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

How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

andrenader.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#111

Post by olliej »

pc86 wrote: post #99
olliej wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses in CA got people to vote for prop13 in the 70s I think (the propaganda justifying it was essentially “the Supreme Court said your property taxes have to pay for the same quality of education for poor people”, but the actual reason is a massive tax cut for corporations as they never actually sell property so get a permanent cut to property taxes). It basically says “unless a property changes ownership the t…

It's interesting that in your example, your specific situation would still have tax rates subsidized by your neighbors while the people you consider the out-group (corporations, landlords) get minimal or no benefit from it. I'm also not convinced corporations are getting any outsized benefit, business buy and sell real estate all the time. The fix doesn't seem complicated. Assess a home's value. Tax it. If you're con…

There’s so much wrong with this.

The people paying the property taxes are the tenants. Except they’re paying market rate for the property while the owner pays far below that actual rate. In other words the artificially lowered tax rate is just a profit center for the owner.

Second, the owner does benefit from those property taxes: the property taxes fund a bunch of the infrastructure that makes their property have value, that makes tenants interested, covers police and fire, etc

Except because the land owners in these cases aren’t paying their fair share, so in addition to profiting off tenants that are paying market rate for the property owners are being subsidized by the increased base rate others have to pay.

People do not have direct control over the market value of their property so it is trivial to have a world where people’s property taxes could increase beyond what they could afford at all, while simultaneously pricing them out moving (to “realize” the “value” of their home), but if you’re renting a property out at the market rate then you should be paying taxes at the market rate.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#112

Post by archagon »

coryrc wrote: post #107
pc86 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that in your example, your specific situation would still have tax rates subsidized by your neighbors while the people you consider the out-group (corporations, landlords) get minimal or no benefit from it. I'm also not convinced corporations are getting any outsized benefit, business buy and sell real estate all the time. The fix doesn't seem complicated. Assess a home's value. Tax it. If you're con…

You could delay the tax collection above a certain amount until sale of the property. But I'm against allowing people to sit on valuable property while contributing little back to society. Get a reverse mortgage or move out.

Nobody should be forced to move due to their home increasing in value outside their control.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#113

Post by diob »

whimsicalism wrote: post #77
diob wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/04/08/how-inflat... Inflation is absolutely a way to steal the already meager savings of the working class. The only way it wouldn't be is if that "new money" actually entered their local economy, which I'd love to see.

> Data? Sure [0]. You can also look at historical US rebellions, such as Shays' rebellion - where a principle demand of the working class rebels was that the US government print more money. > Inflation is absolutely a way to steal the already meager savings of the working class. Exactly why inflation is generally beneficial to the working class, generally their savings are insignificant while their wages are very imp…

You think Shays' rebellion is relevant here? That is quite the reach.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31775/w317...

There is an overwhelming amount of data pointing in the opposite direction.

This is easier to answer through simple logic though. Do you think the ruling / wealthy class would allow inflation if it hurt them? Perhaps, but personally I find it a bit naive.

Let's break down your claim though

> Exactly why inflation is generally beneficial to the working class, generally their savings are insignificant while their wages are very important - it raises their wages while reducing the value of savings & debt, which hurts people who have lots of savings and helps people who are living off of their wages.

Reducing the value of debt is a real possible winner, but that helps the rich just as much. And the poor person's debt, believe it not, tends to be of high enough interest that inflation isn't going to help them as much as you claim. Especially since they are subject to variable interest rates more than most.

Savings? Once again, this is cash for them, and for the wealthy it tends to be assets that are not harmed by inflation (either by growing with them or outpacing it).

So let's get to the final claim. It raises their wages. Is that true? The wage is inflated, but their purchasing power doesn't actually improve. It tends to go down, as the things they spend their money on are, you guessed it, inflated.

