A more progressive tax system makes people happier

next study...
are the people we ask to answer mathematical things with actual outcomes we dont supply, really giving answers?

ok.. first of all, explaining the difference in OUTCOMES of actual tax paid vs tax collected in the two systems is not there, and mathematical literacy is not determined.

so the people are not siding with progressive tax because it actually makes the high end pay more, but because it claims to. but how its practiced, it doesnt

if they knew that 10 percent resulted in 10 percent and no loopholes and actual payments were higher... that it would not turn our tax collecting constitutionally valid into a contest or a whip and carrot, or a means of control over masses of people - and deny them equality before the law - and turning a free state into a fascist or communist one (control over means through taxation, licenses, permits, etc)

you dont like lobby? well stop giving them something to fight over like how the pie is carved progressively. or goodie money

If if feels good do it. The 'progressive' way.

If it feels good, criminalize it. It's the Republican way.

But isn't it odd that Republican states have the highest levels of teen pregnancies, and are the largest per-capita consumers of hard core pornography?

Here you partisan ideologues are provided with an international perspective, and all you can focus on is the U.S. to the exclusion of everything else. Typical American myopia, for which we are ridiculed the world over. No thanks for living up to the stereotype, and tarring the rest of us with your brush.

"Higher government spending per se did not yield greater happiness, in spite of the well-being that was associated with satisfaction with state-funded services. In fact, there was a slight negative correlation between government spending and average happiness.

"That data is kind of weird," Oishi says. "

What a surprise, people believe those who make more money then they do should pay not just more, but significantly more than they do.

I wonder how the results would be if data was presented as the absolute amount of tax paid, based upon a flat rate, but without the flat rate shown, just the tax amount itself.

'Progressives' like to provoke class warfare by stating the 'rich' should pay not just more tax, but pay at a higher rate.
It is easier to sell the envy than rationality.

@ryggesogn2,

It's not envy, it's simple math. Take a situation where 20% of population controls 84% of a country's assets.

http://en.wikiped...d_States

With a flat tax, and ignoring investment disparities, that 20% continues collecting 84% of the nation's income, in perpetuity. With investment disparities included into the equation, this 20% collects a larger percentage every year (because the remaining 80% by comparison hardly has any money to invest with, in the first place.) So, with a flat tax you get an inexorable concentration of wealth into a newly minted gilded class, and conversely an inexorable impoverishment of the working poor (with the former middle class eventually joining them.)

This is the way the system will naturally function in absence of all tax, as well. Anarchy is inherently unstable, and will always devolve into Feudalism. Anarchy is just as utopian and impossible to achieve in practice, as is Communism.

It is possible to have progressive system with flat tax, when everyone pays the same fraction of income, but poorer people get progressively more money. Such system is going to be implemented here in Slovakia next year. I wonder what will that do to happiness of citizens?

http://en.wikiped...come_tax

"What a surprise, people believe those who make more money then they do should pay not just more, but significantly more than they do." - RyggTard

Your failure is due to your fixation on equity being defined as a constant fraction of income. There are many other ways to define equity.

For example it is also equal to tax everyone so that their income is always a fixed value, say %50,000. Everything over 50,000 is taxed at 100% and everything under subsidized to 50,000.

It is also equal treatment to deduct the cost of living from a person's income and tax the remainder at say 80%.

It is also equal treatment to deduct the cost of living from a person's income and tax the remainder at a rate that returns 10,000.

It is also equal treatment have a flat tax on employment earnings of 20% and non-employment earnings of 75%.

There are an infinite number of ways to have equity in the tax system.

cont.

Your definition of fair has been chosen because your Libertarian/Randit handlers are paid by wealthy special interestes like the Koch Brothers, to protect and expand their wealth and power.

The fact that a wage slave such as yourself would work on their behalf only makes your comments here all the more laughable.

"Twenty high-profile economists have urged the government to drop the top 50p tax rate, which they say is doing "lasting damage" to the UK economy.

