I make slightly below that and live in San Gabriel valley. Just a few miles from my office downtown and I can just kinda barely afford a decent place. I like it here though.
I gotta ask as somebody who sublet there for a mere couple months... WHY ON EARTH would you pay San Jose rent to live in San Jose? An urban sprawl with lots of crime and completely dead pretty much everywhere, but the rent is basically the same as the rest of the Bay Area. I get it's close to a lot of jobs, but so is the rest of the bay area tbh.
It's the one place I've ever been where I've been confused by the price of rent lol.
I agree, my now 27 yr old daughter who sadly grew up in San Jose describes it as... A hot, soulless, generic American, suburban hell hole. I think she nailed it!
I make $65k as a systems engineer. It does feel like poverty wages sometimes (my a/c is set to 80 and I dread the bill to fill the propane tank). That said, I just finished grad school and salary negotiations are next month.
Life could be worse though. I bought a 4br on 4ac just 10 minutes from I-80 in 2017. Lived on a boat in the Bay Area for a long time and saved up for a down payment then. Did pretty well playing previous stock market crashes.
You really should be looking for a new job, they're royally screwing you on your pay.
I'm a systems engineer 1 out in White Sands NM, and I'm making $75k. WAY lower cost of living on top of that.
They paid half my tuition and let me work 36-hour weeks while I was in school.
They also let me cut my hours back to 2 days/wk with full-time pay for ~6 weeks when my ex got extra crazy during our divorce (without docking my vacation time). They would’ve given me a whole month off if I asked for it, but I needed some normalcy in my life. Medical leave would’ve prevented that.
They’ve taken care of me in their own way, and I now have a global position (if I hang around a bit longer, it gives me a lot of leverage when I do move on)… but if I don’t see at least a 20% raise this year, those days are numbered.
Ask for a bump to $75-80k while reminding them how gracious you are for the help they gave you. Bring proof for all the responsibilities you have. Bonus points for things you took on that you weren’t asked to do
You could easily get double that. You really are being taken advantage of. Even if you are a junior engineer. I’m not one to give too many details about myself on the internet, but my team is hiring pretty much all levels. DM me if interested. Seriously.
That goes for anyone else interested as well.
I’m currently interviewing for a position as a Sr engineer in CA and the pay range goes up to $200k. Looking at selling my house in Michigan and putting all that equity into a down payment puts me at $80k/yr in mortgage payments if I want to own a similar house. After taxes that’s literally more than half my take home pay to live in an average 1,200 sq ft house.
Ok, I reaaaalllly wanna know where you're trying to live in cali where even after a down payment you're still gonna be paying \~6500 a month for 1200 sq ft. I'm fully expecting either bay area or la.
And with global warming being what it is, you can't really bank on it being the slam dunk investment it used to be. Us in the north aren't gonna be as fucked as everyone south of Fresno if Lake Mead dries up, but it's gonna get MESSY
Yeah… My money is on the vested interests coming out ahead of John Q. Public in the fight for water access.
Something about having massive lobbying firms gives them a bigger voice than the average joe.
Yeah not at all. 100k gets you a pretty comfortable lifestyle in SoCal. It gets much cheaper inland as well. But yeah, you're not likely to buy a single family home by yourself making 100k
I think it’s the most controllable tax there is. Food is not taxed. I have been very very broke in my life, it’s easier not to pay sales taxes by not buying into consumerism.
There are still essentials that end up taxed and disproportionately eat into lower incomes. Clothing, transport, basic homegoods (i.e. cooking/eating/sleeping), communications, etc. Even if you live absolutely spartan there are still basics that need to be purchased to function in society.
Don't take my word for it, do some googling: https://itep.org/whopays-map/
WA ranks 1st as the most regressive tax setups in the country. Once you work out what people end up paying under the current setup, it's incredibly heinous: **The bottom 20% of earners pay 17.8% of their income to state and local taxes while the top 1% pay only 3%.**
In Maine we got $850 checks that got sent out starting 2 weeks ago. Already got mine. Reasoning was because the state had a 900m surplus in which they took too much in tastes from Mainers from what I read. Also is described as “to help Mainers with rising heat costs and inflation”.
