The Verdict is in: Liberal high tax model is inferior to Conservative low tax model

[Sir Elliot]

Blades,

As the title says, the Verdict is in. The LA times has a somewhat lengthy piece here:

The Golden State isn't worth it -- latimes.com

And a shorter version with really insightful commentary is here:

Power Line - California vs. Texas: The Verdict Is In

More and more one thing is clear: Liberalism simply isn't viable as a governing philosophy.

[maxrule]

I like this here.

These judgments are not based on drive-by sociology. According to a report issued earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., Texas students "are, on average, one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age," even though per-pupil expenditures on public school students are 12% higher in California. The details of the Census Bureau data show that Texas not only spends its citizens' dollars more effectively than California but emphasizes priorities that are more broadly beneficial. Per capita spending on transportation was 5.9% lower in California, and highway expenditures in particular were 9.5% lower, a discovery both plausible and infuriating to any Los Angeles commuter losing the will to live while sitting in yet another freeway traffic jam.

But those higher taxes in California must be going somewhere. Why aren't they benefiting those many thousands of citizens who are leaving the state for greener pastures?

In what respects, then, does California "excel"? California's state and local government employees were the best compensated in America, according to the Census Bureau data for 2006. And the latest posting on the website of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility shows 9,223 former civil servants and educators receiving pensions worth more than $100,000 a year from California's public retirement funds. The "dues" paid by taxpayers in order to belong to Club California purchase benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members.

The debate, really, is over. High-tax states don't deliver a better lifestyle--not for taxpayers, anyway. One of these days, voters will figure out that the same thing holds true at the national level. Higher taxes may be OK if you're a public employee; otherwise, they're a dead loss.

[Sir Elliot]

Hotair.com has this commentary

This only would seem counter-intuitive to people who have not lived in California. At one time, decades ago, the state had one of the nation’s best education systems, both in compulsory levels and at colleges and universities. It also had economic dynamism, thanks to a climate that attracted people from all over the country and bountiful natural resources. Public benefits were nowhere near as extensive as they are now, and they were aimed at the public rather than special interests.

All of that began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. As the state expanded the reach of these special interests in public affairs, government grew expansively — and expensively. Proposition 13, which progressives blame for the state of California’s government, grew 31 years ago into a nationwide tax-reform movement because California tried hiking property taxes unrealistically in order to pay for its nanny-state tendencies, even then. Instead of getting the message — a message diluted by Californians consistently voting for nanny-state political class, it should be pointed out — the state hiked every other fee and tax it could.


This started the migration of Californians to other states, but their new neighbors were not always thrilled to see them arrive. While decrying the heavy tax burden of their home state, they often agitated for similar nanny-state policies that they left behind, not connecting one with the other intellectually.


The failure of the California model shows that people can usually do for themselves better than a nanny state, mainly because people are motivated to look after their own interests, especially when they can keep their resources to themselves. Can California realize this and reform itself? Voegeli issues an Eisenhower-like warning about the “self-serving governmental-industrial complex,” which will resist the changes as long as possible. Until Californians experience complete collapse, it’s doubtful that they will take the drastic action of giving the boot to the entire current political class, which is what it will take to rescue the Golden State.

[pineapple skunk]

[kstigs]

Now let's test both those models against a no tax model and see what wins then.

[Gooch_Goblin69]

Originally Posted by Sir Elliot

Blades,

As the title says, the Verdict is in. The LA times has a somewhat lengthy piece here:

The Golden State isn't worth it -- latimes.com

And a shorter version with really insightful commentary is here:

Power Line - California vs. Texas: The Verdict Is In

More and more one thing is clear: Liberalism simply isn't viable as a governing philosophy.

Yeah fake FDR liberalism(semi-socialism realy) isn't, but real classical liberalism is what we should be striving for. In an ideal world the government would only be protecting our civil liberties from being taken away and keep us safe from outside threats. Instead they take away all our rights and start wars over nothing. Its bullshit.

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Sir Elliot

Blades,

As the title says, the Verdict is in. The LA times has a somewhat lengthy piece here:

The Golden State isn't worth it -- latimes.comAnd a shorter version with really insightful commentary is here:Power Line - California vs. Texas: The Verdict Is In

More and more one thing is clear: Liberalism simply isn't viable as a governing philosophy.

OP- Frankly, your title is a sham. A verdict would need a judge or proof. The articles are very circumstantial and hardly prove " Liberalism simply isn't viable as a governing philosophy."

Unless you take these Lawyer/authors opinion as a verdict, it's not there.

[aaronman]

You Can't Soak the Rich



Only under the illusion of social justice could ignorant simpletons be persuaded into giving more of their potential for prosperity to the hands of vampiric bureaucrats.

[kingmonkey]

I still can't figure out why people think higher taxes lead to more prosperity? Or why more regulations make things safer? Or why more government, more interference, more complications within the market create a "just" world? Or why anyone would think that governments could be efficient given the fact that they lack the profit/loss mechanism to determine efficiency?

[ecoterror]

Originally Posted by kingmonkey

I still can't figure out why people think higher taxes lead to more prosperity? Or why more regulations make things safer? Or why more government, more interference, more complications within the market create a "just" world? Or why anyone would think that governments could be efficient given the fact that they lack the profit/loss mechanism to determine efficiency?

I can tell you why, because all the communist, socilist, progresive punks out there are too dumbed down and to lazy to go out and make a living for them selves. They want the makers to support the takers, they want the govt to provide them with every thing they need. they want someone to pay for there helth care, buy there food, Hell, wipe there ass. They are more than happy sucking on the govt titty

[Sir Elliot]

Originally Posted by kingmonkey

I still can't figure out why people think higher taxes lead to more prosperity? Or why more regulations make things safer? Or why more government, more interference, more complications within the market create a "just" world? Or why anyone would think that governments could be efficient given the fact that they lack the profit/loss mechanism to determine efficiency?

Because for most it's really about power over others and forcing others to bend to their emotional wants.

Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" for more insight on this.