|
Texas: It's the Future
Carbuncle.Asymptotic
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2659
By Carbuncle.Asymptotic 2011-06-15 12:00:41
Phoenix.Sehachan said: Just to answer a previous post, this is how the USA are seen from the outside(just for fun and no offense intended)
Some calls them the United States of Hollywood.
You should add the label "Deliverance" across Virginia/West Virginia.
I was sitting next to a French guy on the plane a few days ago, and I told him I was from Virginia, and he said, "Oh, I've seen a movie about that! It was called Deliverance!."
It's not much better than the Norwegian guy from the plane before, "So, when you get back to Virginia, are you going to drive tractor?"
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 507
By Siren.Inuyushi 2011-06-15 12:02:06
Speaking on that.....who was the guy talking about how "Petrolium Economies get hit less harder than the rest in a bad recession"?
What about Hollywood and all their movies? Sure they're getting hit hard but doesn't CA get a % off those movies? Like billions here no? Wouldn't you say these two economies can somewhat be on the same foot? (I can be wrong, just eyeballing this so dont flame too hard, I am truly curious)
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:04:01
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: Ifrit.Daemun said:
Taking the average incomes, 1500 in property taxes is paltry compared to 4500 in income taxes (this is the differences mind you).
You've assumed that all properties are valued @ $100k in Texas. If that were the case, then yes, $1500 more in property taxes in Texas outweighs the cost of $4500 more in income taxes in California.
However, if your Texas property value totals $300k, then you're paying $4500 more in property taxes than you would in California, which is equivalent to the $4500 income tax difference we've previously cited.
If your property value exceeds $300k, then you are now paying more in Texas property taxes than you would in California income taxes.
"Mind you".
I took the numbers directly from your data. I really didn't want to have to go here but you've forced my hand.
Let's take the average salary for a Texan, and I'm going to simplify because I can't be bothered to go back to your earlier post and look them up. $45,000, they have a $150,000 home. They pay 0% state income tax. They pay 3,000 in property taxes (this is actual based on my home value and taxes). That $150,000 home costs $800/mo for mortgage and insurance (disregarding taxes as that is separated). That payment comes to 9600/yr.
Maths: 45,000-9600-3000-x(groceries, utilities, etc)=32,400-x
California: $52,000 for income, they have a $275,000 home. They pay 9% in state income tax totaling 4,680. They pay 500 in property tax (a conservative guess). The $275,000 home costs $1500/mo between mortgage and insurance (again taxes are separate) totaling $18,000/yr. You can see already that house payment alone is going to hurt compared to essentially the same (or a better) house in TX.
Maths: 52,000-18000-4680-500-x=28,820-x
Here's the real kicker; groceries, fuel and utilities are all higher in California. Ergo, x is a larger value in the California model. You have to take more, from less.
The moral of the story, is that you can live 'higher on the hog' in Texas off of less income. Does that make it the best state ever? No. Do other things combined with this make it the best state? Yes. Is the economic model of Texas a good one to follow for other states? Yes
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:05:18
It was an absolute joke...everything's bigger in TX you know...
By zahrah 2011-06-15 12:06:19
Is this becoming the California versus Texas thread, or what?
Bismarck.Elanabelle said: I stated that 50% of Texas is classified as arid OR semiarid. You said about 20% of Texas could be considered arid.
Those two statements are not contradictory. We are both correct.
Those semi-arid regions are only semi-arid here dependent on the weather patterns. When the Guadalupe or Colorado flood there is nothing arid about this region for at least a year. You must have come during a drought.
I still wouldn't classify half the state as being arid or semi-arid.
Cerberus.Kalyna
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 21615
By Cerberus.Kalyna 2011-06-15 12:07:51
Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
[+]
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:08:53
Siren.Inuyushi said: I wish I could find a picture of what I'm talking about with the Power Stacks. I know what you're talking about. They are working on that, but yes they look promising.
Siren.Inuyushi said:
Also, iirc the highest efficiency that a Solar Panel could put out under the power of 100 suns was (overestimating) 5% no? I just don't have much faith in that.
It is of no matter, there are no moving parts and the initial cost of solar is actually considerably less than even small scale wind. With virtually no maintenance costs, efficiency means nothing. The objective of solar is to continue to push the initial costs down. That will continue to negate the efficiency rating.
Sylph.Spency
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6969
By Sylph.Spency 2011-06-15 12:10:11
Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
Canada :)
[+]
By zahrah 2011-06-15 12:10:48
Let's talk about California's over-inflated real estate prices!
