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

651–660 of 691 posts

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#651

Post by nicoffeine »

roenxi wrote: post #570
nicoffeine wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't even held accountable when they sell products that spark a nationwide overdose epidemic. "That may seem like a lot of money, but billionaire math can be deceptive. The Sacklers proposed to pay the $4.5 billion out over nine years. Their current fortune is estimated to be at least $11 billion. Conservatively, with interest and investments, this means they can expect a 5 percent annualized rate of return on…

The US has around 700 billionaires. That is comparable in size to the US House of Representatives. There are a lot more politicians than billionaires. Plus there is a lot more turnover in politicians than billionaires. It doesn't tell you anything that only 1 of them went to jail. Even assuming they are incarcerated at something close to the background rate (an unreasonable assumption) we would expect 0% of them to b…

> Adjust that for the fact that they have basically no rational reason whatsoever to commit crimes

They may have no rational reason to fear prosecution, but they commit crimes all the time. Becoming untouchably wealthy does not remove base desires from anyone, it only shields them from accountability.

"The uber-rich also shield their wealth through elaborate purchases of real estate, yachts, jets and life insurance. Moving money around between bank accounts, estate and inheritance planning, engaging in a web of complex financial engineering, help them from paying their fair share of taxes. Some of the documents suggest the possibility of financial crimes, including money laundering."[1]

If you don't file your taxes correctly and you fail to pay the fines, or you attempt to defraud the government, there's a very good chance you will do time. The same is not true of the billionaire class no matter how much money the steal through tax avoidance schemes.

Once they have enough money, they can lawyer up and get out of just about anything, even the repeated sexual assault of their own family.[2] The only time they are held to account, with a few exceptions, is when the victims are other billionaires or powerful autocratic states.

This is not some new anti-wealth idea. Equal application of the law regardless of wealth, birth, or status is the fundamental American value. Or at least it was.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/10/04/the-pandor...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cartercoudriet/2019/06/28/curt-...

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#652

Post by [deleted] »

pandaman wrote: post #649
ashtonkem wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, your landlord can rent out for a loss when the house is gaining double digit percentages per year, assuming they’re well capitalized[0]. But let’s be honest, how long can houses gain 10% per year? And how often do you really think landlords rent at a loss in such hot real estate markets? Under less insane circumstances, a land lord who is charging less for rent than the house costs to own is going broke. As a ge…

10% per year is not the threshold, as long as the cap gains are more than expenses it's profitable to lease at any amount >= 0. Before I moved to Austin I used to live in a ~1.5M house in Los Angeles, paying ~2K rent for 10 years or so. It's not relevant to the current discussion though. Right now rents are lower than mortgages in general so the assertion that the tenant pays all landlord's expenses is demonstrably f…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#653

Post by _jal »

yupper32 wrote: post #641
_jal wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one of those would be....?

California has the highest income tax rate of any state. So... any state with comparable or worse infrastructure. And there's quite a few of them [1] [2] [3] [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/infrastruct... [2] https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/ [3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/08/states-that-...

OK, awesome. I encourage anyone complaining about CA taxes to go enjoy that super infra in North Dakota (#4).

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#654

Post by yonran »

kelnos wrote: post #650
yonran wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rents in CA (bay area in particular) are a function of demand more than landlords' cost Exactly. In other words, especially where supply is constrained, the property tax is incident on the landowner rather than the tenant. > my take on that is that's more caused by NIMBYism and an unwillingness to build enough housing to meet demand Yes, the difference in land use is bigger than the difference in tax rates. However…

Take a look again at the graphs in the article the GP posted[0]. Texas's tax scheme is about as regressive as it gets. Sales and property taxes are regressive. Income tax with marginal tax brackets is progressive. This is a pretty simple concept. > However, when property taxes are higher, there is more incentive for cities and households to allow more housing. True, and what tends to happen in CA is that cities will…

> Sales and property taxes are regressive. Income tax with marginal tax brackets is progressive. This is a pretty simple concept.

Not true. Income taxes (as implemented in the US) have enormous blind spots that favor homeowners at the expense of renters: untaxed imputed rent and the capital gains tax exclusion for your main home. These undermine the claim that the income tax is more progressive than the property tax.

> Landlords will pass on the cost of property taxes to renters.

Not for the most part. The question is, when the property tax increases, how much of it is eaten by the landlord (in lower post-tax rent), and how much is a burden on the tenant (in higher gross rent due to reduced housing supply)? In California where supply is inelastic, I would argue that the low property tax is almost all a windfall to the landowner rather than the tenant.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#656

Post by mrep »

keewee7 wrote: post #557
Apocryphon wrote: post #56

The official reason is because of housing: "To be clear we will be continuing to expand our activities in California," Musk said. "Our intention is to increase output from Fremont and Giga Nevada by 50%. If you go to our Fremont factory it's jammed." But, he added, "It's tough for people to afford houses, and people have to come in from far away....There's a limit to how big you can scale in the Bay Area." https://ww…

Of course he is blaming housing prices when the real reasons are the lower taxes and pro-business environment in Texas.

I really doubt it. The bay area has the most absurd housing prices I've ever seen. Looking on zillow, I've seen places that aren't as good as mine in Chicago go for 2-4x the price I paid. It is absurd and Illinois isn't known for being a low tax state recently.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#657

Post by dragonwriter »

mrep wrote: post #656
keewee7 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he is blaming housing prices when the real reasons are the lower taxes and pro-business environment in Texas.

I really doubt it. The bay area has the most absurd housing prices I've ever seen. Looking on zillow, I've seen places that aren't as good as mine in Chicago go for 2-4x the price I paid. It is absurd and Illinois isn't known for being a low tax state recently.

> Looking on zillow, I’ve seen places that aren’t as good as mine in Chicago go for 2-4x the price I paid.

I’m…not convinced that’s an unreasonable ratio between the Bay Area and Chicago.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#658

Post by newhotelowner »

newhotelowner wrote: post #61
danhak wrote: post #34

California's tax regime is really backward. I suspect Tesla's departure is just the tip of the iceberg and that the repeal of the SALT deduction in 2017 really hastened this trend. High earners pay an effective tax rate of > 50%. They are partially picking up the slack from Prop 13, which artificially distorts the housing market by allowing longtime homeowners to pay property taxes based on decades-old assessed value…

> The exodus will only pick up steam unless policymakers get their act together. I used to live in California. There is no better state than California. If house price falls, I would buy another house in California.

Weather - not hot, not cold, not raining all the time Diversity Friendly people Liberal state Tech industry

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#659

Post by rbolla »

tshaddox wrote: post #343
pmorici wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if it had anything to do with this… https://mobile.twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/14462517624...

A childish Twitter exchange from May 2020? I doubt it.

'Exactly' https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1446520043102162949?s=20

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#660

Post by m0zg »

Salgat wrote: post #623
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…

That's only true for the city proper. Half hour outside east Austin is silly cheap in comparison. If you're a commuter it's extremely affordable.

Not anymore. Go to Redfin and see for yourself. I wasn't even looking in the "city proper", I was looking within half an hour drive to Austin downtown. I consider it dumb to buy property without any land to go with it, so I wanted a decent house with an acre or two of land at least. The only decent options I was able to find were all over a million dollars. And then there's flood insurance to contend with in Austin area - you really have to look where it does and does not flood or you could also be on the hook for $1K/mo in flood insurance, without which the bank won't issue a loan.
Post reply on HN