Additionally, Texas is a net “dependent” of the federal government, meaning that it receives more funds from the Fed than it pays in the form of income taxes.

This allows Texas to have no personal income tax; however, the sales tax is 8.25% and annual property taxes run 1.4% of home value.

To raise additional money, Texas recently re-vamped its business franchise tax which taxes all corporations, LLCs, and limited partnerships at 1/2 to 1% of gross income with some deductions allowed depending upon the industry.

Still, the budget is tight and other revenue sources are being considered.

Has the highest number of people with no healthcare. Some of the worst pollution in the country and the highest obesity rates.

Texas ranks among the 50 States today:

* Percentage of Uninsured Children 1st

* Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Poor 2nd

* Percentage of Population without Health Insurance 1st

* Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Scores 47th

* Percentage of Population over 25 with a High School Diploma 50th

* Percentage of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance 50th

* Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms 44th

* Rate of Women Aged 18+ Who Receive Pap Smears 47th

* Cervical Cancer Rate 5th

* Women’s Voter Registration 43rd

* Women’s Voter Turnout 49th

* Percentage of Eligible Voters that Vote 44th

Add to this list that Texas has the highest rates for home insurance, 25% higher than 2nd place Louisiana. Deregulation of electricity has resulted in skyrocketing electricity costs instead of more competition that would reduce our rates, as promised. College education costs have soared by an average of 39% in just one short year once again as a result of deregulation.

The 3 strikes law is partly to blame. I certainly think it should be applied to violent crimes but many people have been locked up for life for stealing a video tape or other minor infractions. The law has prisons at 200% capacity. The prison guard union gives generously to candidates and in return gets huge benefits and large salaries.

Schwarzenegger swaggered into the open gov. seat after Davis was recalled and immediately rescinded a car license fee that only kicked in when the budget reached a certain low. The state budget went into free fall and has never recovered. The Dems only want more taxes and the Rs won’t pass any so they are at a stalemate.

I’ve lived in CA most of my life and graduated from Cal Berkeley but we are deciding where we’ll go to retire when our daughter is done with high school.

We used to be able to rationalize the high cost of living here (taxes, real estate, etc) when the quality of life was high but not anymore.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yglyela

The 10% raise in tax, which will be refunded to the taxpayer in April next year, so it’s like an interest-free loan, works out at about $4 per week for a person making $51,000 with no deductions. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but it’s not a huge, permanent increase.

This article doesn’t address a more likely cause of people leaving California-the rapidly rising cost of housing. Even today, housing is still very expensive here and income has not risen much. Business, big and not-so-big, is reluctant to move here in part because of taxes, but also, in a big way, because of the cost of housing. They don’t want to have to pay their workers enough so that they can house their famlies here. Now of course we have huge uemployment too.

As for charity, I would actually give more if I didn’t have to pay taxes. I don’t agree with the never ending welfare checks – people have been living for thousands of years without a safety net. However, one thing I don’t mind paying taxes for is free/reduced breakfast and lunches for children. At least this way, I know the children are getting the food.

With this focus on children being uninsured, there’s already school nurses, why not have a doctor/nurse practitioner rotate between schools so the children have access to health care? Seems it would be quite a bit cheaper.

Agree it is insane no matter which bill or bills.

My beef with the safety net lies more in the approach than with the idea.

The greatest manifestation of the human spirit is when one stranger helps another. I wholeheartedly believe and will support that. I firmly believe that we can and should do more to bring people out of poverty. BUT giving them a free meal is NOT the way to do it.

What we’re doing is merely suppressing their human ingenuity and denying them the right of satisfaction from a day’s hard work and enjoying the fruits of their labor. What we’re doing is essentially BRIBING them, very much like what ancient Rome did to her poor. Giving them just enough to be content but not enough to help them rise.

“I’m all for you supporting as many people as you want and through whatever means available to you, that’s certainly your right! Just as it should be my right to choose NOT to, and I refuse to support ANYONE indefinitely. Taxing me against my will is essentially tyranny!”

I have no argument with you, Concerned. As long as we agree that safety nets themselves have an intrinsic value. For instance, I do not object to umemployment insurance, which basically is funded through taxes. Although I think extending those benefits ad infinitum is a gross trick that the Government would like to play without admitting to the horrendous umemployment numbers right now. I don’t object to health insurance extended to impoverished children because our children, all our children, are the future, all our futures, the only future we really have.

But there is much waste and many programs that simply should not be funded. I’m a Dem by inclination and DNA, but I’ve never believed that you solve problems by simply throwing tax dollars at them. In fact, I think you merely pretend you’re addressing problems that way.

I give to private charities. I always have. We probably have more in common than you may believe.

There is a middle ground where rational people can meet.

Too bad that the current political climate would have us believe otherwise.

My empathy to you and yours, I am right there with you.

I agree in spirit, but not in the way it’s currently implemented.

Safety nets/Charity SHOULD NOT be govt run and as such should not be funded via taxes but by donations (preferably fully tax deductible). This allows the taxpayer to choose WHO they want to support.

I’m all for you supporting as many people as you want and through whatever means available to you, that’s certainly your right! Just as it should be my right to choose NOT to, and I refuse to support ANYONE indefinitely. Taxing me against my will is essentially tyranny!