Ragnarok.Hevans
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15273
By Ragnarok.Hevans 2011-06-15 12:11:02
Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
i know of at least one texas hottie, and i know one girl from cali i want to slap a few times. i'll go with texas!
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:11:07
Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D= There are tons of very hot women in this state. Majority of them had God given beauty too, and not under the knife. I'd rather start with an 8 that doesn't need much to be 1/1,000,000 than a 4 that used $20,000 in surgery to get where she is.
Someone from this thread is a perfect example. She looks damn good (oh and has a personality too)[yes those matter to me]
zahrah said: Let's talk about California's over-inflated real estate prices! It no longer exists...
By zahrah 2011-06-15 12:11:58
Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
I love you, but *** off! <3
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 507
By Siren.Inuyushi 2011-06-15 12:12:28
Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
I think you're mistaking Louisiana for Texas. People do get this confused alot! But really if you want a good woman, find one from Iowa =D
When was this not a TX vs CA thread!? :p Nothing against CA really, I love the weather. I would just never live there....glad I have family so I can just visit when I want to.
Asura.Shylaa
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Shylaa 2011-06-15 12:12:39
Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
I guess you've never actually been to California? Or only the "tourist" spots?
[+]
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2595
By Bismarck.Elanabelle 2011-06-15 12:13:03
Siren.Catabolic said:
There was your problem. Complimenting Elana lol. Mostly talks just to hear himself speak.
Untrue. And you're a jackass.
Siren.Catabolic said:
Texas is expanding exponentially (economically) and it has little to do with oil tycoons.
Untrue. Texas' economy is receding. It's just receding less than many other parts of the USA. And yes, that stability DOES have (quite a bit) to do with Texas' oil industry.
Siren.Catabolic said:
The best part was saying Texas as a state was economically "un-sustainable long term"...sighs lulz for all
The main point of this article was to highlight Texas's quality as a state in terms of governing the free market. Texas excels at this and yea a lot of other states should take notes.
Texas' economy (by itself) would be unsustainable long-term. Oil is a finite natural resource and the Texas' land possesses little else for natural resources. The climate is not conducive to agriculture. The social and educational culture is not conducive to scientific advances.
Perhaps you missed the part where I also said California's economy (by itself) would be unsustainable.
Again, Texas is far too conservative, and California is far too liberal. Neither is the "way of the future".
Yes, Texas is the "champion" state for "free market" economics. But if we're going to "take notes" on Texas for other states to review, let's include these gems, too, shall we?:
Enron
Branch Davidians
Lastly, the unemployment rate comparison to California isn't the only measuring stick out there. Texas' unemployment rate is rather similar to the unemployment rate in New York, another state known for liberal and expanded government regulations:
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:13:28
zahrah said: Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
*** off! I defended your honor (not well but I tried) People that say things like this have never been to TX. I can find more beautiful women in my town of 150,000 (granted there are 5 colleges here), than I did any of the week long trips I've had to Cali or Florida
Asura.Shylaa
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Shylaa 2011-06-15 12:15:46
Also, most of the pretty girls in California aren't actually from here.
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:16:27
Bismarck.Elanabelle said:
Texas' economy (by itself) would be unsustainable long-term. Oil is a finite natural resource and the Texas' land possesses little else for natural resources. The climate is not conducive to agriculture. The social and educational culture is not conducive to scientific advances.
Perhaps you missed the part where I also said California's economy (by itself) would be unsustainable.
Again, Texas is far too conservative, and California is far too liberal. Neither is the "way of the future".
Yes, Texas is the "champion" state for "free market" economics. But if we're going to "take notes" on Texas for other states to review, let's include these gems, too, shall we?:
Enron
Branch Davidians
Lastly, the unemployment rate comparison to California isn't the only measuring stick out there. Texas' unemployment rate is rather similar to the unemployment rate in New York, another state known for liberal and expanded government regulations:
I'll bite...
It is a finite resource, of which we have enough to fuel the world for a few hundred years. It is also the lifeblood of the world at this point, so yeah we're safe long term. 300years is about the life expectancy of a world power anyways. USA is overdue for an overturning. That scares me, and if Texas does ever get to a point of withdraw, I would be happy with 300 years of prosperity.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 507
By Siren.Inuyushi 2011-06-15 12:16:56
Ifrit.Daemun said: Siren.Inuyushi said: I wish I could find a picture of what I'm talking about with the Power Stacks. I know what you're talking about. They are working on that, but yes they look promising.
