should strengthen social security and college professors should have 401ks. These are complicated issues, though. We have to compete with private universities and we have to keep costs down.

Another issue is sometimes kids are going to 4 year colleges when they should be going to community college to learn a trade. I think community colleges should be a route that is pushed more.

---

How much of Zuckerberg's (or Buffett's or Gates') massive wealth will be subject to estate tax? Very little (if any), because they're wealthy enough to create foundations or implement other strategies to avoid it. And less wealthy people will do the same - like buying a house in a no/low tax state and claiming residence there.

What is the source for your claim that rich people are moving to CA and poor people leaving? I suspect poor people are leaving because they literally can't afford to live here.

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/

And if so many rich people are moving here, why does CA have the highest poverty rate in the US and the highest welfare rate?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-other-state-comes-close-to-california-when-it-comes-to-welfare-spending-2017-11-28?mg=prod/accounts-mw

hanky1 said:

---

I thought adults are suppose to stop believing in Santa Claus.

---

Coincidentally, the generation that enjoyed a fully subsidized Cal now looks like Santa Claus.

Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

Goobear said:

---

Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

---

What about an expanded Cal Grant, which is what this is, implies that they would force college on everyone or suddenly let in unqualified students? Am I missing something? I've read the Act and they do not mention opening the doors to UCs or CSU. It simply expands who is covered under Cal Grant and by how much. This Act doesn't change admissions or lower requirements at all. And it is itself not a college mandate. The kid who went to a terrible elementary school and can't get into college now, won't have it any easier being accepted if this were to pass.

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.

I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.

I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).

Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.

---

Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...

---

This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.

---

Is this really true?

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

3Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

---

What about an expanded Cal Grant, which is what this is, implies that they would force college on everyone or suddenly let in unqualified students? Am I missing something? I've read the Act and they do not mention opening the doors to UCs or CSU. It simply expands who is covered under Cal Grant and by how much. This Act doesn't change admissions or lower requirements at all. And it is itself not a college mandate. The kid who went to a terrible elementary school and can't get into college now, won't have it any easier being accepted if this were to pass.

---

So then let's rephrase it JC for all...it's just another money grab...Fix K-12 that's where the low hanging fruit is

Goobear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

3Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

---

What about an expanded Cal Grant, which is what this is, implies that they would force college on everyone or suddenly let in unqualified students? Am I missing something? I've read the Act and they do not mention opening the doors to UCs or CSU. It simply expands who is covered under Cal Grant and by how much. This Act doesn't change admissions or lower requirements at all. And it is itself not a college mandate. The kid who went to a terrible elementary school and can't get into college now, won't have it any easier being accepted if this were to pass.

---

So then let's rephrase it JC for all...it's just another money grab...Fix K-12 that's where the low hanging fruit is

---

Starting to think you didn't actually know what this was about.

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

D3Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

---

What about an expanded Cal Grant, which is what this is, implies that they would force college on everyone or suddenly let in unqualified students? Am I missing something? I've read the Act and they do not mention opening the doors to UCs or CSU. It simply expands who is covered under Cal Grant and by how much. This Act doesn't change admissions or lower requirements at all. And it is itself not a college mandate. The kid who went to a terrible elementary school and can't get into college now, won't have it any easier being accepted if this were to pass.

---

So then let's rephrase it JC for all...it's just another money grab...Fix K-12 that's where the low hanging fruit is

---

Starting to think you didn't actually know what this was about.

---

Starting to think Sacramento does not want to fix K-12. What are you going to accomplish in JC if kids do not have basic skills...Europe has vocational schools with a pathway to get a decent job or to go on to college...why don't we do that since people in the US think Europe has all the other social programs figured out.

Goobear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

D3Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

---

What about an expanded Cal Grant, which is what this is, implies that they would force college on everyone or suddenly let in unqualified students? Am I missing something? I've read the Act and they do not mention opening the doors to UCs or CSU. It simply expands who is covered under Cal Grant and by how much. This Act doesn't change admissions or lower requirements at all. And it is itself not a college mandate. The kid who went to a terrible elementary school and can't get into college now, won't have it any easier being accepted if this were to pass.

---

So then let's rephrase it JC for all...it's just another money grab...Fix K-12 that's where the low hanging fruit is

---

Starting to think you didn't actually know what this was about.

---

Starting to think Sacramento does not want to fix K-12. What are you going to accomplish in JC if kids do not have basic skills...Europe has vocational schools with a pathway to get a decent job or to go on to college...why don't we do that since people in the US think Europe has all the other social programs figured out.

---

What are you going on about with JC's now? So you want to fix K-12, great! What does that have to do with this? This Act is about expanding Cal Grants.

This is a terrible, stupid idea.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.

I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

---

Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.

But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.

At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.

---

And the data shows wealthy people are not moving out. Poor people are moving out - wealthy people are moving in. And why? Because California is awesome.