In a letter to the Financial Times, they say it should be axed "at the earliest opportunity" to boost growth."
http://www.bbc.co...14810323

People are happy when 'the rich' move away and invest and spend their wealth somewhere else?

At least in the United States all are supposed to be equal before the law. (not addressing how things are in contrast to how they should be) Unfortunately our tax laws don't reflect that moral principle. While there are many ways to have equal taxation, our "progressive" system is not one of them. Particularly when credits, deductions, and exemptions are taken into account. Frankly I don't really care what the tax code is so long as it is equal (flat or otherwise). If the code is unreasonable "we the people" have many ways of expressing our displeasure. Should push come to shove the 2nd amendment exists to ensure "we the people" overcome whatever may challange "we the people".

People are happy when 'the rich' move away and invest and spend their wealth somewhere else?

They already invest and spend their wealth somewhere else. Instead of investing in America, they invest in the developing world. And for personal enjoyment, they buy up cheap land in Uruguay and build palatial villas in Nicaragua. USA benefits little from its wealthy living here. And oh yeah, trickle-down economics is a fraud and a myth: proven by 30 years of tax cut policy, accompanied by regressing real working income and escalating wealth disparity.

As long as we continue to tolerate unrestrained unfair trade and economic imbalances driven by wage and environmental arbitrage, wealth will continue to flow out of the country. Regardless of what kind of tax system we have, or whether we have taxes at all. The entire debate about taxes as an economic lynchpin is a red herring and a false flag diversion, until and unless our trade policies are fixed to restore fairness and justice.

'Red' is the proper term Pinkie.

"In California regulations delayed the opening of a new restaurant for up to18 months on average, while it took six weeks for CKE to get a unit opened in Texas. This is not a company that is trying to build nuclear power plants or turn brownfields into manufacturing facilities, but to open chain restaurants. The bottom line: $200,000 to $250,000 in additional opening costs in California for a restaurant because of a regulatory regime that is protecting consumers from too many food choices?"
http://www.realcl...236.html

for which we are ridiculed the world over.

And who CARES what the rest of the world thinks??

'Red' is the proper term Pinkie.

Hey - new movie coming out! Looks good-
http://www.youtub...=related

Lest we forget
http://www.youtub...=related

Is it fair that I work 70hrs a week then someone takes the money I earned and gives it to someone who doesn't want to work, takes drugs and parties? Is it fair that someone like me spends thousands of dollars, a ton of stress to move to the US legally, then people want to give criminal aliens a free pass to citizenship. Is it fair that companies who are unionized get preferential treatment over small family owned business?

How about a progressive notion. Treat everyone the same! Tax everyone the same! If someone breaks the law to get into the country, respect those that follow the rules and throw those that don't out.

But wait, the drunk partier wont be happy that s/he has to work. The unionized worker won't be happy that someone else get to do their protected work. The criminal alien won't be happy that s/he can't enjoy what the legal alien has.

The bottom line: $200,000 to $250,000 in additional opening costs in California for a restaurant because of a regulatory regime that is protecting consumers from too many food choices?

I don't know what you're talking about; new restaurants open all around me all the time. Maybe this is some out-of-state outfit with very low standards, who never learned how to run a quality establishment, and now faces a steep learning curve. If so, I don't particular want such operators in my neighborhood at any rate.

Is it fair that I work 70hrs a week then someone takes the money I earned and gives it to someone who doesn't want to work, takes drugs and parties?

Hasn't been the case since Welfare Reform. Get with the times.

housands of dollars, a ton of stress to move to the US legally, then people want to give criminal aliens a free pass

'cuz coming and living in the country illegally is totally stress-free and carries no costs...

ctd.

companies who are unionized get preferential treatment

Because, being better organized and having more political and economic weight behind them, they are in a better negotiating position? Well, that would certainly be one benefit -- and one of the original points -- of unionizing in the first place...

