The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#51

Post by guiomie » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

True story: 2 mid-level engineers both working at a FANG, and we can barely afford a 3bdr/2.5bath in Sunnyvale/Santa Clara without burning thru 30-40% of our monthly income (including RSUs).

Having bid on a few houses, I'm amazed by how opaque the market is here. Houses will be listed 30% less than expected selling price and when you do make an offer, the seller will come back with a higher price to all those who made an offer... I suspect some collusion on the part of the real estate agents.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#52

Post by almost_usual » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

kcorbitt wrote: post #49

almost_usual wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold, at which point the deferred taxes are paid from the home's appreciation? We could even add a provision capping the maximum tax bill to the actual amount of appreciation since the home was bought. That way nobody is priced out of their home, but the taxes to pay for services that everybo…

"How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold"

I can't speak for him but this makes sense to me.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#53

Post by claydavisss » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

bigdubs wrote: post #15

aresant wrote: post #12

The principal issue, full stop, in the Bay Area and most of California is housing. There are two solutions to this: 1) Build more. But this is outrageously difficult due to a well-meaning political view of safety / fairness / etc. These restrictions employ an awful lot of bureaucrats for enforcement but add $10s of thousands in fees and delays for builders, that are IRR driven and would rather concentrate their effor…

Some extra color on Prop 13; a more sinister view is that it was a time bomb designed to "starve the beast" and limit tax revenues in the future.

What time bomb? California tax receipts showed a $9 billion surplus this past tax year. The state is collecting more revenue than ever.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#54

Post by almost_usual » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:17 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #50

almost_usual wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

on average prop 13 overwhelmingly benefits wealthy homeowners. So why not add an income level qualification to prop 13 so that it only benefits people that actually need it?

This also makes sense to me.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#55

Post by bluedino » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:19 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #46

flog wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3,000 sounds almost reasonable for property taxes. $30,000 sounds like daylight robbery.

On a $2 mil FMV? Give me a break.

If they are both 1500 sq ft homes, what makes the other house $27,000 more taxable? Are you getting that much more municipal service?

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#56

Post by alonmower » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #50

almost_usual wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

on average prop 13 overwhelmingly benefits wealthy homeowners. So why not add an income level qualification to prop 13 so that it only benefits people that actually need it?

That's the first time I've heard this suggestion but it seems to make a lot of sense

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#57

Post by claydavisss » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #18

aresant wrote: post #12

The principal issue, full stop, in the Bay Area and most of California is housing. There are two solutions to this: 1) Build more. But this is outrageously difficult due to a well-meaning political view of safety / fairness / etc. These restrictions employ an awful lot of bureaucrats for enforcement but add $10s of thousands in fees and delays for builders, that are IRR driven and would rather concentrate their effor…

There's a third option which is encouraging people to move elsewhere.

This advice is sound yet still evokes silent rage (i.e. downvotes) on HN or reddit. The rest of the country is just fine. Decent jobs, nice people, reasonable mix of climate. One thing every other place in the entire country has in common relative to the Bay Area is cheaper housing.

You might make 20% less in Seattle or Austin but you will have access to housing, which will have much a much more profound long-term impact on your finances than toughing it out as a renter in a "better" job market.

If you wake up at 45 still renting, you can probably forget about anything resembling a traditional retirement.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#58

Post by vertexFarm » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:24 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #25

internetman55 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it make sense to have higher taxes on old people? They have more significant money and wealth I believe.

Wouldn't it make sense to have higher taxes on tech workers? They have more significant money and wealth I believe. If you want to tax wealth or income just do it directly.

Property taxes are indeed a direct tax on one of the most significant forms of wealth in the US. Most equity for the average American family is their home. It doesn't make sense to tax people with greater property and generational wealth a tenth as much as younger people with less wealth.

And yes, there should be and are higher taxes on tech workers, inasmuch that there should be and are higher taxes on people with greater incomes. To an extent, at least. That is also directly taxing income, as you said.

We've already seen the prosperity of the mid-20th century in regards to high upper tax rates and social spending, and we've seen the Kansas tax cut experiments when it comes to dropping them all and absolutely ruining the state. These aren't theories or opinions anymore, they are fact.

To clarify, I don't think taxes should be based on age or anything. But when you have something like prop 13, it isn't explicitly worded to tax people based on youth, but that is the obvious outcome of the situation. And that's ridiculous. A wise nation do not devour their young.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#59

Post by aphextron » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #45

aresant wrote: post #12

The principal issue, full stop, in the Bay Area and most of California is housing. There are two solutions to this: 1) Build more. But this is outrageously difficult due to a well-meaning political view of safety / fairness / etc. These restrictions employ an awful lot of bureaucrats for enforcement but add $10s of thousands in fees and delays for builders, that are IRR driven and would rather concentrate their effor…

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

>If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately.

He would not “lose” his house immediately. He would be forced to sell it for an outrageous profit and move somewhere he can afford to pay the taxes. Subsidies are subsidies, and I have zero sympathy for those who don’t feel like they’re getting enough when people are literally being forced into homelessness from the knock-on effect of this policy to low-net worth renters.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#60

Post by cobookman » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 8:29 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #50

almost_usual wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

on average prop 13 overwhelmingly benefits wealthy homeowners. So why not add an income level qualification to prop 13 so that it only benefits people that actually need it?

That discourages people from moving up in pay. It'd likely be cheaper to make less money.

You'd also encourage rich people to hide their money. Especially trust fund kids who's income is low as they only take out what they need to spend.