Dean, you’re right that the fundamental question is whether the services are worth the taxes. What I’m questioning is why California feels it needs so much more government services per capita than any other state in the Union. The answer that every other state is undertaxed and underserviced strikes me as unlikely.

I think a lot of the effect of higher taxes depends on what they’re for. If the higher taxes are there to cover generous pension plans for people who retired at 60, it would seem a little odd if the net result was more roads in better repair.

There will come a point when borrowing is so expensive it’s not really an option but California’s commitments on the expenditure side of the ledger will remain.  At that point all expenditures will need to be matched with tax increases or a federal bailout.

Not like a smooth curve but like falling off a cliff.

I’m not a minarchist or an extreme libertarian.  I’m fine with people in a state voting to spend whatever they care to as long as their expense stream remains proportional to their revenue stream.  California is overly dependent on the highest income earners for revenue and, well, they’re mobile and are increasingly moving to greener pastures.

Cook County, where I live, has also reached the point at which the expense stream has outstripped any conceivable revenue stream.  The only solution to that is cutting costs which means cutting payrolls either by cutting salaries or by firing employees.   I’ve long advocated that costs be cut by cutting salaries for all non-union employees starting with the highest paid.  I have no hopes that will come to pass.

Yes however isn’t that an over simplification of the question? California is number 8 in per capita income. Three top states that rank higher in per capita income, are $8000-$13000 higher.

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm

Not only that, but I’ll bet California income is also more unbalanced. That is to say that California probably has a higher percentage of people below the percapita income than say.. Connecticut, New Jersey or Massachusetts.

I also don’t think California would need a tax increase if they didn’t have a large illegal immigration problem.

On the Alaskan oil I look at government land as being the peoples land. That is different than the government owning everyone’s personal land.

Shouldn’t the real question be whether California’s government services and infrastructure be improved in any way by such a move? I express skepticism at the notion that the answer is axiomatically "no."

Alaska’s most important resource is its fossil fuels. And all the people are its owners. This is different how exactly?

As for my presumption being wrong: I suggested no such presumption. I support no such presumption. I merely asked a few simple questions about government being a part of a functioning economic system, and whether taxes are really the most important question as opposed to things like sensible regulatory policy and truly functional and useful infrastructure. There isn’t a business anywhere in this country that doesn’t rely on government infrastructure for something or other, but an awful lot of businesses in high tax areas with lots and lots of infrastructure, support, and regulation are doing pretty damned well–undeniably so. And that’s been true for generations, and isn’t changing all that rapidly that I’ve seen.

If Massachussetts (or "taxachussetts" as some like to call it) is such a hellhole of oppression due to having the highest taxes in the nation (or damn near to them), how on Earth do they still manage to be a thriving center of commerce and incredibly wealthy to boot? If taxes are so bloody important, and low taxes are such a powerful stimulus and high taxes are such a horrifyingly bad drag I mean?

Shouldn’t the real question be what people and businesses are getting for their money, and whether it’s worth it?

No Dean. Not socialism. They are sending checks to the owners.

My point is not that high taxes = wonderful economies, but at some point a lot of us (including a lot of us who often have voted Republican) wonder at the level of obsession over taxes by some Republicans/Conervatives/Libertarians/whatever and ask: so if all those tax-high states are so awful, how come so many of them are so rich, and still getting richer?

Dean, your presumption is wrong that the wonderful economies and wealth is due to higher taxes. Your putting the horse before the cart. Wealth and great economies are due to a larger (lots higher) percaptia income in blue states. It is also true that the large metropolitan cities are in blue states. The cost of living is also higher (by quite a bit) than in red states.

Why do he blue states with large old cities have so much wealth? Mostly because they are the oldest cities in America that  formed the hubs between railroads and harbors. And the oldest cultural institutions: stuff like universities, publishing companies, museums, corporate headquarters, stock and bond markets etc.

In other words if you want to make it big in the world, you need to leave a red state and goto the a blue state. Yes they are taxed more, but only because, for the most part, people have more wealth.