According to who? Forbes has California ranked #37. The ten bottom-ranked states are mostly predictable: Arkansas; West Virginia; Oregon; Alabama; Mississippi; Nevada; Arizona; Alaska; Louisiana; New Mexico.
Schools receive state funding as well. In NJ for example we have what is referred to as Abbott districts which typically receive most of the state funding:
No. The focus of the discussion pertains to higher taxes on the wealthy, which is a targeted tax. Do you believe that someone making over few millions dollars can’t afford that?
lol - So when dems say they want to raise taxes on the wealthy it’s capricious, but when you do it, it’s a strategic targeted move for a purpose. I love it.
Did you read my other posts? Nowhere in ANY post did I say that pertaining to higher marginal tax rates on the very wealthy. I’m personally not opposed to that, I would consider myself center-left regarding that.
In 2014, California spent $8,694 per pupil and ranked 46th, while New York, spent $18,191 per pupil and ranked third in the nation. First in the nation was Vermont at $19,654.
More recent figures come from the nonpartisan California Budget & Policy Center in a report released in January on 2015-16 spending, but even that report gives two different rankings.
In terms of state spending per K-12 student, the report gives California a rank of 41st. That’s $10,291 per student, adjusting for cost-of-living.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that your assertion wasn’t even remotely true? You said you bet that LA ha the most expensive school systems in the world when the truth is that it’s one of the lowest in the entire country.