181–190 of 325 posts
[flagged]
Am I the only one who thinks nobody is talking about the elephant in the room ? i.e. the cause and effect. Fintech companies like Robinhood have popularized the concept of (a) zero fee trading and (b) better UI/UX and just better service/offering on highly scalable platforms that allow them to introduce new products/services, which are virtually impossible for legacy providers like Schwab. Seems like that is the sing…
I don't think Robinhood can even compare to the tools offered by Schwab's brokerage accounts. It's like r/wallstreetbets vs r/investing
I do agree that Robinhood was the first to make trading accessible to the masses and pushed for zero-fee trading.
As a San Franciscan, I am so happy to see this. SF needs negative feedback on the poor choices it makes, and so far the tech boom has somewhat obscured the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And traffic out the wazoo, and few good alternatives to driving.
DFW Traffic isn't that bad - noticeably better than Seattle - where I last lived before moving here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? I think you're mis-reading something. Your assertion is true only for houses that haven't changed hands since 1978. In most cases, the buyer of a house is assessed taxes on the market value of the house at the time of sale, and further increases are limited from there.
This is true but it’s insane that California allows children to inherit the lower tax basis: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-proper...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a recent comparison: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/11/taxes-are-sur... Short answer: yes, Texas is regressive, with tax rates being lower in California for the bottom 60%.
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 would guess that
That's why I posted data; it works better than guessing.
That is a huge finance footprint in one area. Consider also that one of Fidelity's largest corporate campus is also located in Westlake. Westlake is a tiny dot on the map with less than a 1000 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlake%2C_Texas
New Headquarters: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9933674,-97.2120872,724m/dat...
Ameritrade campus: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9774174,-97.1618883,512m/dat...
Fidelity campus: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9828451,-97.1885764,609m/dat...
Also, the Deloitte campsus right new door is amazing. Its a 5 star hotel only available for visiting Deloitte employees under going management training and the food there is chef prepared and free to employees. I used to have a subordinate in my part-time side job that worked there as a corporate purchasing analyst.
For extreme shits and giggles look at the houses in Westlake either on a map or in something like Zillow. While I understand a $3 million house around San Fransisco is about 200sqft its quite a bit of purchasing power in Texas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true but it’s insane that California allows children to inherit the lower tax basis: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-proper...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did I say high taxes on on other forms of wealth wouldn't be beneficial? I totally support taxes on wealth to build social programs.
Does that include taxing employee equity based on how it is valued based on each round of funding? Would you also be okay with taxing someone based on how much they had in savings and mutual funds?
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 problem with housing in California is that we do not build it because regulations prohibit new housing. Look at a zoning map in San Francisco. Housing is illegal.