California population declines for first time in more than a century

Post by canadianfella » Sat, May 08, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

newsclues wrote: post #367

lsiebert wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these" Yeah, the thing is there are political and regulatory efforts to deal with these, but most people don't hear/read about them, unless they are super wonky. So the people who tend to get involved are the wealthy people who benefit financially from the outcome, and the occasional non profit. The latter is where you can actually make an impact fo…

If you rely on nonprofits to solve homelessness, you are essentially allowing a nonprofit homelessness industry to exist and funding it with tax dollars.

Post by NeverFade » Sat, May 08, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #313

gautamcgoel wrote: post #67

I'm a PhD student at Caltech. I'd love to stay in CA and become a prof at one of the world-renown universities in the state. The cost for a nice house is > $800K in all of the cities hosting these universities; on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%. CA is basically telling me (and millions of other millennials) that we are not wanted here.

CA tax system is mainly set up for retirees - high tax rates for current income, low tax rates for long-term property ownership. Someone who no longer works for W-2 income, but lives off social security, pension or investment portfolio would flourish in CA. It's interesting how AZ and FL get the reputation of being great places for retirement, even though their tax system highly encourages current income and penalize…

Post by mkj » Sat, May 08, 2021, 12:52 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #364

blagie wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, no. There's a carbon cycle. Trees trap carbon. When they die, trees release carbon. Unless you bury dead trees underground (e.g. as paper, furniture, etc., in deep landfills), in terms net amount of carbon capture, there's no difference between a massive forest fire, periodic controlled burns, decay, etc. They differ in time cycles. Even a sequoia will eventually die and release its carbon back into the atmosphe…

This strikes me as a reasonable argument. I wonder why it doesn't work for agriculture, which is regularly criticized for e.g. the carbon in livestock feed?

Post by secabeen » Sat, May 08, 2021, 1:06 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #322

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is 9.3% on income after $58k until $300k (single filing), but the first $58k is taxed at a lower rate, so you never get anywhere near an effective 9% rate. That’s just the way marginal rates work, Republicans throw out the top tax rate to argue that California is high taxed, but it turns out the taxes are very progressive (the first $100k is taxed very lightly). He should have tenure. The UC system doesn’t pay tha…

I mean yeah, it’s marginal, but $45k-58k is taxed at 8%, then $33k-$46k is taxed at 6%. Those aren’t low rates compared to other states, especially considering the COL.

Post by ruined » Sat, May 08, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

tootahe45 wrote: post #348

ruined wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

populations don't always rise, and the boomers have implemented policy and stuck around long enough to kneecap the next generations and prevent younger people from starting families. america has dropped below replacement birth rate in the past few years, despite younger parents actually wanting to have more children

As long as living standards are lower elsewhere, you can just get replacements from other countries. You spend less this way as well and don't have to raise and educate people. You can also call people racists if they don't like it.