Liberal California and conservative Texas are different in many ways ? including their poverty rates.

California?s poverty rate is 20.4 percent and the Texas rate is only 14.7 percent, based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for the regional cost of living, out-of-pocket medical expenses and other items.

Why the dramatic difference in poverty between California and Texas ? proportionately 38.8 percent higher in the Golden State, and affecting the lives of millions of people? And what can we as a nation learn from the success of Texas and the failure of California to hold down their poverty rates?

Three big factors are responsible for California having more poor people and Texas having fewer as a portion of their state populations:

California has high state and local tax rates, while the rates in Texas are low. California has a generous welfare system that acts as a disincentive to work, while Texas incentivizes people to get jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/21/liberal-california-fails-at-fighting-poverty-conservative-texas-succeeds.html 

They have high state and local taxes because they have low property taxes due to capping.

It is also a very expensive place to live compared to Texas.

So the poverty rate will be higher simply because of cost of living.

They didn't even mention the comparative unemployment numbers to prove they had an incentive not to work, and were supplemented to stay home.

Isn't "generous welfare system" an oxymoron? 

they have low property taxes

No they don't. 

Well done Texas - Liberal California fails at fighting poverty, conservative Texas succeeds



BULLS--T. Texas has the most uninsured for healthcare in the nation. Thanks, morons in Austin. 

They?re talking about poverty. Not health insured rates. Keep up 

No they don't.

"California?s property-tax rates were the lowest of the most populous U.S. states ? 0.78 percent for owner-occupied homes and 0.77 percent for investment properties. New Jersey had the nation?s highest property taxes in 2016, at 2.31 percent."



In Texas, it is around 2%. 

In Texas, it is around 2%.

Here's where you totally missed it. Its not about the rate, its about property value. Yes, Texas is 1.90%. However, that's based on a 136,000 home. California is lower at about .81% but its based on a 385,000 home. 

[i]Here's where you totally missed it. Its not about the rate, its about property value. Yes, Texas is 1.90%. However, that's based on a 136,000 home. California is lower at about .81% but its based on a 385,000 home. [/I

Only if you purchased it at that price. Under prop 13, the tax rate is based on what you paid when you got the house, not what it is worth today. Taxes don't go up. That's why they have so many school, service, and infrastructure issues. If you bought a house for $100,000 and it's worth two million, now, you only pay taxes on the $100,000. So, the property value does not generate tax revenue. My in laws all live there. The value of the home is only helpful to people moving out of state to lower priced housing communities. If you own a house worth 2 million, in CA you're just going to move into another house like the one you have, and pay a chunk more in taxes. Mobility is low. 

In Texas, it is around 2%.

Also Tx does not have Income tax nor some the other taxes Ca has. 

Conservative Texas succeeded at fighting poverty? What does that mean? There is no more poverty? I don't believe it.

bob. I need more than your word. Hey bob, how bout them republicans inability to kill the ACA? HA! 

California has a generous welfare system that acts as a disincentive to work, while Texas incentivizes people to get jobs.
. The census cited that 60% of welfare recipients worked and got benefits. Many of the remaining recipients are children or senior citizens who can't work. 

Also Tx does not have Income tax nor some the other taxes Ca has.


Only because Texas sits on black gold. Location location location.