Tax everyone the same!

And usher in a new era of neo-Feudalism. Which is what we have been successfully doing over the past, oh, 30 years or so -- ever since Reagan came to power.

If someone breaks the law to get into the country, respect those that follow the rules and throw those that don't out.

What about when that someone has lived here for years or decades, is married, has a family? Throw the whole clan out, I take it? Or just Mommy? Real life gets more complicated than you reactionary simpletons make it out to be.

criminal alien won't be happy that s/he can't enjoy what the legal alien has

Like sub-minimum wage, atrocious working conditions, and blackmail?

PE, you need to become informed on many issues. I don't know about restaurants, but given ryggs past record, I trust him when he talks. If you believe welfare money doesn't go to alchole, smokes, illegal drugs, gambling, you need to do research, or just ask some welfare recipients. How about being in the green card process then losing your job, I think that is a bit stressful as you could be thrown out of the country. Being illegal and losing your job, just go to the next one. Oh, don't worry about health insurance, just go to the hospital being illegal your not going to pay.

If the average American realizes what Legal Immigration entails, they would have no sympathy for the criminal aliens, who flaunt your laws, bankrupt your medical system, your welfare system, and your criminal system.

What you increase taxes on, or penalize, you get less of...

What you decrease taxes on, or reward, you get more of...

If we're not going to have a flat tax, then we should have a Regressive tax system where the more you make, the lower percentage you pay for each higher bracket.

High earners would still pay more, in terms of real dollars, but would pay "less of their more" as their income increased. This would incentivize "making more money" for those whom "making more money" itself isn't incentive enough.

The poor would still pay the least actual amount, but they'd pay the highest percentage, while those who contributed the most to society would get the nice "thank you" of having their tax level eased with the more they produced.

Since everyone benefits when producers produce, I'd say a Regressive tax could be considered quite fair.

Sadly, you get more of what you subsidize as well, which goes a long way towards explaining the Left.

Don't get me wrong, I think controlling the border and preventing new illegal immigration is an important goal.

But you put far too much emphasis on the "criminality" of the desperate, mostly otherwise law-abiding and decent people who aspire for work and a better life, while letting slide the abhorrent criminality of their employers and traffickers who knowingly exploit these people. Illegal immigrants won't be coming here in nearly such numbers if there weren't such a huge pool of unscrupulous, criminal employers eager to replace legal citizens with illegal workers.

But without all that illegal labor, I'm afraid your groceries and restaurant bills, your landscaping and constructions costs, and altogether most of your daily expenses would skyrocket -- because the labor to provide those services would actually be required to be adequately compensated. And trade deficits would get even worse as a result. You benefit greatly from the "illegal aliens", even as you condemn them.

Cry me a river. If you are a criminal you hurt those around you. Throw the clan out! If you are not legal you have no sympathy from me. I have sympothy for legal people who lose everything because of mistakes. PE have sympathy for people who follow the RULES and get hurt by immigration.

http://www.immigr...or-story

http://www.busine...ror.html

http://www.flyert...-tn.html

PE, so you are in favor of using criminal aliens as slave labor just so you can get cheaper fruit or services? Are you in favor of substandard living conditions? I would and do pay more for service from legal people. I purposely do not hire anyone or any company that hires criminal aliens, even if they are cheaper.

We can find many arguments for progressive tax, for example:

1) The money are doing money, which brings social instability naturally. To make society more stable, the doing of money should be more expensive for rich people.

2) Rich people are exploiting public infrastructure relatively more, than the mid class people: for example the roads, airports, justice, latest results of scientific research etc. So they should pay more for it.

Cry me a river. If you are a criminal you hurt those around you.

You need to think of some better bullshit; that one's such low quality I don't think anyone but you could ever swallow it. You probably have never gotten to know any illegal immigrants, I'd wager. You probably don't have the first clue, whom you're talking about. Vomiting up steaming bovine excrement out of sheer ignorance, probably goaded on by radio talk show bloviators or Faux News puppet masters, or some such. Just another brownshirt in the making...