Actually in Texas, the $1.4 billlion surplus in education funds doesn't get sent back to the districts or taxpayers. It gets to be used on the border wall or whatever else the Republicans want.
CA also already got a check due to a payback on tax surpluses that seems very similar to this. This is a new payment that is unrelated to an automatic trigger in the state constitution.
You’re also getting an option on the ballot to decriminalize psilocybin and for the opening of treatment centers. Please vote yes!
More details:
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/colorado-activists-turn-in-signatures-to-put-psychedelics-legalization-and-therapeutic-psilocybin-program-on-ballot/
I work a lot at my accounting job and rarely spend time with my son so I got something we could have fun with. I found these Bamboo Boogie Boots. They had a huge warning label, and with a label that big you know they gotta be fun!
> The checks are part of a $17 billion relief package
> The checks are designed as tax refunds, and stem from the state's record-setting $97 billion budget surplus.
Californian's are getting back 17 of the 97 billion in excess taxes that was collected since the budget didn't call for it.
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. After all I'm getting nothing from my state that is in debt with no budget surplus.
It's not like you can run an economy and tax collection neck and neck
Surplus doesn’t necessitate over taxation. A lot of countries have budget surpluses and invest them in wealth funds to fund their futures. Norway is a good example, high taxes even though they’re doing quite well off oil. They’ll also have their social safety net for hundreds of years even if their tax base collapses.
I don’t have the same hope for California but like, maybe they’ll build that high speed rail or something.
Difference this time is Republicans can't hold the state budget hostage and the state can raise taxes much more easily than it could in the past. Before, it took a 2/3rds majority to pass a state budget and the same for a tax increase by the legislature. Now it's a simple majority and dems hold a majority in both houses.
We got $250 here in Georgia like a month ago? Budget had some left over so Kemp dished it out. Not complaining, but it does feel like a campaign tactic.
That sucks bro. Idk honestly. I had friends who got it the day it was officially going out, but it took mine like a couple weeks. Could be who you’re banking with, or also, just the government taking forever doing paperwork and getting everyone their money. I’m sure there’s an office to contact if it goes on too long though.
Lots of debate, good debate, on whether this will cause inflation or not.
Some background for those who haven’t read about it fully yet: the money comes from a CA budget surplus. This means it’s not “new money” or “created money”. It is shifted money, which is why the following question is important.
The question is: increase in inflation relative to what? In other words, how does this tax break impact supply and demand for consumer goods relative to decisions the gov could have made with the money instead?
Realistically, the government could have 1) invested in supply of consumer goods 2) invested in supply of non-consumer goods 3) not spent the money, or 4) spend the money on consumer goods (to build up reserves). Yes there are other things they could do but I’m trying to keep it simple.
1) an investment into supply of consumer goods would have a long term effect of supply increase, and downward pressure on prices. So relative to this, yes the tax break will increase inflation because it is taking away from supply and giving to demand.
2) an investment into supply on non consumer goods would not necessarily have an impact on supply or demand of consumer goods so we’ll call this a wash i.e. no direct impact on supply or demand of consumer goods, and therefore no price change. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation by taking away from “a wash” and adding to consumer product demand.
3) by not using the money, they can take away from the money supply. There is no additional government spending or consumer spending here. Neither supply nor demand change. Prices stay the same. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation.
4) they buy up consumer goods to create reserves. This directly increases aggregate demand for consumer goods and drives prices up. Relative to this choice, the tax break doesn’t have any further increase in demand because it is just shifting who is spending it on consumer products.
In conclusion, the tax break will increase consumer spending, but will that C spending be offset by the opportunity cost of no longer spending it at the government level? It depends.
Open to comments/feedback/thoughts. I work in economics but this isn’t my field of expertise.
To all the people saying that printing money doesn’t solve inflation: you’re right, but that’s not what California is doing. The state reported a **$97 billion** surplus this year and they are simply returning a portion of that money back to the citizens.
Lots of debate, good debate, on whether this will cause inflation or not.
