Religions > Atheism > Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Born Again Atheist" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2003 05:34:04 PM |
| Object: |
Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
Davis became governor of California in November of 1998. Let's pull up
available financial stats of California from 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
from U.S. Small Business Administration site.
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/profiles/03ca.pdf - 2003 Report
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/profiles/02ca.pdf - 2002 Report
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/profiles/01ca.pdf - 2001 Report
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/profiles/00ca.pdf - 2000 Report
Rates of Increase/Decrease of # of Businesses:
Employer Businesses
+2.8% - 1999
+3.7 - 2000
+ 4.9% - 2001
+3.7% - 2002
Self-Employment
-4.7% - 1999
-0.1% - 2000
-1.0% - 2001
-0.7% - 2002
Total Number of Firms increased from 1998 to 2000 by more than 20,000.
There was never a decrease throughout these years as far as I can see.
Number of Banks declined steadily though.
Net change in employment was positive from 1999-2000.
Net change in non-employer firms was positive 1999-2000 (about
50,000).
From latest 2003 Report:
"In 2002-2003, gross domestic product continued to rise nationwide,
while growth in employment remained slow to recover. Small businesses
continued to be a source of economic strength nationally and in
California. Research
from the Office of Advocacy shows that half of U.S. private non-farm
output and employment stem from small firms with 500 or fewer
employees. Women and minority entrepreneurs are also significant
participants in the state's
economy. Advocacy uses a variety of data bases to document the
contributions of small, minority-, and women-owned businesses in
California."
"Employment. In 2000, businesses with fewer than 500 workers employed
53.0 percent of the state's 12,884,692 non-farm sector employees. The
industry with the most small business employees was manufacturing.
Between 1999 and 2000, small businesses added a net total of 428,607
employees; they represented 80 percent of net non-farm employment
change in the state"
"Business Turnover. Between 2001 and 2002, new employer firms
increased 1.5 percent to 130,840. Business bankruptcies decreased by
1.9 percent, and totaled 5,141 in 2002. Business terminations
increased by 4.7 percent, and
totaled 156,858 in 2002 "
So did something catastrophic happen to businesses in 2003-2004? Could
it be just Bush's incompetency itself that drove Californian and many
other states' economy into the crapper? I have no stats on these years
but I do think Davis is fit to be the governor of California based on
the evidence at hand.
What this also suggests is that Arnold might be a lying son of a
biatch. I guess to find that out I had to waste 40 minutes of my life.
.
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 12:24:02 AM |
|
|
"Born Again Atheist" <michael@buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:a07bedeb.0308261434.2e6f12db@posting.google.com..
People are moving out of California in "large" numbers for the first time since California attracted
residents through the Gold Rush into northern California. San Diego's population is also decreasing
and that's a bad news/good news situation. It's bad news for business, but good news for
"claustrophobic" residents.
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise property taxes. Well, Warren Buffett
pays some $4,000 to property taxes on his $4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich,
like Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea. However, a property tax increase will
affect the middle-class plenty.
I would assert that the reason why many are leaving California is because of the recall election.
Perhaps this is some sort of filter? The recall law created around 1902 seems to be a foreign
concept to most eastern Americans and and ignorant/uneducated Californians.
Less people means less traffic which means increased economic efficiency, but less people also means
less business which means a devalued economy... but the economy in California really isn't a big
deal if you look at the big picture. California, if it were a country, would be #5 under Great
Britain and above France.
By the way, I think from Jan. 2002-2003, the total pop. increased by 500,000. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 01:48:18 AM |
|
|
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in
news:UfX2b.17485$Qy4.15314@fed1read05:
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise property
taxes. Well, Warren Buffett pays some $4,000 to property taxes on his
$4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich, like
Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea. However, a
property tax increase will affect the middle-class plenty.
Since Buffet made his tax statement, Arnold has been stating that he has
no interest in raising property taxes and is "a big supporter of prop.
