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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24099)	8/19/2012 9:24:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

That per capita data also shows increases. And its not what he said. He sent a smaller budget. Not less spending per capita. Also note that chart starts after a large per capita increase. And the revenue increased by a lot, CA's deficits aren't because it undertaxed. FY 90-91 general fund revenue was $38bil. FY 2008-9 it was $102bil (see reason.org ) Even adjusted for both population increase and inflation, you have bigger government. Adjusting for inflation (91 to 2009) gives you $59.1 bil. CA's population increased by less than a quarter from 91 to 09 but rounding that up to 25% and multiplying the inflation adjusted budget by that gives you under $74bil, instead of the actual $102bil from 2008-9. Rather than repeating the same calculation for spending, I'll just note that the fiscal situation deteriorated since spending went up faster then revenue.