It's wild to think that inflation is helping folks at the bottom.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#114

Post by Gud »

pc86 wrote: post #88
sceptical wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I retired three years ago at the age of 49. I was rather successful as a software engineer and is content with what I achieved. My response to your thoughts. 1) I have not missed work at all for the last three years. Not a single day. I have not done any programming since I retired. Instead I spend my time on other hobbies and travelling. I try to take two week-long trips every month to new locations. That is plenty…

I think "rather successful" is an understatement if you're able to travel for 24 weeks out of the year on only a 2% withdrawal rate.

Consider reading “Get Real, Get Gone: How to Become a Modern Sea Gypsy and Sail Away Forever”, written by Rick Page who has been sailing around the globe for a long, long, long time without any 2% withdrawal rate available.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#115

Post by pc86 »

olliej wrote: post #111
pc86 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that in your example, your specific situation would still have tax rates subsidized by your neighbors while the people you consider the out-group (corporations, landlords) get minimal or no benefit from it. I'm also not convinced corporations are getting any outsized benefit, business buy and sell real estate all the time. The fix doesn't seem complicated. Assess a home's value. Tax it. If you're con…

There’s so much wrong with this. The people paying the property taxes are the tenants. Except they’re paying market rate for the property while the owner pays far below that actual rate. In other words the artificially lowered tax rate is just a profit center for the owner. Second, the owner does benefit from those property taxes: the property taxes fund a bunch of the infrastructure that makes their property have va…

You seem to think I'm arguing for some sort of landlord handout when in actuality I'm arguing that people pay fair market rate for everything, including their property taxes, at all times.

If your property taxes are too expensive for you, you should move.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#116

Post by pc86 »

archagon wrote: post #112
coryrc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could delay the tax collection above a certain amount until sale of the property. But I'm against allowing people to sit on valuable property while contributing little back to society. Get a reverse mortgage or move out.

Nobody should be forced to move due to their home increasing in value outside their control.

I see this argued a lot but never with any reason why other than hand-wavey arguments about "fairness." Why are high property taxes pricing someone out of area inherently worse than property values or insurance costs forcing someone out?

If you can't afford to live there, shouldn't you have to live somewhere else? Even if you think housing is a human right, housing in the specific city/neighborhood/suburb/street of your choice is not.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#117

Post by archagon »

pc86 wrote: post #116
archagon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should be forced to move due to their home increasing in value outside their control.

I see this argued a lot but never with any reason why other than hand-wavey arguments about "fairness." Why are high property taxes pricing someone out of area inherently worse than property values or insurance costs forcing someone out? If you can't afford to live there, shouldn't you have to live somewhere else? Even if you think housing is a human right, housing in the specific city/neighborhood/suburb/street of y…

I think it should be something close to a right to continue living in your primary residence until you pass away. Being forced to move against your will is a difficult and traumatic experience, especially if you’re older and rely on a local support network.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#118

Post by lores »

pc86 wrote: post #116
archagon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should be forced to move due to their home increasing in value outside their control.

I see this argued a lot but never with any reason why other than hand-wavey arguments about "fairness." Why are high property taxes pricing someone out of area inherently worse than property values or insurance costs forcing someone out? If you can't afford to live there, shouldn't you have to live somewhere else? Even if you think housing is a human right, housing in the specific city/neighborhood/suburb/street of y…

Economics ignore anything that's uncountable like life enjoyment or community ties. People who have lived somewhere long enough for prices to have spiralled out of control likely score high on those measures. Kicking people out of a life and community they not only enjoy, but probably even define them, is in my opinion barbaric.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#119

Post by hkkwritesgmail »

asdfman123 wrote: post #59

I've spent years thinking about and pursuing early retirement. My thoughts: 1) You should never stop working. Humans need purpose . It may be worthwhile to think of it instead as saving money so you can transition to a more meaningful job . Maybe one that doesn't pay anything at all, like child rearing, or volunteering. This conclusion implies that if you CAN already do something meaningful, it's probably better to d…

If there is a big war like that between superpowers, I bet we will have so much to cry about that we will give a damn even if our investments go down to zero !
Post reply on HN