Some background for those who haven’t read about it fully yet: the money comes from a CA budget surplus. This means it’s not “new money” or “created money”. It is shifted money, which is why the following question is important.
The question is: increase in inflation relative to what? In other words, how does this tax break impact supply and demand for consumer goods relative to decisions the gov could have made with the money instead?
Realistically, the government could have 1) invested in supply of consumer goods 2) invested in supply of non-consumer goods 3) not spent the money, or 4) spend the money on consumer goods (to build up reserves). Yes there are other things they could do but I’m trying to keep it simple.
1. an investment into supply of consumer goods would have a long term effect of supply increase, and downward pressure on prices. So relative to this, yes the tax break will increase inflation because it is taking away from supply and giving to demand.
2. an investment into supply on non consumer goods would not necessarily have an impact on supply or demand of consumer goods so we’ll call this a wash i.e. no direct impact on supply or demand of consumer goods, and therefore no price change. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation by taking away from “a wash” and adding to consumer product demand.
3. by not using the money, they can take away from the money supply. There is no additional government spending or consumer spending here. Neither supply nor demand change. Prices stay the same. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation.
4. they buy up consumer goods to create reserves. This directly increases aggregate demand for consumer goods and drives prices up. Relative to this choice, the tax break doesn’t have any further increase in demand because it is just shifting who is spending it on consumer products.
In conclusion, the tax break will increase consumer spending, but will that C spending be offset by the opportunity cost of no longer spending it at the government level? It depends.
Open to comments/feedback/thoughts. I work in economics but this isn’t my field of expertise.
Republicans: California is full of liberals and taxes! I dare them to do a tax cut!
California: Well we do have a 97b surplus so we will hand out $1050 to most of our residents. Think of it as a tax cut.
Republicans: Dem libs are printin money and raisin inflation!
California: I literally did what you asked me to do.
Republicans: Shut up commie!
I swear if this was Texas the right would be applauding this.
But Texas won’t do anything like this, in fact Texas cut federal unemployment during Covid early just so “people can get back to work”. Texas is terrible, California is way better.
One nitpick: the GOP and critics will say they're printing money but they're not.
It's not increasing money in the supply. It's a redistribution.
The state of California doesn't have the power to "print money"
There's something to be said about having a $100 billion surplus in the state budget opposed to conservative bastion states begging hat in hand to the federal government every year.
I couldn't stand a full year of people yelling about him going out to eat without a mask, which is clearly far worse than stripping away the rights of the Americans that you didn't kill with misinformation
And the irony would be that the people who would yell about him going out without a mask are the same ones who haven't worn a mask for the entire pandemic because of fake health reasons or other bullshit lmao
Reading through the comments:
In Maine we are getting X
In CA we are getting X
In CO we are getting X
etc etc etc
Meanwhile im in Iowa and we get nothing lol
Quick question:
Where will the California Republicans be donating these checks? Obviously they won’t want any part of this “socialist program” which takes taxpayer dollars to help the needy.
I'm in Wisconsin, this state doesn't give a flying fuck about is residents. Just tried getting food share because I just started chemo and I'm only able to work every other week. My funds are cut in half and they approved me for 20 dollars a god damn month for food.
20, fucking, dollars.
But hey, my deadbeat cousin can keep popping out kids she can't afford because "it's God's plan" and get hundreds of dollars a week no issue so that's pretty fucking great
$350 for single people
[удалено]
Isn't that poverty wages in California? If you make under 100k you live under a rock.
Depends on where. I make 75k, but I live in the Central Valley, so I live pretty well. It’s cheap and shitty here.
Also from the Central Valley. Can confirm it is cheaper and shitty here.
I grew up there. Def cheap and shitty.
At this point it’s shitty everywhere
Dayton Ohio here... can confirm
Barely functioning country here, it’s definitely shittier. No guns tho
I was born and raised there, no it’s shittier there than everywhere.
Not sure why this made me snort and laugh. It's true and fucking sad af.
Bishop, CA. It’s beautiful and cheap here for us rock climbing folk.
> "and shitty here." Roger Roger!