Siren.Inuyushi said:
Also, iirc the highest efficiency that a Solar Panel could put out under the power of 100 suns was (overestimating) 5% no? I just don't have much faith in that.
It is of no matter, there are no moving parts and the initial cost of solar is actually considerably less than even small scale wind. With virtually no maintenance costs, efficiency means nothing. The objective of solar is to continue to push the initial costs down. That will continue to negate the efficiency rating.
Ah, glad you know what I'm talking about. True about no moving parts in Solar. I would love to see some good developments in Solar but I just dont see much hope in it right now. But I tend to see it from a buyers point of view. I took a class on Renewable Energy and the math has Solar as a break even for home buyers.
Personally I have plans to pursue a better wind generator model. I think the level of technology there can be purshed further also for better improvements.
Although in the Northeast they have alot of clouds and not alot of wind. What are we going to do for them!?
Leviathan.Novax
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3826
By Leviathan.Novax 2011-06-15 12:17:26
Ifrit.Daemun said: zahrah said: Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
*** off! I defended your honor (not well but I tried) People that say things like this have never been to TX. I can find more beautiful women in my town of 150,000 (granted there are 5 colleges here), than I did any of the week long trips I've had to Cali or Florida
Your idea of beauty may not be the same as others, I've lived in California and Texass, and Kansas has a larger pretty girl to ugly girl ratio than both!
Asura.Shylaa
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Shylaa 2011-06-15 12:18:49
Lakshmi.Mabrook said: Asura.Shylaa said: Also, most of the pretty girls in California aren't actually from here. Or have the "Becky" mentality...
Whats the "Becky" mentality? Mostly want to know cause that's my gf's sisters name lol.
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:19:20
Siren.Inuyushi said: Ifrit.Daemun said: Siren.Inuyushi said: I wish I could find a picture of what I'm talking about with the Power Stacks. I know what you're talking about. They are working on that, but yes they look promising.
Siren.Inuyushi said:
Also, iirc the highest efficiency that a Solar Panel could put out under the power of 100 suns was (overestimating) 5% no? I just don't have much faith in that.
It is of no matter, there are no moving parts and the initial cost of solar is actually considerably less than even small scale wind. With virtually no maintenance costs, efficiency means nothing. The objective of solar is to continue to push the initial costs down. That will continue to negate the efficiency rating.
Ah, glad you know what I'm talking about. True about no moving parts in Solar. I would love to see some good developments in Solar but I just dont see much hope in it right now. But I tend to see it from a buyers point of view. I took a class on Renewable Energy and the math has Solar as a break even for home buyers.
Personally I have plans to pursue a better wind generator model. I think the level of technology there can be purshed further also for better improvements.
Although in the Northeast they have alot of clouds and not alot of wind. What are we going to do for them!? I work in the utility business and it makes no sense for me to purchase any renewable at this point. If you have money to spare and you want to 'help' the world; by all means jump on some renewable energy. For the majority of consumers, it is not a smart financial decision as a 20yr roi is terrible compared to the stock market.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 507
By Siren.Inuyushi 2011-06-15 12:19:31
Bismarck.Elanabelle said:
lol @ the huge jump in 2008.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 507
By Siren.Inuyushi 2011-06-15 12:20:39
Ifrit.Daemun said: I work in the utility business and it makes no sense for me to purchase any renewable at this point. If you have money to spare and you want to 'help' the world; by all means jump on some renewable energy. For the majority of consumers, it is not a smart financial decision as a 20yr roi is terrible compared to the stock market.
Ah cool, yea I know what you mean. And not so much into helping the world as my own pocketbook ya know?
Ramuh.Haseyo
Server: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 22442
By Ramuh.Haseyo 2011-06-15 12:21:17
Lakshmi.Mabrook said: Asura.Shylaa said: Also, most of the pretty girls in California aren't actually from here. Or have the "Becky" mentality...
If it's anything like the song Plies made, then that mentality is *** fantastic.
Ifrit.Daemun
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 955
By Ifrit.Daemun 2011-06-15 12:24:05
Leviathan.Novax said: Ifrit.Daemun said: zahrah said: Cerberus.Kalyna said: Texas has hick girls with 1-5 teeth missing so it costs less to live there.
California has the hotties so it costs more to live there.
