Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas • Hacker News Board

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#191

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

scurvy wrote: post #39

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the exodus goes from a trickle to a torrent, the city budget propped up by property taxes is going to crater. Whatever problems there are now with homelessness, imagine what it will be like when social services can no longer be provided for them. San Francisco is a ship that lost power to its engines while coasting towards an iceberg.

You must not live in the Bay Area and are merely reaching for talking points. Everyone in CA knows that property tax money goes straight to the state and is divvied up there. It's collected locally, then sent straight to the state. CA gets first crack at spending it, then it goes down to the local level. The social services are paid for mostly by bond measures, which are immune to real estate prices. Other things are…

[deleted]

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#192

Post by kyralis » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

crikli wrote: post #149

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t taxes highly regressive in Texas with sky high property taxes which exempt rich people ?

The property taxes are sky high, yes, but they most definitely do not exempt the rich. There is no state income tax. I wouldn’t call the state’s general tax structure progressive or regressive.

Property taxes are inherently more regressive than income taxes, since since property (either directly or through rents) nearly always consumes a larger portion of the income/wealth of lower-means individuals.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#193

Post by galangalalgol » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

sdnlafkjh34rw wrote: post #123

aphextron wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Cheap real estate" And the highest property tax rate in the nation.

High property taxes are one of the most liberal policies of Texas. It's a progressive tax that is largely shouldered by rich landowners and the revenue form a large part of budget for public school systems. I'm not sure why people in California love our regressive Prop 13 tax rebates that largely benefit the wealthy and are a cause of huge budget deficits. Prop 13 is the most Republican policy we have in our state.

Except property taxes for landlords are lower. Multi-family residences have a much lower property tax rate. A neighbor left the extra front door on his home as he remodeled just to keep that massiv discount.

Edit: This is just another example of supposedly progressive rules that create a nice safe wall between upper middles and don't have to works.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#194

Post by munin » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #122

munin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Dallas and it is the only place I've lived where people would scream homophobic slurs at me in the street. I wouldn't say I'd never move back, but the situation would have to be dire for me to consider it. Definitely cut your hair if you visit.

When did you move away? I've been visiting here on and off for a decade before I decided to move here, and I've never experienced this.

2000 or so.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#195

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #117

TulliusCicero wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem with housing prices in California is that property taxes are too low. Prop 13 means existing homeowners are shielded from higher property taxes, so growing property values are only good for them, no matter how high. Thus, there's no incentive to increase housing supply, which could lower prices.

So if we want to tax illiquid assets and wealth instead of income, why stop at houses? Why not tax equity held in companies? Why don’t we tax employees based on the amount and value of equity they have in a company? Every time there is a new round of funding that increases the value of equity, impose a higher tax.

It's not really houses that are important to tax, it's land, because there's a fixed amount of it, especially valuable land, so it's useful to encourage economically efficient use of that land. No property or land tax means people can just sit on land forever if they feel like it with no real downside, besides missing out on potential revenue.

This is bad for society, because people need land for things, and unlike cars or computers or gold we can't just ship it in from elsewhere if some provider is being obstinate.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#196

Post by cjsplat » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

godzillabrennus wrote: post #147

blackflame wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When will the people of SF learn you cannot tax yourself to prosperity

When they move to Texas.

Where they will learn that Texas government pays for itself with oil and gas extraction taxes, which don't exist in California.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#197

Post by refurb » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #32

nthomas wrote: post #7

Welcome to the Lone Star State! Cheap real estate and friendly folks. And BBQ, metric tons of BBQ...

Friendly if you're the right political party and orientation, I hear.

Spoken like some who has never visited!

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#198

Post by stjohnswarts » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #77

hkmurakami wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TD Ameritrade is headquartered in Omaha. The HQ location choice is not driven by existing Ameritrafe footprint, or by the merger itself. The FAQ is simply addressing what will be, not starting that there was a cause and effect because of the proposed merger. Also, Schwab was already reducing SF headcount for years. Also, afaik the merger is still in the prices of regulatory review. All this being said, the merger lik…

Why would the government review a headquarters move?

The companies may have contractual obligations to the city. So they'll check and see if the company is violating those.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#199

Post by jdavis703 » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

blackflame wrote: post #118

jdavis703 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like they'll be keeping a sizable amount of staff in SF still. SF has a gross receipts tax on certain companies with HQ's in the city. As such auditors will want to ensure this isn't just a tax avoidance gimmick. By pairing this move with an acquisition Charles Schwab has a stronger defense against such an accusation.

When will the people of SF learn you cannot tax yourself to prosperity

The City & County of SF has the seventh highest median income of all U.S. counties [0]. The GDP of the Bay Area ranks ahead of all but 16 countries [1]. If taxes are correlated with prosperity it'd seem as though SF had found a way to tax itself to prosperity. (Of course in reality economics and tax policy are far more complicated than this).

0: https://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/lapi/lapi_newsrelease.... 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20171208145551/https://www.bea.g...

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#200

Post by stjohnswarts » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #190

justinzollars wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with housing in California is that we do not build it because regulations prohibit new housing. Look at a zoning map in San Francisco. Housing is illegal.

Yes, and why is it illegal? It's almost like there's no political pressure to allow more housing, because there's no incentive existing homeowners to support that. Almost as if...

That's why it is sometimes necessary for state governments to step in and override local laws on zoning, regulations on housing etc, that just hasn't happened in California yet.