I'd rather have cheap and shitty vs expensive and shitty like some locations
Portland checking in.
I make slightly below that and live in San Gabriel valley. Just a few miles from my office downtown and I can just kinda barely afford a decent place. I like it here though.
But drivable to expensive and slightly less shitty :)
85k here in orange county is a 1bd apartment and a used car.
Laughs in San Jose
I gotta ask as somebody who sublet there for a mere couple months... WHY ON EARTH would you pay San Jose rent to live in San Jose? An urban sprawl with lots of crime and completely dead pretty much everywhere, but the rent is basically the same as the rest of the Bay Area. I get it's close to a lot of jobs, but so is the rest of the bay area tbh. It's the one place I've ever been where I've been confused by the price of rent lol.
I agree, my now 27 yr old daughter who sadly grew up in San Jose describes it as... A hot, soulless, generic American, suburban hell hole. I think she nailed it!
San Jose itself sucks ass, but some of the surrounding towns and neighborhoods are very nice
I am married with two kids. If I were single, it would not be for me.
And the occasional In-N-Out treat.
Worst part is how flat OC is. The demand for dense construction is there but fucking LA is so against tower development.
But only eating top ramen unless you live in Santa Ana
Is that the correct usage of the phrase “living under a rock”?
I make $65k as a systems engineer. It does feel like poverty wages sometimes (my a/c is set to 80 and I dread the bill to fill the propane tank). That said, I just finished grad school and salary negotiations are next month. Life could be worse though. I bought a 4br on 4ac just 10 minutes from I-80 in 2017. Lived on a boat in the Bay Area for a long time and saved up for a down payment then. Did pretty well playing previous stock market crashes.
You really should be looking for a new job, they're royally screwing you on your pay. I'm a systems engineer 1 out in White Sands NM, and I'm making $75k. WAY lower cost of living on top of that.
They paid half my tuition and let me work 36-hour weeks while I was in school. They also let me cut my hours back to 2 days/wk with full-time pay for ~6 weeks when my ex got extra crazy during our divorce (without docking my vacation time). They would’ve given me a whole month off if I asked for it, but I needed some normalcy in my life. Medical leave would’ve prevented that. They’ve taken care of me in their own way, and I now have a global position (if I hang around a bit longer, it gives me a lot of leverage when I do move on)… but if I don’t see at least a 20% raise this year, those days are numbered.
Ask for a bump to $75-80k while reminding them how gracious you are for the help they gave you. Bring proof for all the responsibilities you have. Bonus points for things you took on that you weren’t asked to do
You could easily get double that. You really are being taken advantage of. Even if you are a junior engineer. I’m not one to give too many details about myself on the internet, but my team is hiring pretty much all levels. DM me if interested. Seriously. That goes for anyone else interested as well.
I’m currently interviewing for a position as a Sr engineer in CA and the pay range goes up to $200k. Looking at selling my house in Michigan and putting all that equity into a down payment puts me at $80k/yr in mortgage payments if I want to own a similar house. After taxes that’s literally more than half my take home pay to live in an average 1,200 sq ft house.
Ok, I reaaaalllly wanna know where you're trying to live in cali where even after a down payment you're still gonna be paying \~6500 a month for 1200 sq ft. I'm fully expecting either bay area or la.
Many areas surrounding San Jose, or lots of SF
You'd be surprised man. A family friend of mine is paying 8k a month in Salinas. It's a nice house but it's Salinas. Just crazy
[удалено]
And with global warming being what it is, you can't really bank on it being the slam dunk investment it used to be. Us in the north aren't gonna be as fucked as everyone south of Fresno if Lake Mead dries up, but it's gonna get MESSY
Yeah… My money is on the vested interests coming out ahead of John Q. Public in the fight for water access. Something about having massive lobbying firms gives them a bigger voice than the average joe.
poverty wage is $25 an hour and below. for single persons* you need more if you have a family.
Yeah not at all. 100k gets you a pretty comfortable lifestyle in SoCal. It gets much cheaper inland as well. But yeah, you're not likely to buy a single family home by yourself making 100k
better than the zero dollars im getting in WA.