Which is better D=
*** off! I defended your honor (not well but I tried) People that say things like this have never been to TX. I can find more beautiful women in my town of 150,000 (granted there are 5 colleges here), than I did any of the week long trips I've had to Cali or Florida
Your idea of beauty may not be the same as others, I've lived in California and Texass, and Kansas has a larger pretty girl to ugly girl ratio than both! I didn't say anything about ratios. I just know that I can't make it to any part of town and not see at least one person that I would classify as pretty. I do have decent standards as well, (unlike the stereotypical [read: most] male). In Texas, I usually can't go a week without finding someone I'd classify as downright beautiful. Are there 25 dog ugly people (both male and female) for every one, sure. Is that shallow of me? Of course. Do I care? Eh not really, I don't judge by beauty, but I do enjoy admiring it. You could very well be true that as a percentage, Kansas does better than Texas. By sheer numbers alone, I'd say Texas is the best source of beauty. It's all these horses and home cooked meals ; )
Siren.Inuyushi said:
Ah cool, yea I know what you mean. And not so much into helping the world as my own pocketbook ya know?
Exactly
Haters keep on hating.... but this report begs to differ. Enjoy
Quote: So what example should America follow, that of deficit-slaughtering, budget-cutting, seriously limited government in Texas, which has added 730,000 jobs in the past decade, or that of regulation-happy, spend-mercilessly, owe-everything, flee-this-place-quickly California, which has lost 600,000 jobs during the same period?
While not a hard question in a nation where unemployment recently shot up over 9 percent again and is dramatically expanding its unfunded entitlement promises on top of its accumulating debt, let's continue to look at some astounding facts about Texas after noting a much-repeated analysis of how it got there.
It has no state income tax, low corporate taxes, does just enough regulating to get the job done, cares for the environment without making a fetish of it, lets its legislature meet for a relatively short period just once every two years, keeps the executive branch slim and trim and is a right-to-work state where unions don't get to grab dues through governmental coercion.
Businesses love all that, varied researchers tell us. A number point out that, in 2008, Texas accounted for fully 70 percent of all new jobs created in America, and if you think that's great, which it is, don't suppose this was a one-shot deal. Businesses are reported to rate Texas the single best state in which to operate. Give them a chance and many will pull up stakes from yonder plunder-and-abuse venue and follow the Lone Star to high profits, sharing prosperity and opportunity as they resettle.
Meanwhile, what glitters is definitely not the Golden State. California is faced with a $26 billion deficit, cripples businesses with unconscionable taxes and rules, has dreamt up environmental objectives that in effect are combat tactics against the common good and is faced with a cost of living that is only part of the reason why citizens are deserting the place like the hordes that once upon a time rushed to enjoy its splendor.
Recently, even Governor Jerry Brown described his state as "fantasy land," and he wasn't talking about movies issuing from Hollywood. He was talking about the sort of thing various publications have documented -- The Washington Examiner, The Weekly Standard, The Economist, The National Review, Newsweek and more -- such as the second highest personal state income tax in the country and public employee pensions there is no way to honor.
There are liberals who hate the mention of any of this, especially when conservatives point out how the two states are so much alike in population and demographic mix, and to be sure, there are some non-political factors at play. The liberals vastly overreached, though, with some making a major point earlier this year about how Texas was faced with a budget it couldn't handle and others bemoaning a service deficit.
Texas, with a vastly increasing inflow population that makes it even tougher to deal with employment and governmental growth, has nevertheless been fighting back successfully against budgetary expansion, using some gimmicks but mainly necessary program reductions to keep taxes down to a level instigating entrepreneurship. Services there are hardly in as much jeopardy as in California, whose overcrowded prisons the Supreme Court refuses to tolerate, and nothing helps the poor like jobs. Texas does not shine in public education, but outdoes California in national testing, it's reported.
The Texas example is basically the way America has to go, the way Republicans in the House of Representatives insist we go, and the way too many Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama resist, their clear preference being the California model of spend yourself into misery, soak-the-upper-middle-class and businesses with tax hikes, tie the businesses up with so many regulations they can't compete anymore and offer no remedy but mush and demagoguery on anything truly serious in scope.
It won't work in part because, as a new USA Today report shows, the government's entitlement pledges (mainly to Medicare and Social Security) grew so much last year that they now exceed anticipated revenues by $61.6 trillion, or $534,000 per household. Does anyone actually believe that, even if some tax increases done through reform might help, we can tax our way out of this?
Source
|
|