Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (486104)	6/8/2009 11:52:08 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577188

Not really.....the services are much better here. To the extent that's true, your supporting my point. CA provides more than just the basics. That's a good point. CA relies too much on the wealthy for its income, so when the income of the wealthy drops with server market corrections and financial difficulties, the state's income drops. It has no choice because of Prop 13. Its basic tax structure was similar before Prop 13. On the state level Prop 13 just controlled increases. The basic structure is set towards reliance on the rich. Since Prop 13 CA's economy, and its tax revenue has grown faster than the population. Until the recession started revenue was flowing pretty freely in to the CA government, but the government kept spending it. With no change in tax income from what CA actually had, if CA had restricted spending growth to the increase in inflation and population, CA would have been having a lot of surpluses and might still be having one even now. Tim, I think those cuts were made long ago No they where not. Not even in real per-capita terms. Certain portions of the budget maybe. "Cuts" that amount to a solid increase in real per capita spending, just not as large of increase as originally planned, yes, but that's not a cut.