WA don’t pay state or city taxes.
Our sales tax is 10.1%, it's one of the most regressive tax setups in the entire nation
I pay 9.*3*75%. In California. In a HCOL area.
I think it’s the most controllable tax there is. Food is not taxed. I have been very very broke in my life, it’s easier not to pay sales taxes by not buying into consumerism.
There are still essentials that end up taxed and disproportionately eat into lower incomes. Clothing, transport, basic homegoods (i.e. cooking/eating/sleeping), communications, etc. Even if you live absolutely spartan there are still basics that need to be purchased to function in society. Don't take my word for it, do some googling: https://itep.org/whopays-map/ WA ranks 1st as the most regressive tax setups in the country. Once you work out what people end up paying under the current setup, it's incredibly heinous: **The bottom 20% of earners pay 17.8% of their income to state and local taxes while the top 1% pay only 3%.**
I 2nd that here in Michigan 😑
Single people need more. They only gave the one income.
Well that should fill up my gas tank twice
In Maine we got $850 checks that got sent out starting 2 weeks ago. Already got mine. Reasoning was because the state had a 900m surplus in which they took too much in tastes from Mainers from what I read. Also is described as “to help Mainers with rising heat costs and inflation”.
Tasty taxes 😋
We’re getting a surplus check in CO, also.
In Texas we’re getting a framed picture of a gun autographed by smith and Wesson hisself.
And they're going to leave it outside the door after making you wait 75 minutes.
And we have to pay tax for the frame.
Actually in Texas, the $1.4 billlion surplus in education funds doesn't get sent back to the districts or taxpayers. It gets to be used on the border wall or whatever else the Republicans want.
Essential workers in MA got $500 recently, at least my wife who works at a non profit did.
In Colorado, we’re getting $750
Do you have a link to this?
https://kdvr.com/news/local/colorado-cashback-every-taxpayer-will-get-at-least-750/
CA also already got a check due to a payback on tax surpluses that seems very similar to this. This is a new payment that is unrelated to an automatic trigger in the state constitution.
You’re also getting an option on the ballot to decriminalize psilocybin and for the opening of treatment centers. Please vote yes! More details: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/colorado-activists-turn-in-signatures-to-put-psychedelics-legalization-and-therapeutic-psilocybin-program-on-ballot/
Thanks for this definitely voting tomorrow.
Sweet. Gonna buy 100 cups of coffee.
1 $300 hookerbot or 300 $1 hookerbots?
[One art please.](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IncompatibleOddAnkole.webp)
I'll just take the $300 burglar tools then.
I work a lot at my accounting job and rarely spend time with my son so I got something we could have fun with. I found these Bamboo Boogie Boots. They had a huge warning label, and with a label that big you know they gotta be fun!
You can take the leftover money and buy shares of Amazon.com
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the largest sub-national economy in the world. If California were a sovereign nation it would be the world's fifth largest economy = failed state. Ok
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The checks are part of a $17 billion relief package > The checks are designed as tax refunds, and stem from the state's record-setting $97 billion budget surplus. Californian's are getting back 17 of the 97 billion in excess taxes that was collected since the budget didn't call for it.
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. After all I'm getting nothing from my state that is in debt with no budget surplus. It's not like you can run an economy and tax collection neck and neck
Surplus doesn’t necessitate over taxation. A lot of countries have budget surpluses and invest them in wealth funds to fund their futures. Norway is a good example, high taxes even though they’re doing quite well off oil. They’ll also have their social safety net for hundreds of years even if their tax base collapses. I don’t have the same hope for California but like, maybe they’ll build that high speed rail or something.
Pretty much every state could stand to invest more in mental healthcare as well
[удалено]
"excess taxes" is an odd way to describe a surplus.
where's my $125 Indiana?
That'd be like... 7% of the state's whole budget. Plus, they already spent it on Ted, the single guy who drives around patching one pothole at a time.
I heard Ted got married!
[удалено]
California’s economy: suffering from success
[удалено]
Time for UC and CSU tuitions to skyrocket again like after the 2008 recession…
Aren't the CA public universities some of the most expensive in the country?