PE, so you are in favor of using criminal aliens as slave labor just so you can get cheaper fruit or services? Are you in favor of substandard living conditions?

Obviously not. So how come we aren't putting those exploitative EMPLOYERS in jail for life? Why all the anger and aggression against those who are EXPLOITED? Who is worse and more blameworthy, the willing slave or the eager slave-master?

I would and do pay more for service from legal people.

Really? Who grows, picks, washes and sorts your fruits and veggies? Who packages and ships your consumer goods?

I purposely do not hire anyone or any company that hires criminal aliens

How do you know they don't do it? Have they been certified and regularly inspected by the government to assure law compliance? If not, why not?

Would you support an unforgeable (biometrics-based) national ID system, to put a stop to identity theft and illegal employment once and for all? I'm guessing the answer is no...

you need to do research, or just ask some welfare recipients

How about I relate an anecdotal story of some relevance?

I am a legal immigrant who came into this country as an adolescent with my family. We arrived dirt-poor. Neither of my parents was employable. We were on both Welfare and AFDC for several years. Obviously, I went exclusively to public schools. My father eventually reeducated himself at cheap state-funded community colleges, and became a Software Engineer. My mother also took community college classes and became a school teacher for children with special needs. I graduated from public school system, went on to publicly funded UC system to obtain my two Bachelor's degrees on state scholarship; now productively employed in the high-tech industry, earning big bucks and yielding big economic and tax dividends, ever since.

I and my family would not have achieved such success if it weren't for all those govt. institutions and social assistance programs.

So Pinkie, why can't CA keep on being so generous?
Why are all the wealth creators leaving CA?

Maybe this is some out-of-state outfit with very low standards, who never learned how to run a quality establishment,

CKE owns the Carl's JR and Hardees brand.
"It all began in Los Angeles when an Ohio farmers son named Carl Karcher was rising before the sun each day to deliver baked goods. Seeing how well business was doing at one of his stops a hot dog cart at the corner of Florence and Central Carl and his wife, Margaret, made a leap of faith and borrowed $311 on their Plymouth automobile and added $15 in savings to purchase the business. "
http://www.ckr.co...html#40s

"And as government grew in New York the political class somehow found ways to underinvest in essential functions like infrastructure, spending just $2.8 billion a year of state money out of $93 billion in revenues on roads and bridges last year, according to the Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas. Two years ago the state had to close a bridge spanning Lake Champlain, disrupting the economy of the area, because the poorly-maintained span was about to collapse, and now the New York City metro area faces a possible economic cataclysm because the state can't find the funds or the will to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River. Businesses that have remained in the area are appalled, with good reason."
"in polls, business executives and owners consistently rank California as one of the least desirable places to locate or expand a business, and those executives typically rate the state's regulatory environment as their biggest disincentive."
http://www.realcl...com/arti

So Pinkie, why can't CA keep on being so generous?

In what sense is it being "so generous"?

Why are all the wealth creators leaving CA?

One of these days, you'll have to quit lying:

http://www.dof.ca...INAL.pdf

That's for 2011. Some selected highlights:

"Job Creation in California Outpaced the Nation"
"California Grew Faster than Most Developed Countries"
"California Grew Faster than Most Other States"

There would be no Silicon Valley without the UC system.

"Over the year, 24 states experienced statistically significant changes in employment, 23 of which were increases. The largest increase occurred in Texas (+269,500),
followed by California (+189,600), New York (+106,600), and Ohio (+74,100). The only state with an over-the-year statistically significant decrease was Indiana (-28,300).
(See table C.)"
http://www.bls.go....nr0.htm
"If California had maintained its position vis-à-vis other states since 2000, estimates Milken, it would have had 1.2m more jobs in 2007."
http://www.econom...14327185

since 2000

Of course, that's about as intellectually honest as saying that there hasn't been any global warming since 1998. Just as 1998 was highly abnormal due to its monstrous El Nino, and thereby is not a good baseline for global temperature comparisons, so obviously 2000 is a horrible choice for economic base-lining, since it marked the climax of the tech bubble -- a bubble most pronounced, of all states, in California.

