The article is mysteriously silent regarding the savings to employers and employees by eliminating the need for employer-supplied health insurance. Without figuring that in, it's hard to take the article seriously as anything other than a typical anti-tax rant. Hardly something worthy of a source that calls itself Reason.
Does that "savings" outweigh the increased cost from the tax? Because it's less important how much that value is and more important that overall cost and burden will increase.
Will California outlaw company provided health plans? If the company option is better, why would an employee want a worse Government solution?
In other, completely unrelated news, Meta just leased out the tallest building in Austin, Tx.
>Does that "savings" outweigh the increased cost from the tax?
That would be a great topic for an article. It would also be a lot more work than just blustering about high taxes, so "Reason" took the easy way out. Complaining is a lot easier than reasoning, it turns out.
It's no mystery, the Reason Foundation is a libertarian think tank. This is the same purposeful omission made previously by The Tax Foundation's "California Considers Doubling Its Taxes" article on the same topic.
That's too bad, but a living wage and universal health care should be the bare minimum. It's a broken system and people are restless. The usual propaganda about how this is communism and ruins businesses might not cut it this time, partly because small businesses are being killed by Disney-Fox-AT&T-AOL-Time-Warner-PepsiCo-Viacom-Halliburton-Skynet-Toyota-Trader-Joe's at an unprecedented rate.
Isn't there still a housing crisis? I have this vague feeling that most of the regular people living in California would be happy if some of the super rich (who have been driving up prices for everyone) would leave.
They don’t believe the rich and “regular people” are participating in the same housing market. That is why they are always trying to ban “luxury housing construction”. Acknowledging the price would go down requires admitting that housing prices are market driven and not caused by building luxury housing.
I'm leaving Tennessee for California in a few months. California is amazing in many ways, as is Tennessee. The latter sincerely lacks decent publicly funded education with extra curricular stuff pre-high school. YMMV of course, bit we're on the top 3 wealthiest areas of the state and are finally seeing the downsides to lack of taxes after several years here. Nearby states like Georgia/Florida have well funded education systems. TN does not.
If you can afford private education for your children, by all means, TN is great. If you can't, you're putting them at a sizable disadvantage IMHO.
10 comments
[ 22.9 ms ] story [ 284 ms ] threadWill California outlaw company provided health plans? If the company option is better, why would an employee want a worse Government solution?
In other, completely unrelated news, Meta just leased out the tallest building in Austin, Tx.
That would be a great topic for an article. It would also be a lot more work than just blustering about high taxes, so "Reason" took the easy way out. Complaining is a lot easier than reasoning, it turns out.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29843784
It's not mysterious at all why they hew to a laissez faire position to the exclusion of counter-points.
https://reddit.com/r/antiwork
People voted me down for saying it, but I definitely made the right choice. I'm not coming back.
If you can afford private education for your children, by all means, TN is great. If you can't, you're putting them at a sizable disadvantage IMHO.
Good luck and godspeed!