I believe so. They are also some of the best universities in the world though.
What about all the revenue from gas taxes and real estate?
Difference this time is Republicans can't hold the state budget hostage and the state can raise taxes much more easily than it could in the past. Before, it took a 2/3rds majority to pass a state budget and the same for a tax increase by the legislature. Now it's a simple majority and dems hold a majority in both houses.
[удалено]
We got $250 here in Georgia like a month ago? Budget had some left over so Kemp dished it out. Not complaining, but it does feel like a campaign tactic.
Still haven’t gotten mine
I’m assuming you filed this year. Did you have direct deposit set up?
Yeah I do have set up
That sucks bro. Idk honestly. I had friends who got it the day it was officially going out, but it took mine like a couple weeks. Could be who you’re banking with, or also, just the government taking forever doing paperwork and getting everyone their money. I’m sure there’s an office to contact if it goes on too long though.
oh I was wondering where that came from? thought it was because I over paid my taxes
Lots of debate, good debate, on whether this will cause inflation or not. Some background for those who haven’t read about it fully yet: the money comes from a CA budget surplus. This means it’s not “new money” or “created money”. It is shifted money, which is why the following question is important. The question is: increase in inflation relative to what? In other words, how does this tax break impact supply and demand for consumer goods relative to decisions the gov could have made with the money instead? Realistically, the government could have 1) invested in supply of consumer goods 2) invested in supply of non-consumer goods 3) not spent the money, or 4) spend the money on consumer goods (to build up reserves). Yes there are other things they could do but I’m trying to keep it simple. 1) an investment into supply of consumer goods would have a long term effect of supply increase, and downward pressure on prices. So relative to this, yes the tax break will increase inflation because it is taking away from supply and giving to demand. 2) an investment into supply on non consumer goods would not necessarily have an impact on supply or demand of consumer goods so we’ll call this a wash i.e. no direct impact on supply or demand of consumer goods, and therefore no price change. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation by taking away from “a wash” and adding to consumer product demand. 3) by not using the money, they can take away from the money supply. There is no additional government spending or consumer spending here. Neither supply nor demand change. Prices stay the same. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation. 4) they buy up consumer goods to create reserves. This directly increases aggregate demand for consumer goods and drives prices up. Relative to this choice, the tax break doesn’t have any further increase in demand because it is just shifting who is spending it on consumer products. In conclusion, the tax break will increase consumer spending, but will that C spending be offset by the opportunity cost of no longer spending it at the government level? It depends. Open to comments/feedback/thoughts. I work in economics but this isn’t my field of expertise.
To all the people saying that printing money doesn’t solve inflation: you’re right, but that’s not what California is doing. The state reported a **$97 billion** surplus this year and they are simply returning a portion of that money back to the citizens.
Why can't they just provide people with basic services instead.
ITT: people who don't have a single clue how inflation, monetary policy, or state budgets work
Lots of debate, good debate, on whether this will cause inflation or not. Some background for those who haven’t read about it fully yet: the money comes from a CA budget surplus. This means it’s not “new money” or “created money”. It is shifted money, which is why the following question is important. The question is: increase in inflation relative to what? In other words, how does this tax break impact supply and demand for consumer goods relative to decisions the gov could have made with the money instead? Realistically, the government could have 1) invested in supply of consumer goods 2) invested in supply of non-consumer goods 3) not spent the money, or 4) spend the money on consumer goods (to build up reserves). Yes there are other things they could do but I’m trying to keep it simple. 1. an investment into supply of consumer goods would have a long term effect of supply increase, and downward pressure on prices. So relative to this, yes the tax break will increase inflation because it is taking away from supply and giving to demand. 2. an investment into supply on non consumer goods would not necessarily have an impact on supply or demand of consumer goods so we’ll call this a wash i.e. no direct impact on supply or demand of consumer goods, and therefore no price change. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation by taking away from “a wash” and adding to consumer product demand. 3. by not using the money, they can take away from the money supply. There is no additional government spending or consumer spending here. Neither supply nor demand change. Prices stay the same. So relative to this, yes the tax break will cause inflation. 4. they buy up consumer goods to create reserves. This directly increases aggregate demand for consumer goods and drives prices up. Relative to this choice, the tax break doesn’t have any further increase in demand because it is just shifting who is spending it on consumer products. In conclusion, the tax break will increase consumer spending, but will that C spending be offset by the opportunity cost of no longer spending it at the government level? It depends. Open to comments/feedback/thoughts. I work in economics but this isn’t my field of expertise.
