# "The Golden State Isn't Worth It" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026 "2009-11-02T05:56:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/41 "2009-11-02T20:53:16Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Which raises a question about California. How many of those leaving California are whites who don’t want to live where whites are the minority? How about you do some research on that and get back to us? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/42 "2009-11-02T21:01:48Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And let’s not forget the reasons for Proposition 13 in the first place, reasons that were routinely forcing people – often elderly people – to sell their homes in order to pay the taxes on them. Could you explain why this was a particularly bad thing? Remember, the tax increases came largely from _property value increases_. (CA property values _boomed_ during the 1970s.) If you’re on a fixed income and can no longer afford the property taxes on your home because it went up in value, that means you’re \*a lot wealthier than you were. - Sure, you’ve got to move to somewhere cheaper to capitalize on your wealth, but if my house becomes worth a million bucks tomorrow and I can’t afford the property taxes anymore on account of that, then gimme my million; I’m gone. Here’s the deal that CA local governments should have offered these people: 1. We’ll let you pay property taxes based on the 1972 assessments. (1972 would have been right before the CA real estate market took off, IIRC.) 2. But only if, when you die or move, we get to buy the property from you at its 1972 assessed value. Then people could have chosen between paying high taxes on a valuable asset, or paying low taxes in exchange for giving up the value of the asset. The problem was that these folks wanted it both ways: they wanted to live in a valuable house, but without paying the property taxes on a valuable house. Cry me a river. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/43 "2009-11-02T21:11:40Z")
**RTFirefly** That’s kind of a disgusting point of view. The simplest way to handle it would be to setup tax exemptions for people living on fixed incomes. Expecting an 80 year old that uses a walker to move out of the home they raised their kids in is the zenith of compassionless apathy. I am always disgusted by such crass reductions of the entirety of life to money. ---
**Author:** ![rowe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@rowe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowe)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/44 "2009-11-02T21:19:39Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > California has yet another golden idea. Raise state withholding by 10%. Note that I said withholding, not taxes. This means they are actually borrowing taxpayer money for up to a year and then returning it without interest. Of course, this would be incomplete without a mention of the IOU’s the state issued instead of refunds last year. _sigh_ Yeah, thanks for the warning, California. The paycheck that I’ll get Thursday is already short the additional 10% withholding. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/45 "2009-11-02T21:28:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Could you explain why this was a particularly bad thing? > > Remember, the tax increases came largely from _property value increases_. (CA property values _boomed_ during the 1970s.) If you’re on a fixed income and can no longer afford the property taxes on your home because it went up in value, that means you’re \*a lot wealthier than you were. > > - Sure, you’ve got to move to somewhere cheaper to capitalize on your wealth, but if my house becomes worth a million bucks tomorrow and I can’t afford the property taxes anymore on account of that, then gimme my million; I’m gone. > > Here’s the deal that CA local governments should have offered these people: > > 1. We’ll let you pay property taxes based on the 1972 assessments. (1972 would have been right before the CA real estate market took off, IIRC.) > 2. But only if, when you die or move, we get to buy the property from you at its 1972 assessed value. > > Then people could have chosen between paying high taxes on a valuable asset, or paying low taxes in exchange for giving up the value of the asset. > > The problem was that these folks wanted it both ways: they wanted to live in a valuable house, but without paying the property taxes on a valuable house. > > Cry me a river. The problem was that it wasn’t that valuable a house when they bought it. When housing prices skyrocketed they suddenly found themselves no longer able to afford the taxes on a three million dollar home that they bought for fifty thousand. People don’t necessarily want to move to someplace else from a home they and their families lived in for decades. Especially if they are elderly. The prospects of moving and buying a new home in an unknown neighborhood are daunting for elderly people and most are simply not up to it. But people were literally having to sell homes they had lived in for decades simply to pay the new taxes on them, and that wasn’t right, and the majority of California’s citizenry agreed. It was ridiculous and Proposition 13 quite rightly put a stop to it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/46 "2009-11-02T21:33:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **RTFirefly** That’s kind of a disgusting point of view. The simplest way to handle it would be to setup tax exemptions for people living on fixed incomes. Expecting an 80 year old that uses a walker to move out of the home they raised their kids in is the zenith of compassionless apathy. I’m sorry, but this is exactly the kind of stupid California idea that got the state into the fiscal mess it is in. Put this on the ballot and I’m sure it would win… only then the state has to deal with the problem of hiring an army of income inspectors to verify who qualifies for the “fixed income property tax limitation” and then adjudicate whether someone can qualify if they are on a fixed income and work less than 10 hours a week for minimum wage, but then we have to verify how much they work and how much they get paid… If an 80 year old bought a house in LA for $15 grand 40 years ago, has long since paid it off, and is probably worth more than $800,000 now, they’ve come out massively ahead on the deal. Treating them as though they need a tax break because they’ve made an insane amount of money on their property is just bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/47 "2009-11-02T21:36:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Treating them as though they need a tax break because they’ve made an insane amount of money on their property is just bizarre. What money have they made? