211–220 of 325 posts
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People here trend conservative. This cuts both ways, it means that they don't want to make a scene when they see something that offends their norms, but it also means that you have to try a little harder to open minds. The other ruling ethos here seems to be 'good fences, make good neighbors'.
Might be the types of people I met in Texas, but I generally feel people are receptive to counter view points if you dont look down on them. I never had issues with debating people in Texas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And traffic out the wazoo, and few good alternatives to driving.
It's going to be funny in 5-10 years when the major Texas cities become the next SF because none of them are planning for any sort of large population growth. Austin already suffers from horrific traffic and poor infrastructure. City planning here is a joke.
Virtually all city planning is a joke, and even if one can conjure up an example of a currently "well planned" city it may well be a short lived title based on a number of economic and industrial changes in the coming years and decades.
SF is unique in that it is an industrial incubator for the modern tech industry, much as Detroit once was for the auto industry. There's nothing to say that SF couldn't become the next Detroit, save for its significant tourist appeal. In which case it would become more like Venice.
It's not entirely surprising though, and I can say that on intuition alone I've been guilty of just laying the blame at the politicians doorsteps and shaking my fist at the sky while proclaiming "such incompetence!".
The fact is that it's an incredibly difficult thing to get right, is extremely expensive and carries huge risk if one is hoping to get such planning done right in a pro-active manner, than in the reactive manner which we're accustomed to. The potential downsides to getting such an effort wrong are catastrophic.
To where in Texas are they moving? The non-paid version of the WSJ article doesn’t say. I keep hearing that in massive influx of tech companies to the Austin area has driven up housing rates and congestion to absurd levels. Probably won’t be long before tech companies skip Austin for cities like Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the cost of housing (to purchase and rent) is so out of line. I would guess that the "bottom 60%" pay more for housing in ca than they would in taxes in Texas. That payment is wealth transfer to people and not taxes for services.
I was responding to someone asking narrowly about taxes, not chasing moving goalposts. > I would guess that That's why I posted data; it works better than guessing.
Earlier 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…
Even worse the assessed value of property, for tax reasons and insurance reasons can be abnormally low in CA (vs value). Many people in the fires have learned too late that they were underinsured and are no where close to being able to rebuild the same house on their property with their insurance payouts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 dow…
Another way to think about property taxes is that they're annual nudges to encourage best use of the property.
Without that pressure, as TulliusCicero notes, why would I ever sell before retirement? And furthermore, why would I even try to make money off the property (say, by renting)?
That's probably not in the city's (as in, all the people living there) best interest to have a substantial portion of homeowners so disengaged from the actual market.
PS: Which isn't to say there aren't gentrification and affordable housing debates to be had. Simply that Prop 13 doesn't really help with that -- it just removed risk from those who are already homeowners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While I also think companies should spread out more, the very fact that so many companies are paying the significantly inflated property and labor prices in the SF area shows the tremendous economic value in having access to that labor market.