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

Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

kxan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 691 posts

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#351

Post by newaccount2021 »

op00to wrote: post #200
m0zg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked at properties in Austin area a few months back. It's more affordable than CA, but it's still way out of reach of most non-HQ staff that Tesla employs. I've read the stat that property values have gone up 43% due to exodus from locked down blue states over the course of just the past year. Couple this with Texas' higher than average property tax rate (_especially_ in Austin area) and you've got some pretty…

> property values have gone up 43% due to exodus from locked down blue states Citation needed for this property value claim, also for the existence of “locked down” blue states. I haven’t seen a lockdown yet like many other places.

bought my house in 2018 in West Lake Hills, has tripled since...yes TRIPLED

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#352

Post by thebradbain »

bdowling wrote: post #322
thebradbain wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, considering most of those heirs who are not using it as their primary home would just end up using those homes to rent out at market rate anyways, it makes sense to tax it. If they don't want to deal with that, they can just sell it. Commercial properties over $3 million were also affected. Those moving into the inherited home as their primary residence a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶ EDIT (see comment below):…

> Those moving into the inherited home as their primary residence are not affected. Not true. Only $1m of assessed value is excluded for heirs moving into an inherited property as a primary residence. Inheriting property worth more than $1m is not a bad problem to have, but in places like Los Angeles it means that a lot of people not be able to afford to live in the property and will be faced with either fixing it up…

Thanks for the correction -- you're right.

It doesn't really change my point though – I still don't see why a $2M+ property deserves to get transferred tax free. A $2M property would still only pay a little over $10,000/year in property taxes after the $1M exemption (which you can deduct against federal taxes, even with the SALT cap, which itself will likely repealed!). A pretty nice discount for an heir compared to someone who just went through actually buying a $2M home and pays twice the tax.

Honestly, if you're inheriting up to a $5M home for free in CA, and are still reliant on a job to make ends meet, the payment probably comes out to more or less what you would pay in a mortgage+taxes for a ~$1M home. A pretty good deal! If you're inheriting anything more than a $5M home, then I don't really think Prop 13 was intended for you in the first place – people with $10, $50, $100 million+ properties, well, it's my belief that we shouldn't be basing our entire housing policy on what's best for them. They can likely afford the taxes.

Not to mention that you can only shield a house from re-assessment for 1 generation, so even if there was a multi-million dollar family home that this family simply couldn't afford to pay taxes on otherwise, the heir of the heir would have to pay taxes regardless. So what's so privileged about the situation that tax reassessment gets to skip a generation? The law as is is designed to benefit a shrinking sliver of the CA population while debatably actively hurting the rest.

I think a decent compromise that won't actively pull the rug out from anyone while also leveling the playing field is just ending Prop 13-related inheritance exemptions altogether. It wasn't even part of the original law. Then get rid of the exemption for all commercial and secondary/investment properties going forward. Let people live in their primary homes with a frozen tax basis, sure, just don't let them transfer it (and for the edge case, to encourage downsizing after becoming "empty nesters", allow people to transfer their assessed tax basis to a property of lesser or equal market value).

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#354

Post by afavour »

philwelch wrote: post #202
zeruch wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a PR move to cow CA politicians to be more amenable to C-suites without challenge. It's theater. Petty, obstinate, twattish theater.

Those poor, powerless, persecuted politicians.

It's the voters that end up paying the price anyway.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#355

Post by paxys »

8note wrote: post #331
paxys wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. CA taxes you on the shares you earned in the state, regardless of where you sold it.

They don't tax it at the time you recieved the shares?

Depending on the grant type receiving it might not be a taxable event. And even otherwise, in a lot of cases the majority of income is realized in the form of capital gains.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#356

Post by muzz »

fomine3 wrote: post #266
bruceb wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article on the commute some Tesla workers make, getting up at 2:30am. https://www.protocol.com/silicon-valley-tech-shuttles

Also maybe most car manufacturer employee want to drive a car rather than ride a bus for transport?

For two years before the pandemic, I carpooled with Tesla HQ employees almost one a week (depending on who I got matched with on a particular day) and I only live 15 miles away.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#358

Post by adamvalve »

minhazm wrote: post #293
scoofy wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, to be fair, 78725 is effectively the middle of nowhere in Austin. It makes sense if Musk's goal was to choose a fairly undeveloped exurb, but the gigafactory is as close to Manor and Webberville as it is to central Austin. I know Fremont is suburban, but it's a well incorporated suburb to both SF, Oakland and San Jose. 78725 is on the opposite side of Austin from most of the fancy neighborhoods.

Google maps says downtown Austin to Giga Texas is 17 miles, 24 minutes. I don't know what traffic is like in Austin but I imagine it's not nearly as bad as the bay area. I think a 25-30 min commute is pretty reasonable and most people would happily take that for much cheaper housing. The big difference is that in Austin you have the option to commute a bit for much cheaper housing. But in the bay area you could be co…

People have been pouring in to Austin for years and Austin has done nothing in terms of infrastructure. Traffic is a nightmare.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#360

Post by [deleted] »

gopalv wrote: post #118
nine_k wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This being Texas, I suppose Austin has fewer restrictions on new development, so housing prices may be less crazy. To say nothing of taxes, which leave more of your wages to pay the rent.

> which leave more of your wages to pay the rent. Austin has crazy property taxes in comparison to CA, which is where they get you. 2.5% tax rate evaluated for the property prices annually, so retiring on a fixed income in Austin is a tiny bit harder than in CA (that's the real goal of Prop 13). Income taxes are easier to think about, because it goes to zero when your income drops, but property taxes based on the unr…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN