Socialist hellhole California moves from 8th to 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing France

choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You want us to respond to projections made from data that were gathered from the first quarter. I mean, so, Hillary is winning in the polls. Why don't we just call the election?

CA by itself is the sixth largest economy. These projections are just that and will flip back and forth all year. Other projections show the state is doing just fine. You are a ditz and not worth spending time pulling up numbers.

Here is a tit for you to suck on, little bacon bit.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-los-angeles-economy-forecast-20160217-story.html
BUSINESS
California economy is poised to grow in 2016 and 2017, report says
Employers in Los Angeles and the rest of California will keep hiring in the next two years but at a slightly slower pace than in 2015, a new report said.

The state is poised to add more than 650,000 jobs this year and next, pushing down the current 7% unemployment rate to about 5.9% by 2017, according to an annual forecast released Wednesday by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

After climbing 3% in 2015, nonfarm jobs are expected to rise 2.4% this year and 1.6% in 2017, the report said. The slower pace of growth will also be reflected in the United States overall, and is a natural slowdown more than six years after the Great Recession ended, said Robert Kleinhenz, the group’s chief economist.

The article goes on with nothing but good news regarding jobs in every sector. California with it's informed economic strategy (aka "liberal) is showing the way. Too bad shitty Republican governance dooms states dumb enough to vote the GOP bacon eaters into office to suffer debt, soaring unemployment and bitterness.
Click to expand...
Yup, fiscal liberals look to projections and estimations in the future and fiscal conservatives look to the history of the past to see what actually happened.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Least reliant on FEDERAL welfare is what your infographic pointed out. CA welfare is a different beast altogether.

But this is you wanting to steer me to your pet argument, and this is me staying with the information casting the truthfulness of the PROJECTION numbers the HuffPo article (it had to come from there with the whole Kansas thing, it was almost copy/pasta) into doubt as they are PROJECTIONS just like, and in the same report as, the January projection for tax revenue that has to be revised 1/2 way into the year to the tune of $2.2B.

EDIT: It was Nebraska Paddy used as the comparison, I knew it was one of those flat boring states.
Click to expand...
Meltdown. Your paragraph has three topics in it. I'll break my trouncing of your reply into the three topics for the sake of clarity.

  • Regarding the infographic which is not from Huffpo, the graph contains an absolutely fair comparison between states. What, you want to include oranges and apples for CA when all other data is in oranges? That would only make sense to a wing nut who can't stand to lose an argument to a liberal. Not to mention that other states have their own welfare items on the budget. I'm not diving into all the numbers because it doesn't matter. CA ranks among the lowest of states in Federal aid as a percentage of revenue. No smoke and mirrors. The word "Federal" was plastered all over that graphic.

The data on that graph was from 2012 and not a projection. Where did you get that idea? Look at the graph again.​

  • What Huffpo article are you talking about? Paddy posted a Reuters article. As in that hot bed of liberalism, Reuters, LOL.


as in:
The most populous U.S. state has outpaced the rest of the country on job growth, California's finance department said in its June bulletin this week. Gross state product was $2.46 trillion in 2015, with 4.1 percent of growth in real terms, it added.

U.S. gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent in 2015. Growth slowed to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016.
note to idjot wing nut, read "first quarter 2016", not first half. Sheesh.​

  • And finally, this from that stupid ass blog you posted as gospel: California's tax revenues came in $869 million less than forecast for the first four months of the year.
OK, so, four months isn't six months, no matter how bad you are at math. Do you know why a six month revenue report isn't available? Because the sixth month isn't over! ahhahahhaaaaahaaahaa oh man that was funny. Thanks for the levity.

In any case, CA has revenue somewhere north of 2 trillion dollars. The silly ass blog that you referenced, snivels about a -PROJECTED- shortfall somewhere north of 2 Billion dollars. Do the math. The "shortfall" is not even a significant digit in terms of projection error. Not only that, but the purpose of running this projection is to give management the ability to adjust spending going forward so that shortfall isn't realized.
​
Bitch, you've been owned. go make me a sandwich.

​

 
Last edited:
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
kmog33 said:
This is way off. If you're poor in ca, your taxes aren't high. If you have a reasonable amount of money you're getting hit for 40%. Germany taxes their upper tax brackets about that and a bit higher up to ~50% but they also have universal healthcare and you can afford to live off of min wage. Ca also doesn't do capital Gaines, it's taxes just like normal income. Which means 30-40% if you actually make money.

My fiancé and I are having a terrible time buying a house, because we have the money to put 30-40% down, but if we pull the money out of stock we lose basically half of it. And cashing out on $350k and immediately give $160k to the govt....

I don't know what you think is high taxes, but 30-40% of my money seems like a lot to me.

I'm aware I'm including both federal and state taxes, but if I live anywhere other than ca, I would be paying much less on cashing out on investments.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Thank you for the well thought out response. I love how just because you're correcting me you draw likes from the usual crowd that apparently didn't stop to read what you wrote.

I didn't mention the things you did for two reasons, firstly those details were not necessary to my point at the time against someone not yourself. But the main reason is that I didn't know them.

I could be wrong as I don't know CA tax law. But I can't imagine a scenario where you would lose half of your savings by taking it out. If you're not a certain age you lose 10%, you'll pay federal capital gains on just the gains, and state tax on the gains. You should have a significant chunck of principal in there.... But I digress.

Your point really weakens the op in this thread becuae it shows how high taxes on the moderately well to do are really punitive.

Thank you for the eloquent explanation.
 
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Thank you for the well thought out response. I love how just because you're correcting me you draw likes from the usual crowd that apparently didn't stop to read what you wrote.

I didn't mention the things you did for two reasons, firstly those details were not necessary to my point at the time against someone not yourself. But the main reason is that I didn't know them.

I could be wrong as I don't know CA tax law. But I can't imagine a scenario where you would lose half of your savings by taking it out. If you're not a certain age you lose 10%, you'll pay federal capital gains on just the gains, and state tax on the gains. You should have a significant chunck of principal in there.... But I digress.

Your point really weakens the op in this thread becuae it shows how high taxes on the moderately well to do are really punitive.

Thank you for the eloquent explanation.
Click to expand...
It's not savings, it's investments that are charged just like income in ca. So rather than 15% for capital gaines when I sell stock, my stock that I sell gets lumped into my income for the year so I have to pay all of the California and federal taxes for income, ssi, capital Gaines as well as a federal tax. In California, if you sell stock or investments, you lose more money than anywhere else in the us to Uncle Sam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
If money is in your bank account, it means you already payed taxes on it, or plan on it because you'll get audited pretty quick if you don't. Any money that goes into your bank account is considered income and therefore is taxed as such. So technically the money in your savings account has already theoretically been gouged by the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
kmog33 said:
It's not savings, it's investments that are charged just like income in ca. So rather than 15% for capital gaines when I sell stock, my stock that I sell gets lumped into my income for the year so I have to pay all of the California and federal taxes for income, ssi, capital Gaines as well as a federal tax. In California, if you sell stock or investments, you lose more money than anywhere else in the us to Uncle Sam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I ran some numbers using this calculator:

https://smartasset.com/investing/capital-gains-tax-calculator#iSs5Pjj1WM

For people making just under $100,000, Federal captial gains rate is still 15% in CA as in other states. CA capital gains rate is 9.3%

Even for people making millions, federal capital gains is the same as elsewhere, 23.8% and CA cap gain tax is 13.3%

These all assume asset is held for one year. Cap gains tax in CA is higher than in other states, that is for sure. Fed cap gains tax is the same as other states, at least according to that calculator.
 
Last edited:
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Are you sure about that? I ran some numbers using this calculator:

https://smartasset.com/investing/capital-gains-tax-calculator#iSs5Pjj1WM

Federal captial gains rate is still 15% in CA as in other states. For people making just under $100,000, CA capital gains rate is 9.3%
Click to expand...
Yes, as I stated. California taxes realized assets as income and will be taxed as income in ca. On top of the income tax you also have to pay a 15% capital Gaines.

California as a state, does not recognize capital Gaines.

"There is no special tax break for capital gains in CA, meaning they are potentially taxed at the highest marginal tax rate of 13.3%, the highest in the USA. When combined with the top LTCG rate of 20% at the federal level, CA's capital gains taxes are the 2nd highest in the world.Apr 16, 2015"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
Also if you noticed the amounts I'm taking about in my personal experience exceed $300k.

If you sell $300k in stock, your income bracket for that tax year is well over $100k.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Are you sure about that? I ran some numbers using this calculator:

https://smartasset.com/investing/capital-gains-tax-calculator#iSs5Pjj1WM

Federal captial gains rate is still 15% in CA as in other states. For people making just under $100,000, CA capital gains rate is 9.3%
Click to expand...
Also, taking your example, someone making under $100k would be taxed a minimum of 24.3%. 9.3% for state income and then 15% for capital Gaines.

This doesn't take into account the other state taxes you don't really think about all the time like ssi, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
kmog33 said:
It's not savings, it's investments that are charged just like income in ca. So rather than 15% for capital gaines when I sell stock, my stock that I sell gets lumped into my income for the year so I have to pay all of the California and federal taxes for income, ssi, capital Gaines as well as a federal tax. In California, if you sell stock or investments, you lose more money than anywhere else in the us to Uncle Sam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Maybe I misread the part that I highlighted in bold. In any case, your follow up statements make sense.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You aren't a millionaire, are you?

Because you haven't clue number one what they do or how they live.

They DON'T spend their money, choosing instead to live of the interest.

Rule number one of wealth preservation; DON'T touch the principal!
Click to expand...
Someone who only makes a million in cali? They are spening their money.

They pay people to manage their money and they invest in stocks and bonds. They buy life insurance and retirement plans.

My friend is a carpenter and roofer. He works on millionare homes. They pay good money for services that provides work for his crew. Two years ago he was in landscaping and again the wealthy shell out big bucks for lawn and garden maintenance.
 
thebonzaseedbank

thebonzaseedbank

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
Someone who only makes a million in cali? They are spening their money.

They pay people to manage their money and they invest in stocks and bonds. They buy life insurance and retirement plans.

My friend is a carpenter and roofer. He works on millionare homes. They pay good money for services that provides work for his crew. Two years ago he was in landscaping and again the wealthy shell out big bucks for lawn and garden maintenance.
Click to expand...
I hear that, they shell out big everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top