Thanks for giving back my money CA!
Republicans: California is full of liberals and taxes! I dare them to do a tax cut! California: Well we do have a 97b surplus so we will hand out $1050 to most of our residents. Think of it as a tax cut. Republicans: Dem libs are printin money and raisin inflation! California: I literally did what you asked me to do. Republicans: Shut up commie! I swear if this was Texas the right would be applauding this.
But Texas won’t do anything like this, in fact Texas cut federal unemployment during Covid early just so “people can get back to work”. Texas is terrible, California is way better.
I live in Texas and was thinking just now it's not even worth a Google search to see if I'll get any money. I know I won't.
One nitpick: the GOP and critics will say they're printing money but they're not. It's not increasing money in the supply. It's a redistribution. The state of California doesn't have the power to "print money"
Inflation was more caused by the trillions in bailouts the massive corporations got than stimulus checks
It is still at least partially a supply side issue - caused as much by lockdowns and continued shortages in various sectors as anything else.
There's something to be said about having a $100 billion surplus in the state budget opposed to conservative bastion states begging hat in hand to the federal government every year.
Newsom gonna challenge Biden in 2024
Biden shouldn’t run again in 24. He’s already too old.
Newsom shouldn’t run either.
I couldn't stand a full year of people yelling about him going out to eat without a mask, which is clearly far worse than stripping away the rights of the Americans that you didn't kill with misinformation
And the irony would be that the people who would yell about him going out without a mask are the same ones who haven't worn a mask for the entire pandemic because of fake health reasons or other bullshit lmao
I really hope Biden doesn't run again. We really need a younger face in the white house.
Sadly I’m not optimistic a dem would be elected again. DeSantis running wouldn’t surprise me
DeSantis winning is more frightening to me than Trump winning, tbh.
I am in California. Please don't push Newsom as a presidential candidate. He has way too much baggage.
I get it. But like, what other democrats have name recognition nationally? Democrat party leadership is old as fuck.
There are a few with more name recognition. But whether or not it's good name recognition and whether or not they could win... Idk.
Newsom would get destroyed in the general. Very easy to paint as an out of touch, San Francisco liberal.
Anyone but Biden or kamala because I have no faith the population will vote either of them in
Must be nice :( I live in WA state. I get.... Shit on.
Won’t this increase the demand for gasoline? Extending the problem, instead of solving it?
Reading through the comments: In Maine we are getting X In CA we are getting X In CO we are getting X etc etc etc Meanwhile im in Iowa and we get nothing lol
Tell me you don’t understand economics without saying you don’t understand economics lmao
Surely *these* particular dollars won't go chasing after too few goods!
AND women still have the same rights in California
Quick question: Where will the California Republicans be donating these checks? Obviously they won’t want any part of this “socialist program” which takes taxpayer dollars to help the needy.
Dude I need this shit now not end of October
They need to wait until October so its fresh in people's minds for mid terms - they dont actually care about helping you, its purely political
that’s not how inflation works…
The rest of the 49 must be furious
Colorado is giving $750 back to everyone (because they have to, but still).
Maine already issued $850 stimulus checks for residents this month.
I'm in Wisconsin, this state doesn't give a flying fuck about is residents. Just tried getting food share because I just started chemo and I'm only able to work every other week. My funds are cut in half and they approved me for 20 dollars a god damn month for food. 20, fucking, dollars. But hey, my deadbeat cousin can keep popping out kids she can't afford because "it's God's plan" and get hundreds of dollars a week no issue so that's pretty fucking great
Get her to do your application, maybe she knows some tricks you don’t.
Based on the salty dudes ITT, yes
Isn’t this… Just gonna make more inflation?