Let's also not forget that the bubble that followed (real estate) also hit California particularly hard in the last couple of years, since a lot of jobs that have been lost recently were in residential construction and related industries.

Cherry pick data all you want, but CA unemployment rate is now 12%.

In 2003 is was 7%.

And, CA will NOT gain a seat in Congress based upon 2010 census data. In 2009, some were afraid they would lose a seat.

but CA unemployment rate is now 12%

Like I said, housing bubble.

What is it in Nevada (CA's neighbor; uber-Republican and deregulated)? Nevada is very popular for incorporating, due to very favorable tax and legal structures. Who's doing better: CA or NV? Explain and elaborate.

NV? NV is a union controlled state. How else can Harry Reid keep power?

http://en.wikiped...i/Nevada

"Libertarian laws"

"Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal (under the form of licensed brothels)."

"Already having legalized gaming and prostitution, Nevada continued the trend of boosting its profile by adopting one of the most liberal divorce statutes in the nation."

"Nevada has no personal income tax or corporate income tax."

"Nevada's state sales tax rate is 6.85 percent."

"Nevada also provides friendly environment for the formation of corporations"

"In addition, Nevada has no franchise tax."

"Crime:

Nevada has been ranked as the most dangerous state in the U.S. for five years in a row..." -- oops... I guess that comes with Libertarian/deregulated territory...

Yeah, sorry I misspoke when I called Nevada uber-Republican; I confused it with Arizona (and really, the whole southern half of Nevada in practice), and after all it's unusual to have such a business-friendly, low-tax, deregulated state associated with Democrat-dominated government.

Anyway, how much better is AZ doing?

"Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal (under the form of licensed brothels)."

Prostitution should be legal.

I would rather live in Las Vegas than Los Angeles.
I-15 is a parking lot from LV to LA on Sunday afternoons.
Who is losing here?
High speed rail has been proposed between LA and LV for years, but the major opposition is from California. They don't want to loose MORE business to NV.
'Liberals' hate it when their victims can vote with their feet and escape.
For years CA tried to tax pensions of people who left the state until the SCOTUS said it was illegal.

Prostitution should be legal.

I didn't say it shouldn't be. I think pot should be legal too. But Swenson says that deregulation and low taxes solve all problems whereas regulation and high taxes are the source of all problems, so he should explain why Nevada is actually doing worse, economically, than California. THAT was my point.

I-15 is a parking lot from LV to LA on Sunday afternoons.
Who is losing here?

Lots of CA freeways are parking lots at various times of week. Must be due to the state being SO unpopular, that nobody wants to live here... Incidentally, back in '06 we did prop 1A that guaranteed stable funding for transportation -- since then, things have been steadily improving in that regard.

'Liberals' hate it when their victims can vote with their feet and escape.

LMAO. I didn't realize CA was a high-security prison camp. You 'enlighten' me more every day!

CA tried to tax pensions

But you don't believe in pensions at all, Swenson.

NV is dependent upon gaming income from tourists.
When tourism is down, so is the income in NV.
In the early 90's NV was growing at a rate of 5000/month.
Couple that with the govt encouraged low interest rates inspired a housing boom...and bust.

What's wrong with pensions? Especially ones that are paid for with real money that was invested, not stolen from taxpayers.

When tourism is down, so is the income in NV.

CA depends on tourism, too. It also depends on high-tech exports. Both of which had been impacted. It also used to depend a lot on military spending, and parts of the state suffered gravely when bases were closed and spending was pulled in the late 80's and early 90's.

In the early 90's NV was growing at a rate of 5000/month.