13". He jokingly threatened to make Buffet do 500 push ups if he
mentioned raising taxes again. Anyway, I don't think prop 13 has a lot of
effect 27 years after the cutoff date...
As far as raising taxes in general he says at this point he doesn't see
the need. Property taxes are plenty high here. I looked up our ranking
compared to other states for another thread. IIRC California ranks 4th
highest in the country in property tax per capita.
From what I have heard so far. Arnold is more progressive(moderate at
least) than his Republican label suggests.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 07:06:45 AM |
|
|
Dave W <question.everythingUCEWILLBEIGNORED@verizon.net> wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote:
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise property
taxes. Well, Warren Buffett pays some $4,000 to property taxes on his
$4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich, like
Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea. However, a
property tax increase will affect the middle-class plenty.
Since Buffet made his tax statement, Arnold has been stating that he has
no interest in raising property taxes and is "a big supporter of prop.
13". He jokingly threatened to make Buffet do 500 push ups if he
mentioned raising taxes again. Anyway, I don't think prop 13 has a lot of
effect 27 years after the cutoff date...
As far as raising taxes in general he says at this point he doesn't see
the need. Property taxes are plenty high here. I looked up our ranking
compared to other states for another thread. IIRC California ranks 4th
highest in the country in property tax per capita.
I think you need *at least* one additional statistic
to make that meaningful.
California's *income* per capita is only 10th (infoplease.com for 2002),
thus indicating a {dis}proportionately high property tax to income ratio.
[Better still would be to check total taxes per capita and compare,
since California *could* be 50th in, say, tax on gasoline.]
From what I have heard so far. Arnold is more progressive(moderate at
least) than his Republican label suggests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 10:44:08 PM |
|
|
In article <6215668a.0308270406.34668b8f@posting.google.com>,
(Brian F. King) wrote:
Dave W <question.everythingUCEWILLBEIGNORED@verizon.net> wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote:
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise property
taxes. Well, Warren Buffett pays some $4,000 to property taxes on his
$4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich, like
Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea. However, a
property tax increase will affect the middle-class plenty.
Since Buffet made his tax statement, Arnold has been stating that he has
no interest in raising property taxes and is "a big supporter of prop.
13". He jokingly threatened to make Buffet do 500 push ups if he
mentioned raising taxes again. Anyway, I don't think prop 13 has a lot of
effect 27 years after the cutoff date...
As far as raising taxes in general he says at this point he doesn't see
the need. Property taxes are plenty high here. I looked up our ranking
compared to other states for another thread. IIRC California ranks 4th
highest in the country in property tax per capita.
I think you need *at least* one additional statistic
to make that meaningful.
California's *income* per capita is only 10th (infoplease.com for 2002),
thus indicating a {dis}proportionately high property tax to income ratio.
[Better still would be to check total taxes per capita and compare,
since California *could* be 50th in, say, tax on gasoline.]
From what I have heard so far. Arnold is more progressive(moderate at
least) than his Republican label suggests.
You'd think by the way people are talking that the tax burden in
California is really high. But that isn't the case. The total tax burden
of California as percentage of income is in the middle - 24th.
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxburdens.html
California 10.3% 24
Taxes that are included in the state and local tax burden are as follows:
* Property Taxes
* Sales and Gross Receipts
* Selective Sales Taxes (alcoholic beverages, amusements, insurance
premiums, motor fuels, pari-mutuels, public utilities, tobacco products,
and others)
* Licenses (alcoholic beverages, amusements, corporation, hunting and
fishing, motor vehicle, motor vehicle operators, public utility,
occupation and business)
* Other Taxes (individual income, corporation net income, death and
gift, documentary and stock transfer, severance, and others)
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
28 Aug 2003 05:25:22 PM |
|
|
In article <xGn3b.26980$Qy4.19769@fed1read05>,
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote:
"Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lodited-706129.20432427082003@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
You'd think by the way people are talking that the tax burden in
California is really high. But that isn't the case. The total tax burden
of California as percentage of income is in the middle - 24th.
