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

David Lynch LA House

wallpaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: David Lynch LA House

#101

Post by hylaride »

tills13 wrote: post #41
jppope wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its pretty easy to understand actually, and all of metropolitan California is the same way- A normal, dual income, middle class working family has an income of ~$250K-$500K (Doctor + teacher, Lawyer and a Doctor, Business exec and Accountant, etc) and they're going to spend upwards of ~40% of their income on their house. thats going to have them spending $6K-$11K. Now they can handle a $1M home no problem. 3 bed 2 ba…

Am I crazy or reading the wrong info or are you being hyperbolic when you say California has "insane" income taxes? As an example, the effective rate when making $200k is 25% including federal taxes. That's great. You get to live in a productive and supportive society. The only issue I see is that housing is expensive and $150k, as much as it can support a comfortable lifestyle, would be insufficient to ALSO buy a ho…

The tone around "high taxes" are set by the uber-rich. Hilariously, most of them borrow against their shares to fund their lifestyles (where the interest is tax-deductible!) if they're even still resident in CA.

That being said, California is an ungovernable mess where state-constitutional amendments dictate a huge percentage of taxation and spending. It'd otherwise be a great place to live if real estate prices were somehow brought into line, but alas...

Re: David Lynch LA House

#102

Post by labcomputer »

skrebbel wrote: post #42
jppope wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its pretty easy to understand actually, and all of metropolitan California is the same way- A normal, dual income, middle class working family has an income of ~$250K-$500K (Doctor + teacher, Lawyer and a Doctor, Business exec and Accountant, etc) and they're going to spend upwards of ~40% of their income on their house. thats going to have them spending $6K-$11K. Now they can handle a $1M home no problem. 3 bed 2 ba…

Nitpick, but > A normal, dual income, middle class working family > (Doctor + teacher, Lawyer and a Doctor, Business exec and Accountant, etc) That’s not the middle class.

Lol. Doctors and lawyers are the very definition of middle class!

Middle class is people who trade labor for money, but who sometimes have a (full or partial) ownership stake in the business they work for. They are what marxists might call the "petit bourgeoisie".

Re: David Lynch LA House

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

labcomputer wrote: post #102
skrebbel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick, but > A normal, dual income, middle class working family > (Doctor + teacher, Lawyer and a Doctor, Business exec and Accountant, etc) That’s not the middle class.

Lol. Doctors and lawyers are the very definition of middle class! Middle class is people who trade labor for money, but who sometimes have a (full or partial) ownership stake in the business they work for. They are what marxists might call the "petit bourgeoisie".

> Doctors and lawyers are the very definition of middle class!

Doctors and lawyers are often middle class (petit bourgeois) but also can be part of the better paid, highly educated segment of the working class (proletarian intelligentsia). Economic class isn’t about job title or even really strictly income, though it correlates to both.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#104

Post by vkou »

saberience wrote: post #91
tikhonj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there's a gap between being poor and being wealthy . $15 million is a lot more than most people have and it's certainly enough to be comfortable and not have to worry about money, but it's still categorically different from having the sort of money that gives you institutional power.

Yeah but having a 15M house and say 200k income makes you poor, as a 15M house needs a ton of money to maintain it.

Ill trade 5M cash and 200k income for that any day of the week.

The first thing I'd do is sell.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#105

Post by tsunamifury »

0_____0 wrote: post #27
tsunamifury wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a dreary sad anachronistic description.

I mean looking at the structures it's kind of warranted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_block_house

its more that it just shows a vast ignorance of history and society to call it a 'Minecraft house.' It's like calling the Pyramids of Giza 'the Minecraft pyramids."

It belays a level of stupidity that is difficult to ignore. The reality is its an Incan Pyramid inspired home.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#106

Post by CamperBob2 »

twalla wrote: post #89
CamperBob2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bet the seller makes a hell of a Caucasian! (Although I guess it isn't really Jackie Treehorn's place, given that the listing says it was built in 2023.)

Jackie Treehorn’s place is the Sheats-Goldstein residence. Both the residence and the owner are worth going down the Wikipedia rabbit hole. https://jamesfgoldstein.com/the-goldstein-residence/

Goldstein appears to be quite an interesting "dude." He's exactly what people mean when they point out that Lynch, while well-off compared to most, was not particularly wealthy by Hollywood standards.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#107

Post by e40 »

cjrp wrote: post #97
e40 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people normally mean by wealth is easy access to cash. Someone that owns a $15M house and has very little other liquid assets is not poor, but they definitely don't qualify as wealthy. Many, many people in CA that live in expensive homes are in this situation. It's what Prop 13 wrought. Variously, in my neighborhood, old people are paying a small fraction of the property tax that I do, and their house is worth a…

> Someone that owns a $15M house and has very little other liquid assets is not poor, but they definitely don't qualify as wealthy. Assuming they own the house outright, that absolutely does qualify as wealthy.

I didn't say it wouldn't. I said it didn't qualify as ready cash.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#108

Post by JadeNB »

e40 wrote: post #107
cjrp wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone that owns a $15M house and has very little other liquid assets is not poor, but they definitely don't qualify as wealthy. Assuming they own the house outright, that absolutely does qualify as wealthy.

I didn't say it wouldn't. I said it didn't qualify as ready cash.

> > Assuming they own the house outright, that absolutely does qualify as wealthy.

> I didn't say it wouldn't. I said it didn't qualify as ready cash.

I think you did say it didn't qualify as wealthy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45301176):

> What people normally mean by wealth is easy access to cash. Someone that owns a $15M house and has very little other liquid assets is not poor, but they definitely don't qualify as wealthy.

Anyway, whatever it is, I think litigating Lynch's level of wealth on HN is probably not the most useful direction for this comment thread.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#109

Post by supportengineer »

e40 wrote: post #85
qmr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What people normally mean by wealth is easy access to cash. Someone that owns a $15M house and has very little other liquid assets is not poor, but they definitely don't qualify as wealthy. Many, many people in CA that live in expensive homes are in this situation. It's what Prop 13 wrought. Variously, in my neighborhood, old people are paying a small fraction of the property tax that I do, and their house is worth a…

Wealthy people don't spend their own cash.

Re: David Lynch LA House

#110

Post by supportengineer »

saberience wrote: post #91
tikhonj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there's a gap between being poor and being wealthy . $15 million is a lot more than most people have and it's certainly enough to be comfortable and not have to worry about money, but it's still categorically different from having the sort of money that gives you institutional power.

Yeah but having a 15M house and say 200k income makes you poor, as a 15M house needs a ton of money to maintain it.

The rule of thumb for upkeep of houses, airplanes, and cars is about 1% annually.
Post reply on HN