I shared a house with 2 roommates in college. It was a standard 60s tract house, i.e. it didn't visually give you the creeps. One night we started talking about how we all got a bad vibe being at the house. It wasn't attributed to a ghost or anything, but that the house itself seemed at times full of sadness or, at other times, anxiety. I'm sure we were drunk at the time, so who knows if one person swayed the thoughts of others. Later I hosted a study group at the house (nobody there knew my roommates), and somebody noted that they felt strange being in the house, and asked if something bad had happened there. Nothing we knew of, I replied, but there was definitely something odd about that house.
My husband and I had an idea to intentionally set up a site like this! It would look and serve as storage, but people could fix cars (with restrictions), use power tools, play music -- whatever! The intended clients would be people who lived in apartments or places that didn't afford them space for their hobbies. Would probably be a nightmare to permit, though.
Well, I guess my previous comment was removed - whatever. In any case, it is estimated that 90% of personal income tax in CA is paid by wage earners over $100K. If your stat is true about those over $450K paying 50% of the personal income tax contribution, then that would leave a little less than 40% paid by the $100K-449K group - still a sizable portion of the tax revenue in CA. I would suspect this group has been more negatively affected by the economic downturn than the top wage earners, and would expect the see a decrease in revenue from them more than the $450K group...
There may have been some percentage of nouveau riche who lost their fortunes in recent years, but according to a recent Time editorial, the top 10% of wage earners (this is nationwide, granted) received 100% of the income growth in 2006 and 2007. The super rich not only weathered the storm, but came out better on the other side. The issue for CA may not be a decrease in income, but the super rich getting better at where they stash the dough.
In looking up the revenue estimates used in the CA budget, it nauseated me to see that corporate tax revenue is about a quarter of what CA expects its residents to pay...
Did they lose money, or just get more creative about where they stash it? This Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=2&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB claims that the top 10% of Americans (granted this is nationwide - not CA specific) received 100% of the average income growth in 2006 and 2007. There may have been some volatile nouveau riche fortunes that were lost during the recession, but by and large the super rich not just weathered the storm but came out stronger on the other side.
Also agree with the previous commenter re deregulation, corporate tax cuts being a major player in CA economic woes http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/7247
There may have been some percentage of nouveau riche who lost their fortunes in recent years, but according to a recent Time editorial, the top 10% of wage earners (this is nationwide, granted) received 100% of the income growth in 2006 and 2007. The super rich not only weathered the storm, but came out better on the other side. The issue for CA may not be a decrease in income, but the super rich getting better at where they stash the dough.
In looking up the revenue estimates used in the CA budget, it nauseated me to see that corporate tax revenue is about a quarter of what CA expects its residents to pay...
Also agree with the previous commenter re deregulation, corporate tax cuts being a major player in CA economic woes http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/7247