Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Bay Area pays for itself with the tech industry.
Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
201–210 of 325 posts
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the full reasoning is that (1) if property owners paid property taxes on the full market value of their property, then (2) they would lobby for (or at least cease opposition against) upzoning for density, and (3) more dense housing would be legalized and built.
Can you help me understand how #1 becomes #2?
In most parts of the country, there's both an upside and downside to increasing property values to landowners. Upside: they're worth more, they could sell and move somewhere else cheaper, pocketing the money, or they could rent out their place for more. Downside: they have to pay higher ongoing property taxes. Most landowners still like increasing property values, but it's not all good for them.
With prop 13, the downside is wiped out. Increasing values are only good; they could increase 10x overnight and this would only make landowners filthy rich, there's no negative effect for them. Ergo, they have every incentive to keep housing supply constrained, to keep voting for politicians and policies that limit housing density.
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#203Welcome to the Lone Star State! Cheap real estate and friendly folks. And BBQ, metric tons of BBQ...
And large industrial accidents in your back yard, hooray for no zoning laws! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos... https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/The-latest-E...
Never been an industrial accident in California, eh?
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#204As a San Franciscan, I am so happy to see this. SF needs negative feedback on the poor choices it makes, and so far the tech boom has somewhat obscured the consequences.
Yeah. The longer you live in SF and the Bay Area, the more apparent it becomes how much it skates on tech, history, and intrinsic advantages like the weather and beautiful geography. SF in particular has such incredible resources that it should be the most advanced city in the world.
But the people in San Francisco have got what they wanted. Maybe in 20 years SF will be able to change but right now the majority of people are actually in favor of the way the city is being run: to stay stuck in time as long as possible
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#205Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that include taxing employee equity based on how it is valued based on each round of funding? Would you also be okay with taxing someone based on how much they had in savings and mutual funds?
I think equity, even relatively illiquid equity, should be wealth taxed (at least on amount >$50m). I am sure there will be novel financial tools to provide liquidity to pay this tax if this was the case. At the same time it might discourage bubbles in valuations (eg weworks).
Why carve out equity that should have a wealth tax associated with it differently based on the type? I would think that intellectually consistency would demand that either we tax all equity based on unrealized gains the same whether it is stock, equity in a business or real estate property.
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not obvious to me that you can't also have a progressive / marginal tax system for property taxes based on home valuations (e.g. home values >$1MM taxed higher than those worth $200K). So, I don't think property taxes are inherently regressive.
That said, I don't think it's enough to just look at one tax. We have to consider taxes and regulations as a whole to understand whether a place is overall regressive or not. This leaves room for different implementations of tax policy which if done correctly will benefit the people.
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
No you can’t just “ship land” elsewhere. But, there is nothing stopping people and companies from moving where land is cheaper. The land is only valuable because people want to live in California instead of places where it cheaper.
Its not just the supplier who is being “obstinate” the consumer is also refusing to look other places.
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. The longer you live in SF and the Bay Area, the more apparent it becomes how much it skates on tech, history, and intrinsic advantages like the weather and beautiful geography. SF in particular has such incredible resources that it should be the most advanced city in the world.
But the people in San Francisco have got what they wanted. Maybe in 20 years SF will be able to change but right now the majority of people are actually in favor of the way the city is being run: to stay stuck in time as long as possible
If I had most of my net worth tied to my SF house, I would be a NIMBY as well. Don't blame them though.
Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The world has changed in the last almost 20 years, the Dallas you left in 2000, is not the Dallas of today.