California Math and the 3.6% (Los Angeles: violent crime, vacation home, unemployment rate)

[oldtrader]

I don't know much (as in nothing) about the Aux Arcs area, but when I see native-born lifelong resident Missouri friends on Facebook wailing about the oppressive Summer humidity in their area, I gots to wonder...

Average humidity for mornings in Branson Mo, is 78. Average afternoon humidity 58. The same can be said for Los Angeles, where the humidity is almost exactly the same up or down less than 5 points depending on the day.

Los Angeles has a high humidity just as Branson does. Check it out if you don't believe me. Los Angeles is not a low humidity area.

[Fontucky]

Oh can it you old fossil. I don't live in Los Angeles.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Average humidity for mornings in Branson Mo, is 78. Average afternoon humidity 58. The same can be said for Los Angeles, where the humidity is almost exactly the same up or down less than 5 points depending on the day.

Los Angeles has a high humidity just as Branson does. Check it out if you don't believe me. Los Angeles is not a low humidity area.

Heat index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been to SW Missouri in the summer. The combination of heat and humidity is oppressive and it lasts much longer than it does in LA.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Heat index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been to SW Missouri in the summer. The combination of heat and humidity is oppressive and it lasts much longer than it does in LA.

Our first sumer there were a couple of weeks of oppressive humidity. Thankfully, some enterprising individual invented air conditioning and another one put it in cars. Since that first year the humidity has been relatively mild.

[SunnyTXsmile]

This is where people will always differ, and the reason why C-D will continue to have the same debates over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Some of us what to have a lovely experience outside without being restricted to air conditioning in our homes and cars. We prefer the maximum amount of pleasant weather all year round versus dodging one element or another.

There is nothing wrong with either choice. Some people are "stuff" people and value more material things and have the trade off of less desirable weather. Some people are "experience" people and value the great outdoors much more and trade that for less stuff. Some people think humidity rocks, and don't mind either way. Some people think 30* is warm, etc. It really comes down to what makes you happy.

For me, I will happily downsize my life to live where I can enjoy the outdoors in relatively mild weather pretty much year round. And if that means more taxes, well, such is life. When I get older and am home bound due to old age, I might feel differently. But for now, I take CA, faults and all, as nothing is perfect.

Either way, you can't knock someone else with different values or preferences than yourself.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SunnyTXsmile

Either way, you can't knock someone else with different values or preferences than yourself.

Rep points for this one - a point that has been made a number of times before. Unfortunately there are those too full of themselves to to able to comprehend such logic so characteristically they either try to insult the message bearer or wave redundant pom-poms about California as if that mitigates anyone else's preferences.

Congratulations on "getting it!"

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Rep points for this one - a point that has been made a number of times before. Unfortunately there are those too full of themselves to to able to comprehend such logic so characteristically they either try to insult the message bearer or wave redundant pom-poms about California as if that mitigates anyone else's preferences.

Congratulations on "getting it!"

He is talking about me... he gets a bit defensive about my teasing him for moving east of the 100th Meridian. I agree with you Sunny, aside from my humble opinion that Real Men Don't Move or Live East Of The 100th Meridian aside from my compadre Eustis, heck, they may as well live in tepid old England, no mountains and not much public land, and zero deserts, cacti, J trees, and death for the unprepared

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by sunshine7793

It has been stated several times on these forums that California taxes are only slightly higher than the lowest state. The number quoted was that CA taxes are 3.6% higher than the lowest state.

According to the following table the tax bite in CA as of 2010 was 11.2% compared to 7.0% in Alaska. Subtracting 7.0 from 11.2 gives 4.2. But that does not mean that CA taxes are only 4.2% higher than Alaska. In fact CA taxes are 60% higher than Alaska. Or to use another state CA taxes are 42% higher than Texas which has a 7.9% tax bite.

It is disingenuous to compare CA with 11.2% with Texas at 7.9% and say that there is only a 3.3% difference. That is not the way to calculate percentages although I suspect that there are many CA high school grads who are clueless on how to make such a simple calculation.

Let's take real numbers. A guy has built his company large enough to employ 2500 emoloyees and he is making $10 million per year. In CA with all $10 million subject to the 11.2% bite he pays $1,120,000 in taxes. But in Texas with their 7.9% bite he pays $790,000 in taxes. That's a difference of $330,000 to be saved each year by moving to Texas. And it means that he is paying 42% more in state taxes by staying in CA instead of moving to Texas. Not a mere 3.3% as others would have you believe.

Here is the table that compares total tax bite by state. Keep in mind that this is a 2010 table. Under the new 13.3% rate for high earners the penalty for living in CA becomes much greater than shown in this table.

State and Local Tax Burdens: All States, One Year, 1977 - 2010 | Tax Foundation

Let's try to be honest when using statistics.

Basically it is a meaningless figure when it comes to individuals. It is used to try an paint a rosier picture of CA, but it really doesn't. Take any set of real life experience, that meets a persons own financial condition and those figures will mean far more. Some may actually only see a 3.6% difference and their income may be higher in CA than another State, offsetting any negative impact of higher taxation. Others may see a bigger difference because their income does not change with location, like me. My over all savings was about 10% the first year and every year thereafter. LOTS of money to put in my pocket.

Then we have the cost comparison of homes in "nice" areas of comparable size or worth. MY home here in TN is on a 1/2 acre lot, in a neighborhood where all homes are 1/2 acre or larger. NO HOA. My home in CA was a comparable size (slightly bigger house in CA, but smaller garage [3 in CA VS 6 here with a second story apartment] ) and on a typical 7000 or so sq ft lot. Both cost and are taxed at the same rate in CA VS TN. This is a major difference, as my taxes here are over $3000.00 less.

Dry VS humid is a toss up. Dry throat and lips/skin in CA VS a bit of sweat when working hard here. Mind you my muscles like the humidity. If I am just going about daily tasks the humidity is a non issue.

The 3.6 % is meaningless to each individual.

[.highnlite]

It is used to try an paint a rosier picture of CA, but it really doesn't.

Actually it is used to point out how asinine it is to claim there are states with substantially lower tax structures and how silly it is to chose a place to live based on ideological beliefs about "low tax states".

I think what happens is something just as silly. Some people get a bee in their bonnet over "liberals" or "illegals" and believe they can return to a golden age, a Mayberry, by going to some other state.

It is telling that the whiners and complainers are uniformly political conservatives (yes, I know you state you are not a conservative, but all of your statements reflect the conservative ideology), and that they are city people who have little interest in recreating on the land, hiking, fishing, camping etc, or if they do it is on little pieces of park land within a short walk of their automobile.

My guess is that they are also probably, overweight and smoke, the same physical emotional dietary demographic as Rush Limbaugh, course that is just a guess.

[SunnyTXsmile]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

He is talking about me... he gets a bit defensive about my teasing him for moving east of the 100th Meridian. I agree with you Sunny, aside from my humble opinion that Real Men Don't Move or Live East Of The 100th Meridian aside from my compadre Eustis, heck, they may as well live in tepid old England, no mountains and not much public land, and zero deserts, cacti, J trees, and death for the unprepared

I don't see anything wrong with living east of the 100th meridian. I was raised east of the 100th meridian, and I had a fabulous life and many fantastic memories there. If it had warmer winters, it would give CA a run for its money.

Everyone has different priorities. If remaining close to family that lives on the east coast is of priority, well, guess where you are living? In addition to that, there are many things to cherish about the east coast, and many things I miss terribly about the east coast when I'm in CA.

What I have an issue with are those that use taxes as a main reason to knock CA. Taxes are just one tiny point in the grand scheme of picking a place to call home.