---

Oh boy. I don't know what to say about this other than this is a cold and callous way of viewing getting rid of the poor folks you suggest are undesirable.

---

Keep your suggestions to yourself. If I ever need you to provide context to clarify my comments I'll let you know.

---

Wow. For someone who is constantly misrepresenting others' comments, you are a bit sensitive about others interpreting yours. This is right next to you complaining about personal attacks while making personal attacks. How about this? You give yourself a smack upside the head every time you do the same here.

---

The difference between you and me is I don't whine and moan and whimper when people insult me, like you do - right before you proceed to do the same to others

I think what you tend to see is that millionaires like education and good weather. California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Massachusetts have the highest millionaire growth.

One thing I'd like to see that this study does not cover is millionaire creation vs millionaire migration. I'd wager that New York, California, and Massachusetts produce millionaires while Texas and Florida get millionaire migrants. What do New York, California, and Massachusetts have in common - high taxes supporting infrastructure and education. That is how you produce millionaires.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/where-millionaires-live-state-taxes-make-no-difference-2D11664966

Do you have a split personality? The whole discussion started with you whining about it. Must you be disingenuous about everything? Ask you other personality why you whine so much?

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

D3Funny thing is that no one is addressing the point that our elementary school system is so bad that a lot of the kids who do not get in now would not be capable to get into college....

As far as migration, the new federal tax code will have an impact http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

As far is poor people not coming to the state....well let me tell you I was at a Hoover Institute Meeting where professor from UCLA Lee Ohanian reported that 1 in 4 CA Residents are on Medical and that when calculating the value of those who are on welfare in the state the value is $38K in net benefits or $70K in gross income. By this measure this the most generous of all countries in the world except for Denmark.
So the state is a more attractive for low income people to come to than for wealthy people...

The cost of housing has skyrocketed but so have the regulation related costs from a 35% premium over similar homes in other states to over 160% now...per Lee Ohanian....

The middle class seems to leave too see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html

Other trends https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/leaving-california-after-slowing-the-trend-intensifies/

Go Bears!

---

What about an expanded Cal Grant, which is what this is, implies that they would force college on everyone or suddenly let in unqualified students? Am I missing something? I've read the Act and they do not mention opening the doors to UCs or CSU. It simply expands who is covered under Cal Grant and by how much. This Act doesn't change admissions or lower requirements at all. And it is itself not a college mandate. The kid who went to a terrible elementary school and can't get into college now, won't have it any easier being accepted if this were to pass.

---

So then let's rephrase it JC for all...it's just another money grab...Fix K-12 that's where the low hanging fruit is

---

Starting to think you didn't actually know what this was about.

---

Starting to think Sacramento does not want to fix K-12. What are you going to accomplish in JC if kids do not have basic skills...Europe has vocational schools with a pathway to get a decent job or to go on to college...why don't we do that since people in the US think Europe has all the other social programs figured out.

---

What are you going on about with JC's now? So you want to fix K-12, great! What does that have to do with this? This Act is about expanding Cal Grants.

---

Just give him a chance to find a reason to trash the latest liberal proposal. I'm sure he'll find a good one soon. Just gotta throw a few more darts at the wall.

Didn't take long for this thread to go off course.

Free vocational school for the displaced workers would seem like the best use of resources. We don't need a billion engineers but we will need those who are trained in IT repairs and maintenance and basic IT service providers. The truly talented and truly needy philosophers will find financial aid and grants.

He is getting at limited resources and potential better use for resources. We can't always fund everything and, like most people, will need to prioritize allocation of resources.

You do realize this was a personal attack, right?

calbear93 said:

---

Free vocational school for the displaced workers would seem like the best use of resources. We don't need a billion engineers but we will need those who are trained in IT repairs and maintenance and basic IT service providers. The truly talented and truly needy philosophers will find financial aid and grants.

---

We can do both. Certainly we can help make college more affordable for those that want it? We don't need a billion engineers, but we do need more teachers, doctors, nurses, etc All these people still go to college.

Now I'm not saying I'm for the bill, or that Im for the estate tax. But your default to an actual need, affordable higher education for those that want it, can't simply be "yeah well what about this other thing?" Which wasn't even his initial rant. That was about how the ill prepared elementary school kid would somehow now be forced into a 4 year institution because of this, of course this Act does nothing of the sort. Yes, the needy will find a grant, this is that grant. It is literally about expanding Cal Grants.

calbear93 said:

---

You do realize this was a personal attack, right?

---

It's an attack on the weakness of his argument, not him as a person.

Disagree there. It was a statement on him and nothing about what he actually wrote. Not your typical behavior but it was a personal attack.

calbear93 said:

---

Disagree there. It was a statement on him and nothing about what he actually wrote. Not your typical behavior but it was a personal attack.

---

You can think what you want. I intended it 100% as an attack on how badly he was arguing his point, and that is the last I'll say about it.