51–60 of 72 posts
A hexayurt is good enough most of the time and costs very little, but apparently no one can afford enough politicians to be permitted to help
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has 7ish times the GDP with less than 5 times the population, so it would superficially have less excuses for homelessness (to be fair, it has less control because the USA extracts more tax from and dictates more policy to California than the EU does to Austria, so arguably the blame belongs at least in part at the higher level.)
USA has 340 million people and borders between states are porous. Yes..it’s indeed arguable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are absolutely empirically people paying a 50% percent of their income in taxes in SF. The highest federal income tax backet is at 37%. the highest california state income tax bracket is 12.7%. San francisco residents pay a .38 payroll tax. This is going to get you pretty darn close to 50% effective tax rate right there but we haven't even started to look at property taxes or sales taxes. So yeah, there are def…
Those are the marginal tax rates. You can’t just add the marginal rates and come up with your actual tax burden, at least in the US. (Can’t speak specifically to property tax in CA) Honestly surprised to see this misapprehension of progressive income tax on HN
Thats why even though those numbers add up to 50%, i specifically said that will only get you close to 50% effective. Also the more you make, the more percentage wise will be paid at the highest marginal rate meaning some people will pay close to their highest marginal rate effectively.
Thats why the whole second point was there about other taxes. Those numbers dont have to add up to 50 for there to be people paying that rate
So yeah, no misunderstanding here. Im well aware of how marginal tax rates work.
Get cities to rezone their public parks that have existing bathrooms and 90% of the problem will solved. Let’s start with Dolores Park to see how serious the HN crowd is. Start a Change.org petition for that and I’ll be first to sign.
https://www.pinterest.com/wamalinf/vintage-teardrop-trailers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are the marginal tax rates. You can’t just add the marginal rates and come up with your actual tax burden, at least in the US. (Can’t speak specifically to property tax in CA) Honestly surprised to see this misapprehension of progressive income tax on HN
You seem to be the one not understanding here. I said effective which accounts for marginal rates. Thats why even though those numbers add up to 50%, i specifically said that will only get you close to 50% effective. Also the more you make, the more percentage wise will be paid at the highest marginal rate meaning some people will pay close to their highest marginal rate effectively. Thats why the whole second point…
But the figures you quoted are the marginal rates, and at the federal level that top bracket kicks in at over 500k
in the limit of very high income, your effective rate will start to approach the top marginal rate. But the idea of 500k being the negligible portion of one’s gross income is just so far out of my experience, it’s hard to see why that’s the default assumption.
how many people is that even realistic for? I thought past a certain point peoples total comp started to be more things like equity
Edit: I think I see what you meant by “i specifically said that will only get you close to 50% effective”, initially I just added the marginal rate for federal and CA and thought that’s what you meant by “close to 50%”
I still don’t really know where you’re coming from though — say you’re single and your income is 1 M$, and you don’t do anything aside from standard deduction to reduce, that’s like 46% effective (I forgot payroll taxes before). Is 40k property tax realistic in SF? I genuinely don’t know
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA has 340 million people and borders between states are porous. Yes..it’s indeed arguable.
The EU has 450 million people and free movement, too.
I honestly don't think that the "physical structure" or actual shelter is the main problem w.r.t. homelessness. The land itself is a lot more expensive. And the legal framework. Where I am right now, it's illegal to sleep in a car for instance. And similarly, a lot of alternative housing solutions are highly burocratized, require lots of permits etc. Almost like politicians are protecting their real estate investment…
This is the case in my country - any land within commuting distance of a middle class job that one can build a house on costs a fortune. And shipping rough sleepers to parts of the country with low housing costs doesn’t seem politically popular.
Even buying a lot in a residential area with a condemned building would require you to jump through so many hoops that would make it near impossible to build for anything below 7 figures…