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/48 "2009-11-02T21:47:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t know how significant that all is, because New York City supposedly has had an increase in wealthy immigration. Upstate certainly has people leaving but I am not sure how that applies to the city. The article states that New York City lost 1.1 million people to other states and other parts of New York state. It also states that the average income of the people leaving was substantially higher that that of the people arriving. I think my problem is that the OP seems to be implying that one factor (taxation) is exclusively or primarily the cause of so many people leaving California. I’m immensely skeptical that so large a movement of people can easily be explained by one factor. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/49 "2009-11-02T21:52:16Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > What money have they made? They’ve made a ton on their non-liquid asset, of course. What did you expect me to say? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/50 "2009-11-02T21:52:35Z")
Considering the fact that sodomy was just declared unconstitutional a few years ago, it seems to me that Texas has a much bigger government and is much more intrusive than California. There’s nothing wrong with big government, and it’s here to stay, so get used to it ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/51 "2009-11-02T21:52:40Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > The article says they are moving to Florida (obviously for the weather) and nearby blue states like Connecticut and Pennsylvania. These are clearly not havens of conservative ideology so it’s not particularly relevant to the argument made in this thread. > > And frankly I don’t think racializing this argument helps your side. Ain’t on a side here. It just seems to me that everybody tailors their explanations for such social phenomena to suit their political convictions. And as I’ve already said, I don’t think such large migrations can reasonably be explained by one factor. And the racial aspect really should be considered. It would be useful to know how many, or how few, whites are leaving California and New York because they don’t want to live in communities where whites are not clearly the dominant majority. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/52 "2009-11-02T21:57:34Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I’d be interested to know how many of the folks moving are retirees. I live in California and have several relatives who got their pension and health care package and then moved somewhere less expensive. The expense wasn’t the only motivation, though. They also wanted somewhere less crowded. They had grown up in a less crowded California and wanted to return to that. > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > So they’re going to crowd up Arizona and the Carolinas as a result? No clue, but I’d be interested is learning. A quick google found only one article which mentioned Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming and other Western states advertizing for retirees. It said that North Carolina and Georgia are joining the retirement destinations for the east coast. I’m not sure how accurate they are. The information is not listed in any sort of table, with any backup data. The site is called [Stateline.](http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=93345) Oddly enough, the retirees in my family who have gone to live out of state went to Idaho and Colorado. Idaho isn’t on the list of low tax states, but my folks were talking up the tax and fee savings. Said they saved the cost of the move (not the cost of the property - just the cost of moving) in the difference in vehicle registration fees. This was for four vehicles. And they bragged about the space and the small government. They moved to a little town with no building code. After they moved in, they found out that the trailer part next door was using their driveway. They went over to talk and came to an understanding. It was only two or three years before the trailer park had its own driveway. No stress. Oh, the building code got added a few years ago. After a couple of electrical fires. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/53 "2009-11-02T22:38:50Z")
Again, the fact that there is a correlation as strong as it is doesn’t prove anything, but it does suggest that it’s worthwhile digging into the issue to determine the reasons why. It’s something that can’t be dismissed out of hand as being a special circumstance. Now, one of the reasons correlations often fail the causative test is because there’s an unknown third variable in common between them. So the best line of attack is to determine what al the states with net internal migration have in common, and how that differs from common attributes of the ones with net negative internal migration. The variable we’re exploring is government size, but perhaps there are others. Some people in this thread have shown alternative possibilities for one or two states, but that’s not really good enough. Unfortuantely, I don’t have time right now to dig into it myself. > [@Brickbacon](#): > > Wrong. They have a negative “net internal migration” from 2000-2007 according to the article’s census link. Talk about cherry picking stats. The actual population influx was 2,681,560 during this period. The actual migration influx was 583,434. I beleive the proper metric IS internal migration, as it’s a choice Americans are making between one place and another. Adding external migration just confuses the issue, because the motivations of foreigners when choosing a state are almost certainly different than those of Americans. Furthermore, I made it clear in the OP that I was talking about internal migration, not gross population shifts. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/54 "2009-11-02T22:59:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > They’ve made a ton on their non-liquid asset, of course. What did you expect me to say? The **non-liquid** is kind of key there, don’t you think? If they have no intention of ever moving, then they haven’t made a cent. Until the house is sold, there is zero profit involved. They are ahead _nothing_. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/55 "2009-11-02T23:24:03Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > The **non-liquid** is kind of key there, don’t you think? If they have no intention of ever moving, then they haven’t made a cent. Until the house is sold, there is zero profit involved. They are ahead _nothing_. No, they are ahead by 95-99% of the market value of the house. They realize the profit if they sell, or their heirs will realize the profit when they die. If you insist that they are “ahead nothing,” then surely you wouldn’t object to the property being turned over to the state, and then the state pay the heirs the $15,000 plus interest (but not appreciation!) based on the home’s original value. After all, if they didn’t make any money, that seems like a fair deal. The alternative – or actually, the current situation is – that you subsidize current home ownership, so that people are less likely to sell their houses, driving the cost of available housing up and making it harder for young people to buy. What’s more, the tax burden then has to be redistributed in other ways, such as sales taxes. That’s great. Let all the poor, non-property owning people in California pay a higher rate in a regressive tax so that grandma doesn’t have to sell her million dollar house. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/56 "2009-11-02T23:47:57Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > The **non-liquid** is kind of key there, don’t you think? If they have no intention of ever moving, then they haven’t made a cent. Until the house is sold, there is zero profit involved. They are ahead _nothing_. And not only that, they’re forced to move to considerably lesser housing. If they can’t afford the taxes on a home that is worth a million dollars now, they won’t be able to afford the taxes on a home that is worth a million that they buy. So they have to buy one that is much less than what they had to begin with, and then set aside the rest to pay their taxes on it. So in effect half of what they get eventually goes to taxes anyway, plus they have to pay capital gains tax on the amount they haven’t reinvested in their new home, so they suffer another hit to the money they got from being forced to sell their old home that way. It was just never-ending tax hell for homeowners in those days. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/57 "2009-11-03T00:34:36Z")
I very highly doubt that if people are moving away from California, it’s because of the relatively high state taxes. I’m guessing it’s because the desirable parts of the state are ridiculously expensive, particularly during the housing boom, and the rest, well, who wouldn’t want to live somewhere other than inland Southern California / Bakersfield? But as a state, we are pretty retarded about taxes and state services. Between property taxes (~1.1%), sales tax (8-10%) and a fairly high state income tax (8-10%), we pay a lot of taxes. You’d think we’d have a top notch education system, good public transportation, etc. but we don’t, which is frustrating. Personally, I place the blame on our horrible state legislature (I’m a diehard liberal, and I think they embody all that is bad about liberalism with none of the good parts) and our ballot initiative system. The latter is maddening – we elect representatives to create a budget for a reason. It’s a complex task and the numbers are all correlated – you spend more on the schools, you have less to spend on the roads. Yet, every election we have ten ballot initiatives proposing some arbitrarily large number to be spent on schools, parks, public transportation, whatever. People think “hmm, I like schools/parks/trains!” and vote yes – it doesn’t matter if the number is $1 billion or $10 billion. The general public (myself included) is not qualified to choose these numbers! Drives me nuts. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/58 "2009-11-03T00:47:03Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s a pretty good statement of the divide between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to tax more, and in return they promise a high level of service from the government. Republicans want to tax less, but provide fewer services and let you figure out the rest for yourself. > > So, how do the two models compare after they’ve been in action for a few decades? The problem isn’t how much the governments tax, it’s whether or not their budgets are balanced. It’s not a secret that it’s far easier to approve new expenditures in California than it is to approve new taxation, so the budget isn’t balanced and it’s going pear-shaped. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/59 "2009-11-03T01:19:24Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > The problem isn’t how much the governments tax, it’s whether or not their budgets are balanced. It’s not a secret that it’s far easier to approve new expenditures in California than it is to approve new taxation, so the budget isn’t balanced and it’s going pear-shaped. BINGO! We have a winner! Honestly, like in any financial balance sheet, be it personal, corporate, or government: money in \< money out = bad! All this talk of migration and taxes and and federal money flow and red/blue is fundamentally irrelevantl. If California can figure out how to balance the books, and Texas ever un-balances their books, the underlying story would be moot. All of the trends and statistics cited in the OP artical are symptoms, not the disease. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026/60 "2009-11-03T01:43:43Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Could you explain why this was a particularly bad thing? > > Remember, the tax increases came largely from _property value increases_. (CA property values _boomed_ during the 1970s.) If you’re on a fixed income and can no longer afford the property taxes on your home because it went up in value, that means you’re \*a lot wealthier than you were. > > - Sure, you’ve got to move to somewhere cheaper to capitalize on your wealth, but if my house becomes worth a million bucks tomorrow and I can’t afford the property taxes anymore on account of that, then gimme my million; I’m gone. > > Here’s the deal that CA local governments should have offered these people: > > 1. We’ll let you pay property taxes based on the 1972 assessments. (1972 would have been right before the CA real estate market took off, IIRC.) > 2. But only if, when you die or move, we get to buy the property from you at its 1972 assessed value. > > Then people could have chosen between paying high taxes on a valuable asset, or paying low taxes in exchange for giving up the value of the asset. > > The problem was that these folks wanted it both ways: they wanted to live in a valuable house, but without paying the property taxes on a valuable house. > > Cry me a river. Well, the problem with property taxes is that historically that option that you spelled out is never offered. I don’t know anything about the political situation in California in the 1970s, but I do know there are many elderly people who would have little use for a million dollars but who would be heartbroken if they had to move out of the home they raised their family in at the twilight of their lives. For example I _can_ imagine a scenario in which my grandmother would have sold her house for an exorbitant sum, for example if one of her children was seriously ill and needed financial support or a situation like that. But outside of things like that, after a certain point a lot of money isn’t very meaningful to someone who has already lived most of their lives. Money is more meaningful to young people, when you’re already at or beyond the life expectancy it isn’t like a huge pile of money really means that much. Anyway, from a political perspective forcing grandparents to move out of ancestral homes is typically not going to be politically popular. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-golden-state-isnt-worth-it/516026.md?page=4)