We're spoiled. :)
Yeah; I guess we want to be below average. :-)
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 03:04:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 06:48:18 GMT, Dave W
<question.everythingUCEWILLBEIGNORED@verizon.net> wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in
news:UfX2b.17485$Qy4.15314@fed1read05:
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise property
taxes. Well, Warren Buffett pays some $4,000 to property taxes on his
$4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich, like
Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea. However, a
property tax increase will affect the middle-class plenty.
Since Buffet made his tax statement, Arnold has been stating that he has
no interest in raising property taxes and is "a big supporter of prop.
13". He jokingly threatened to make Buffet do 500 push ups if he
mentioned raising taxes again. Anyway, I don't think prop 13 has a lot of
effect 27 years after the cutoff date...
As far as raising taxes in general he says at this point he doesn't see
the need. Property taxes are plenty high here. I looked up our ranking
compared to other states for another thread. IIRC California ranks 4th
highest in the country in property tax per capita.
Shouldn't that number be expressed as a percentage of the per capita
income? And I thought Buffet was not for raising of the property
taxes per se but to assess it at the FMV of the propety, rather than
the book value.
From what I have heard so far. Arnold is more progressive(moderate at
least) than his Republican label suggests.
Which I suppose is why the hardcore GOPers hate him the way they hated
Riordon.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -275 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 01:25:32 PM |
|
|
(Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John
Pointdexter) wrote in news:3f4c6532.41518640@news.cox.net:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 06:48:18 GMT, Dave W
<question.everythingUCEWILLBEIGNORED@verizon.net> wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in
news:UfX2b.17485$Qy4.15314@fed1read05:
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise
property taxes. Well, Warren Buffett pays some $4,000 to property
taxes on his $4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich,
like Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea.
However, a property tax increase will affect the middle-class
plenty.
Since Buffet made his tax statement, Arnold has been stating that he
has no interest in raising property taxes and is "a big supporter of
prop. 13". He jokingly threatened to make Buffet do 500 push ups if he
mentioned raising taxes again. Anyway, I don't think prop 13 has a lot
of effect 27 years after the cutoff date...
As far as raising taxes in general he says at this point he doesn't
see
the need. Property taxes are plenty high here. I looked up our ranking
compared to other states for another thread. IIRC California ranks 4th
highest in the country in property tax per capita.
Shouldn't that number be expressed as a percentage of the per capita
income? And I thought Buffet was not for raising of the property
taxes per se but to assess it at the FMV of the propety, rather than
the book value.
<sigh> I should have bookmarked the page I got my stats..
IIRC the stats I found were based on taxes collected compared to
population. It seems like Nebraska was higher than Ca. Makes sense. Fewer
people I imagine there are quite a few farmers with large pieces of land
to their name.
All I heard was that Buffet basically said that our PT was too low. If he
elaborated I would like to see the full statement. Arnold started
defending prop 13 so I am guessing Buffet might have that(prop 13) stuck
in his craw. I wonder if there is a significant impact on revenue after
27 years. If you sell your property that was protected under p13 that
property loses that status.
From what I have heard so far. Arnold is more progressive(moderate at
least) than his Republican label suggests.
Which I suppose is why the hardcore GOPers hate him the way they hated
Riordon.
True.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
28 Aug 2003 01:06:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:25:32 GMT, Dave W
<question.everythingUCEWILLBEIGNORED@verizon.net> wrote:
eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John
Pointdexter) wrote in news:3f4c6532.41518640@news.cox.net:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 06:48:18 GMT, Dave W
<question.everythingUCEWILLBEIGNORED@verizon.net> wrote:
"metahuman" <@metavirus.net> wrote in
news:UfX2b.17485$Qy4.15314@fed1read05:
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise
property taxes. Well, Warren Buffett pays some $4,000 to property
taxes on his $4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich,
like Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea.
However, a property tax increase will affect the middle-class
plenty.
