Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 325 posts

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#241

Post by FussyZeus »

rsj_hn wrote: post #167
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…

There is nothing wrong with moving to a better tax jurisdiction because you want lower taxes. It is perfectly legal, happens all the time, and is not something subject to a 'government review', because firms are expected to optimize their behavior in order to avoid taxes as much as possible, and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value. The whole idea that peo…

> The whole idea that people change their behavior to avoid taxes is the basis of sin taxes - this is how things are supposed to work.

What sin taxes are at play here?

Edit: Or just downvote I guess, it was just a question.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#242

Post by scarface74 »

newguy1234 wrote: post #231
scarface74 wrote: post #117

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 is because of the unintended consequences if companies decide to relocate. You start with wanting to tax wealth and then suddenly you find your area in an unemployment crisis because the employers packed up and left.

Property taxes are taxing wealth - just a type of wealth that doesn’t affect the people who want more affordable housing.

If (metaphorical) you want to raise property taxes to force people to move to make housing more affordable, why go through the circuitous route? Why not just use imminent domain, take the land, bulldoze the house and put up apartments?

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#243

Post by remote_phone »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #76
zer00eyz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing and taxes in CA are close to oppressive. The housing situation will not change unless CA voters agree to a change in property taxes and they won't. I would also bet that the move will come at the expense of Texas tax payers and to the benefit of Schwabb.

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.

The idea that California property taxes are too low is completely wrong, they are too high.

In Vancouver, my family’s house was paying around $6000/yr in property taxes and the house was worth 1.4M only because the housing market in Vancouver has been crazy for decades.

My friend in Toronto pays $3800 on her $700k single family home.

My house in the Bay Area I bought for $1M and my taxes were $12,000 and in the last few years it has gone up to $15,000.

The idea that Prop 13 is somehow damaging CA is false. Imagine if you were a retiree in the Bay Area and your property taxes were indexed you the house price? It would drive out too many senior citizens and low income families because house prices have double in the last 7 years.

Also before you say that Prop 13 has a negative effect if you look at the actual house purchases, in my area at least half of the houses have turned over in the last 10 years meaning that the taxes being paid were reset drastically. Prop 13 protects homeowners by keeping consistency but doesn’t stop them from selling.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#244

Post by fourstar »

wpasc wrote: post #172
fourstar wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negative feedback is all the people who moved from other states to SF over the years, voted for politicians that virtue signaled loudly enough to attract said transplants’ votes, and then moved to another (likely conservative) state after saving enough money to live comfortably with their new families. That’s ultimately one of the biggest issues in the Bay Area that no one ever talks about.

What about all the longtime existing homeowners who make it very difficult to build new/denser housing?

What about them?

Those longtime existing homeowners are trying to maintain the current landscape and don’t want new construction obstructing their million dollar views.

Yes many are NIMBYs, but so would most people if they grew up in a place that saw an influx of new people wanting to change the landscape with ugly high-rise all glass condos that blind you when the sun sets or change the feel of what they’re familiar with.

In a way, I don’t blame them. The majority of newer construction in the past 20-30 years in SF particularly is horrid.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#245

Post by nitrogen »

_9vpl wrote: post #188
0xffff2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, "in most cases" was my hedge around the various ways in which property can be transferred while keeping its tax status. The majority of prop 13 is insane IMO. If I had to pick a single thing to change, I'd much rather stop applying it to commercial property than remove the inheritance provision.

Yeah, commercial property makes no sense either, especially if you consider the original intent of the law, but it bothers me less than residences as at least those properties, in theory, are doing something productive for society.

Long-term residents are also doing something productive for society -- they are providing stable communities around which longer-term plans can be made, in which cultural memory of e.g. local climatological risks can be preserved, etc. Housing is definitely way too expensive in the bay area, but calling existing residents "unproductive" is pretty astonishingly, callously, selfishly offensive.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#246

Post by Aloha »

remote_phone wrote: post #243
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.

The idea that California property taxes are too low is completely wrong, they are too high. In Vancouver, my family’s house was paying around $6000/yr in property taxes and the house was worth 1.4M only because the housing market in Vancouver has been crazy for decades. My friend in Toronto pays $3800 on her $700k single family home. My house in the Bay Area I bought for $1M and my taxes were $12,000 and in the last…

The issue is, someone who owns a house they bought for 260,000, 30 years ago, isn't paying tax on the current valuation of 1.4m, they're paying a much much lower rate because of Prop 13.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#247

Post by mertd »

drivebycomment wrote: post #44
spectramax wrote: post #3

I just moved to the Bay Area and I have no good opinions about living here. It’s a 3 trillion dollar neighborhood that has broken infrastructure, an abysmal housing situation, crime through the roof, homeless people everywhere, traffic, outrageous costs and just generally an awful place to live. I don’t know about the business side, but from an employee standpoint, fuck the Bay Area. Oh, and my car got broken into tw…

Then why are you here? For your own sake, please leave if you are so unhappy.

This response is the most callous and gutting. People are genuinely raising concerns about things that are objectively broken here like housing, transit, income disparity and drug use, and right on cue someone comes along and says "then leave". Isn't this allegedly most inclusive and welcoming region in the country?

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#248

Post by [deleted] »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #113
zer00eyz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing and taxes in CA are close to oppressive. The housing situation will not change unless CA voters agree to a change in property taxes and they won't. I would also bet that the move will come at the expense of Texas tax payers and to the benefit of Schwabb.

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

[deleted]

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#249

Post by newnewpdro »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #203
newnewpdro wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because that's the purpose of zoning laws, to prevent accidents from occurring at all, right? :rolleyes:

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#250

Post by fountainofage »

remote_phone wrote: post #243
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.

The idea that California property taxes are too low is completely wrong, they are too high. In Vancouver, my family’s house was paying around $6000/yr in property taxes and the house was worth 1.4M only because the housing market in Vancouver has been crazy for decades. My friend in Toronto pays $3800 on her $700k single family home. My house in the Bay Area I bought for $1M and my taxes were $12,000 and in the last…

So that's your anecdote - and now mine: the building I live in is worth well over $5 million, and the property tax is currently $3500 a year.

Edit: just to add - I don't know where people get the idea that we need to evict people from their homes over property taxes. Just put a lien on the property for the tax bill. This isn't rocket science.

Post reply on HN