Originally posted by whodeyI am with you, don't build the wall till I'm inside..
Let me ask you, who do you think pays more taxes? Is it the folks in Texas or the folks in New York and California? Nuff said! ðŸ˜
My only advice for the folks in Texas is to use that money to build a wall all the way around their state. That will make it that much easier when they succeed from the rest of these liberal tards.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungmy cousins' pay higher property tax ($6600 on a house worth $250K) than i do in california ($5300 on a house worth $850K but bought at $350K).
How high are Texas taxes relative to CA and other states?
The original article says no income tax, strong income from sales tax, and there's a business tax.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/112408dntextxbudget.34b53a7.html
prop 13 in california limits how much residential property taxes can be raised per year, except that when the property changes hands its taxable value is reassessed. (yes i know you probly knew that.)
good on howard jarvis and the taxpayers union! if not for prop 13 we'd have high income taxes AND high property taxes and diddly squat to show for it!
Originally posted by whodeyTexas is one of the states that benefited from NAFTA....congrats
That's right, the conservative state of Texas enjoyed an $11 billion surplus as of a year ago. Can liberal states such as New York and California learn from the lessons of the past economic performances of Texas as they drown in their own excrememt of debt? My guess is no. They are too consumed by their economic intellectualism, also known as spending like ...[text shortened]... pa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17294
My I suggest moving the nations capital to Austin?
Originally posted by whodeyThe surplus was caused by a $1.00 increase in cigarette taxes.
That's right, the conservative state of Texas enjoyed an $11 billion surplus as of a year ago. Can liberal states such as New York and California learn from the lessons of the past economic performances of Texas as they drown in their own excrememt of debt? My guess is no. They are too consumed by their economic intellectualism, also known as spending like ...[text shortened]... pa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17294
My I suggest moving the nations capital to Austin?
Leave it to Texas to tax poor people. The majority of smokers in Texas live below the poverty line.
Are you making the case that conservatives in Texas are tax and spend Republicans ?????
Did you say Texas or Taxes ?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCaught red -handed. The "mixed economy" countries are not the richest, but those nordic economies frequently referenced were rich while capitalist and have slowed while socialist and returned to growth with pro-market reforms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
Topping the charts are mainly mixed economy countries, with some small oil-rich states as well.
Here is a list which takes into consideration the purchasing power parity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Originally posted by eljefejesusBy "mixed economy" I don't necessarily mean "Nordic model".
Caught red -handed. The "mixed economy" countries are not the richest, but those nordic economies frequently referenced were rich while capitalist and have slowed while socialist and returned to growth with pro-market reforms.
Here is a list which takes into consideration the purchasing power parity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
You have not successfully argued why "pro-market reforms" were behind the success of these economies, however.
I have already explained why PPP corrections don't correct for all the necessary factors and thus are not necessarily better (or worse) than nomimal GDP. For example, if country X gets much better police for every 1 billion spent than country Y, the GDP or the PPP GDP is not affected (directly), while the purchasing power of country X is in fact much higher.
2 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusUnfortunately, as far as debating goes here, you invariably run away or fall silent when anybody posts analysis or opinions (in response to yours) which deviate from your dysfunctionally simplistic ' "capitalism" v "socialism" ' prism in which "growth" is seemingly the only measure of wealth, welfare and human development that you are willing to talk about. The way you simply bailed out of the discussion on Vietnam last year with all those refutations of the facile analysis you'd presented pretty much defines you as a debater and the traction of your creed.
Caught red -handed. The "mixed economy" countries are not the richest, but those nordic economies frequently referenced were rich while capitalist and have slowed while socialist and returned to growth with pro-market reforms.
Originally posted by FMFFMF stinks of more BS on this one.
Unfortunately, as far as debating goes here, you invariably run away or fall silent when anybody posts analysis or opinions (in response to yours) which deviate from your dysfunctionally simplistic ' "capitalism" v "socialism" ' prism in which "growth" is seemingly the only measure of wealth, welfare and human development that you are willing to talk about. The ...[text shortened]... is you'd presented pretty much defines you as a debater and the traction of your creed.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBy mixed economy you mean with an above average socialist component but not quite at the extremes as Sweden was considered to have at one point, otherwise please correct this.
By "mixed economy" I don't necessarily mean "Nordic model".
You have not successfully argued why "pro-market reforms" were behind the success of these economies, however.
I have already explained why PPP corrections don't correct for all the necessary factors and thus are not necessarily better (or worse) than nomimal GDP. For example, if country ...[text shortened]... not affected (directly), while the purchasing power of country X is in fact much higher.
We both did make our points about why nominal was not necessarily as good as an adjustment for PPP. However, it should be considered when you have some countries where so many things are more expensive and part of the costs may well be caused or worsened by market-distortions and inefficiencies.
Originally posted by eljefejesus"Mixed economy" just means some combination of signficant state intervention in the market combined with free market principles. This includes the U.S.
By mixed economy you mean with an above average socialist component but not quite at the extremes as Sweden was considered to have at one point, otherwise please correct this.
We both did make our points about why nominal was not necessarily as good as an adjustment for PPP. However, it should be considered when you have some countries where so many ...[text shortened]... e and part of the costs may well be caused or worsened by market-distortions and inefficiencies.
However, it should be considered when you have some countries where so many things are more expensive and part of the costs may well be caused or worsened by market-distortions and inefficiencies.
Can you be more specific?