In the early 90's CA was growing at a rate of over 41000/month.

Couple that with the govt encouraged low interest rates inspired a housing boom...and bust.

Oh, and CA is different how in that regard?

See, there is after all such a thing as nuanced analysis, and there are after all economic forces and factors other than tax code and regulation. Then again, you probably don't see, because you will forever refuse to see.

What's wrong with pensions?

But but but... they're SOCIALISTIC institutions. They came about thanks to demands of LABOR UNIONS. I don't think that's wrong, but you SURELY do.

What made CA great is not socialism.
Socialism is a parasite and bleeds a wealthy economy, until it sucks it dry, like its been doing now in CA, MI, NY, etc.

Hughes Aircraft Company used to have a great pension system. Employees contributed 3% and could retire at 55.

General Dynamics' missile business was purchased by Hughes in the 90s and relocated to Tucson.
They produced an unofficial video comparing the city when the plant opened and when is closed. It went from a nice suburb to a gang invested dump.
I wonder how long the IR detector companies in Goleta can hang on. How can they afford to attract anyone to work there when they have to drive over an hour to afford a place to live? Especially when the Dallas area has similar businesses and cheaper housing.
I hope more socialists keep moving to CA and proving the wisdom of the federal system.

"A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.

The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.

All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.
"Ryan outlined three mistakes he made while steering his company into a brick wall. All three reasons boiled down failing to generate enough capital.

Read more: http://www.ksbw.c...XWaK2Z00

Politicians risk other people's money. Maybe politicians should wait to see what other people do with their own money before wasting coerced taxpayer's money.
How many politicians lost their job over this?
"
Those Californian central planners are sure smart!

Hughes Aircraft Company used to have a great pension system.

Which I'm certain they wouldn't have had, were it not for the Unions and/or govt. mandates.

How can they afford to attract anyone to work there when they have to drive over an hour to afford a place to live? Especially when the Dallas area has similar businesses and cheaper housing.

So, if housing prices are in any way indicative of demand, then Dallas must be cheap because nobody wants to live there, whereas conversely Goleta must be highly desirable. Why?

Politicians risk other people's money.

And in doing so, risk their own jobs.

How many politicians lost their job over this?

Ask the voters of Salinas.

Those Californian central planners are sure smart!

Central what now?

politicians should wait to see what other people do with their own money before wasting coerced taxpayer's money.

When voters demand jobs, politicians are obliged to provide by whatever means at their disposal. Democracy!

Socialism is a parasite and bleeds a wealthy economy, until it sucks it dry

Speaking of great companies with great perks... Remind me, which state is the world's most popular web apps/search/mobile OS company located in? What about that recently-crowned America's #1 most valuable company -- you know the one -- which state is that one about to start building its shiny brand-new HQ? Now, that central processing unit in your computer: the company that makes it is located in which state? What about your computer's graphics card -- where be the company that designs it? What about all that software your computer is running; which state is most of that written? Which state dominates the world in audo-visual content creation and export markets?

Random coincidences, to be sure. Nothing to see here; grope (blindly) along.

If it feels good, criminalize it. It's the Republican way.

But isn't it odd that Republican states have the highest levels of teen pregnancies, and are the largest per-capita consumers of hard core pornography?

No. While neither behavior may be optimal, people in Red States are freer than people in blue states.

Speaking of great companies with great perks... Remind me, which state is the world's most popular web apps/search/mobile OS company located in? What about that recently-crowned America's #1 most valuable company -- you know the one -- which state is that one about to start building its shiny brand-new HQ? Now, that central processing unit in your computer: the company that makes it is located in which state? What about your computer's graphics card -- where be the company that designs it? What about all that software your computer is running; which state is most of that written? Which state dominates the world in audo-visual content creation and export markets?

Random coincidences, to be sure. Nothing to see here; grope (blindly) along.

dood, it took over 100 years for England to lose its standing as the most important, prosperous, far-thinking, country in the world.