Since Buffet made his tax statement, Arnold has been stating that he
has no interest in raising property taxes and is "a big supporter of
prop. 13". He jokingly threatened to make Buffet do 500 push ups if he
mentioned raising taxes again. Anyway, I don't think prop 13 has a lot
of effect 27 years after the cutoff date...
As far as raising taxes in general he says at this point he doesn't
see
the need. Property taxes are plenty high here. I looked up our ranking
compared to other states for another thread. IIRC California ranks 4th
highest in the country in property tax per capita.
Shouldn't that number be expressed as a percentage of the per capita
income? And I thought Buffet was not for raising of the property
taxes per se but to assess it at the FMV of the propety, rather than
the book value.
<sigh> I should have bookmarked the page I got my stats..
IIRC the stats I found were based on taxes collected compared to
population. It seems like Nebraska was higher than Ca. Makes sense. Fewer
people I imagine there are quite a few farmers with large pieces of land
to their name.
All I heard was that Buffet basically said that our PT was too low. If he
elaborated I would like to see the full statement. Arnold started
defending prop 13 so I am guessing Buffet might have that(prop 13) stuck
in his craw. I wonder if there is a significant impact on revenue after
27 years. If you sell your property that was protected under p13 that
property loses that status.
There was an article on LA Times that showed some pretty dramtic
effects of Prop13. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they had an
example of how Disenyland is paying 30 cent per acre on their propert
tax while a restaurant next door is paying a fairly large amount
becuase they just opened. It seems to me that one of the unintended
consequences newer buisnesses start out with the field tilted just a
bit against them.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -275 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter" |
|
| Title: Re: Arnold talked about failing and fleeing businesses? Let's look at the stats. |
27 Aug 2003 01:43:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:24:02 -0700, "metahuman" <@metavirus.net>
wrote:
"Born Again Atheist" <michael@buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:a07bedeb.0308261434.2e6f12db@posting.google.com..
People are moving out of California in "large" numbers for the first time since California attracted
residents through the Gold Rush into northern California. San Diego's population is also decreasing
and that's a bad news/good news situation. It's bad news for business, but good news for
"claustrophobic" residents.
The net out migration was actually a lot worse during 1990-1994 than
it is now. The net internal migration for Calfornia is -39,531 in
2001, or about .1 percent of the total California population. In
comparison, there was a net domestic outmigration of more than 500,000
between 1990 and 1995.
http://www.areaconnect.com/population.htm?s=CA
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/Dommig.pdf
The only problem I have with Arnold is that he wants to raise property taxes. Well, Warren Buffett
pays some $4,000 to property taxes on his $4-40m home. Raising property taxes for the super rich,
like Schwarzenegger and Buffett, may not be such a bad idea. However, a property tax increase will
affect the middle-class plenty.
If property taxes were raised all by itself then that would definitely
hurt the middle class. However, if property taxes were levied as
substitutes for state income taxes and sales taxes, then it would be
unsertain which way the effect would be. The reason why propoerty
taxes is preferable to income taxes from the perspective of the state
government is that it makes their cash flow more constant, so there is
less of the a danger for the state government to blow their money in a
procyclical boom-and-bust manner.
I would assert that the reason why many are leaving California is because of the recall election.
Perhaps this is some sort of filter? The recall law created around 1902 seems to be a foreign
concept to most eastern Americans and and ignorant/uneducated Californians.
Less people means less traffic which means increased economic efficiency, but less people also means
less business which means a devalued economy... but the economy in California really isn't a big
deal if you look at the big picture. California, if it were a country, would be #5 under Great
Britain and above France.
I am of the opinion that we should value quality over quanity- a Cal
Tech professor will do more for the California economy than 5 high
school dropouts. Were California its own republic, it would have more
Nobel Laureates than any other country. This is the land of Richard
Feynman and Dan McFadden, and I think this is what we should emphasize
on as a state.
By the way, I think from Jan. 2002-2003, the total pop. increased by 500,000. :)
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -275 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