California is toast unless it reins in its gob'mint.

A leading computer integrator's HQ is in Dallas, TX.

I think they drew the wrong conclusions from this study. It's more like "ignorance is bliss". Those countries have progressive tax systems for a reason and it's not because the people are independent and think for themselves.

"A leading computer integrator's HQ is in Dallas, TX." - RyggTard

Assembling parts designed and built in China, Malaysia, and Korea

"people in Red States are freer than people in blue states." - Shootist

Says the Wage Slave.

What fraction of your adult life is spent being a slave Shootist?

"The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.' - RyggTard

Isn't it sad what a dying nation will do. Corporate welfare is an American tradition.

Crony socialism is a statist tradition.
When companies are not 'helped' by the govt, and that survive market competition, are more robust than those who depend upon state welfare.

"They produced an unofficial video comparing the city when the plant opened and when is closed. It went from a nice suburb to a gang invested dump." - RyggTard

The same can be said about America in general.

But that is what American style Fascism (Corporatism) get you.

Wow, hell must be freezing, I agree with VD, Fascism (socialism) is not good for liberty and prosperity.

"What's wrong with pensions? Especially ones that are paid for with real money that was invested, not stolen from taxpayers." - RyggTard

You mean the pensions that were raided by their funding corporations who then went bankrupt and left the pensioners holding an empty bag?

Or are you referring to the pensions that lost most of their value in the ongoing economic downturn caused by Corrupt Republican politicians (George Bush comes to mind).

"Wow, hell must be freezing, I agree with VD, Fascism (socialism) is not good for liberty and prosperity." - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. We keep educating you and you keep being stupid.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

"I-15 is a parking lot from LV to LA on Sunday afternoons.
Who is losing here?" - RyggTard

The wage slaves who are going to work. Obviously.

But, being slaves, they put up with it since they know no better.

Being stuck on the freeway doesn't detract substantially from their work time - they will make it up. It does however detract from their personal time, and subtract from their wallet.

"All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan." - RyggTard

Wrong again RyggTard. The money isn't gone. It simply changed hands, and in so doing became part of the general economy.

Without a doubt a few pennies of it are actually in your pocket.

"Maybe politicians should wait to see what other people do with their own money before wasting coerced taxpayer's money." - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. He just can't comprehend the fact that leaders are elected to lead.

In this case the error cost each family in Salinas the equivalent of a lunch for 1 at McDonalds.

Oh the humanity... Such waste...

"I would rather live in Las Vegas than Los Angeles." - RyggTard

Given the crime rate of Los Angeles I think most people would. But what there isn't much point of comparing one overflowing toilet with another, when you could live in a civilized nation like Japan, or New Zealand, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc.

"Cherry pick data all you want, but CA unemployment rate is now 12%.

In 2003 is was 7%." - RyggTard

Only 12% when the U.S. average is 19%.

The Socialist state of California must be doing something right.

As to the general state of unemployment in America, that is what 30 years of Borrow and Spend Republicanism will get you.

"If California had maintained its position vis-à-vis other states since 2000, estimates Milken, it would have had 1.2m more jobs in 2007." - RyggTard

Ya, too bad State Republicans have been holding California budget hostage for the last few decades.

It is sad for the State that Republicans are more interested in their petty failed ideology than they are of representing the interests of the people of California.

"When companies are not 'helped' by the govt, and that survive market competition, are more robust than those who depend upon state welfare."

The biggest corporation receiving state welfare is Exxon - the worlds second largest corporation.

The largest corporation is Apple, which would not exist without protection of it's "intellectual property" - An invalid concept - by the state.

It is true that many multinational corporations who have left America have done so because they could not find enough bribes to stay.

"It took over 100 years for England to lose its standing as the most important, prosperous, far-thinking, country in the world." - Shootist

And Borrow and Spend Republicans managed to do it to America in less than 30 years.