Do you ever get tired of all the taxes, high food, gas, "gotcha" taxes and fees? (Los Angeles: low crime, house)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by slo1318

When you add up higher cost, taxes, and housing it's a big difference. Just is, I have nothing to gain here. I'm not here saying Texas is better, it's does have a much lower cost of living though. I don't understand the need to not acknowledge the obvious. You mentioned real estate, that is the biggest factor in the higher cost of living. If you are a dual income couple who are teachers and you live in San Jose vs San Antonio, there would be a huge difference in COL, now that doesn't translate proportionately to QOL which is a different conversation.

I don't have anything to gain either. Neither is my intent to attack you. I enjoy many of your posts and think you are often quite level-headed in your various observations, whether I agree with a particular one or not.

That said: what higher costs are you talking about? We have covered that the difference in gas is pretty minor -- $20 - $30 a month. We have read about the tax structure of California being heavy on the very wealthy, but light on the middle and poor. All other consumables and commodities of living from cars to shoes are pretty much the same all across the nation -- including California.

Yes, it comes down to real estate. But that is considerably variable. There is a LOT of choice involved there. There is a LOT of very reasonably priced California real estate. Taxes, food prices, other consumables, gasoline all follow laws and necessities of use. Real estate does not. It is highly variable according to preferences. San Jose and San Antonio are not comparables.

I can live a very nice lifestyle in the Marina District of S.F., with parking and gated security for as little as $600 - $1000 a month in rent. But I cannot buy a house in the same district for anywhere near that monthly expense.

I can buy a very nice little cottage home in good condition within driving commute to BART and from there to much of the Bay area -- for as little as about $120,000 ... less if I accept a bit of funky or some fixing required. But I can't buy at that price in Walnut Creek.

Why people think that everybody is entitled to buy only the best California locations and homes for the same low price as a bungalow in San Antonio just baffles me. If the best cost the same as the blah, then coastal California would have about 200 million residents. At least.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by flathead4

So, where does CA benefit a resident via taxes/fees better than a citizen of SD? I picked the most immediate financial impacts a person will encounter and provided examples. And you counter with . . . nothing. Please, provide us with the lower taxes/fees a CA resident might be able to enjoy. Even should you be able to reduce your income tax to zero in CA, I will still be paying less regional taxes. You try to trivialize the difference because you cannot refute the facts that I just provided.

As for the "joke". I'll give another example. Roberti-Roos. Legislation that addresses a miniscule problem (according to CDC data). Legislation that criminalizes a right enjoyed by the citizens of most other states.

You continually base your argument on intangibles such as scenery. Then pepper them with veiled insults, an arrogant attitude, and patronizing tone. It does nothing to help your argument. I imagine it's a response at having to defend California from so many from other states' residents. Why do people take issue with Californians? That same attitude that has created inept bureaucracy and billion dollar deficits. You don't have much room to criticize others when you can't take care of your own house.

Modern conservative? More like classical liberal. Those straws won't grasp themselves.

I think he trivializes the difference because the difference is trivial to him. /shrug

We all know CA is a little more expensive, with housing being a lot more expensive in places. Not so much more expensive in the Valley, though.

Personally I find most of the threads humorous, but I do enjoy a little sarcastic humor now and again.

And the scenery ain't an intangible to people that live here, son. There's more to life than your little stash of cash.

The free market has spoken with so many of us and so few of you there in SD. You can enjoy your little slice of heaven, we've got ours. Mine's in Fresno, and I wouldn't trade it for SD a'tall. I might visit the fine monument you all have though.

You will find that if you start off with an "I'm bringing it" attitude that there are those of us who will push right back here on this board. You found what you were looking for, didn't ya?

I have a question for ya though. If I go on over to the SD forums how many Flatheads will I find answering questions?

It's a Big Country, enjoy your stay in SD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw2o_Go4QWI

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Much of what is built into housing costs is from regulations and red tape on land use that most other states don't have.

This is not at all an accurate statement, but it is sure repeated as a purported justification of higher housing costs in CA. My wife watches those real estate shows, I am always a bit surprised to find that home costs in most urban areas of the country are comparable to CA.

Originally Posted by flathead4

And I don't even live in the boring part of SD. Of course, not only do you get to live with the great scenery in California, you get the added bonus of restrictions on individual rights too and a legislature that is inept beyond belief.

As for the "joke". I'll give another example. Roberti-Roos. Legislation that addresses a miniscule problem (according to CDC data). Legislation that criminalizes a right enjoyed by the citizens of most other states.

As I suspected, the "restrictions" turn out to be one obscure item.

The point I made, which still stands, is that the total tax burden of any state, does not vary much from any state. A 1/23 difference (someone make a percentage out of that) between South Dakota and California. Consider that difference a fee for not having to live in South Dakota. Uff Da.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I don't have anything to gain either. Neither is my intent to attack you. I enjoy many of your posts and think you are often quite level-headed in your various observations, whether I agree with a particular one or not.

That said: what higher costs are you talking about? We have covered that the difference in gas is pretty minor -- $20 - $30 a month. We have read about the tax structure of California being heavy on the very wealthy, but light on the middle and poor. All other consumables and commodities of living from cars to shoes are pretty much the same all across the nation -- including California.

Yes, it comes down to real estate. But that is considerably variable. There is a LOT of choice involved there. There is a LOT of very reasonably priced California real estate. Taxes, food prices, other consumables, gasoline all follow laws and necessities of use. Real estate does not. It is highly variable according to preferences. San Jose and San Antonio are not comparables.

I can live a very nice lifestyle in the Marina District of S.F., with parking and gated security for as little as $600 - $1000 a month in rent. But I cannot buy a house in the same district for anywhere near that monthly expense.

I can buy a very nice little cottage home in good condition within driving commute to BART and from there to much of the Bay area -- for as little as about $120,000 ... less if I accept a bit of funky or some fixing required. But I can't buy at that price in Walnut Creek.

Why people think that everybody is entitled to buy only the best California locations and homes for the same low price as a bungalow in San Antonio just baffles me. If the best cost the same as the blah, then coastal California would have about 200 million residents. At least.

I respect your opinions much, as someone older and more experienced than I am. Yeah, Im not saying I have hard evidence, just observation. I know when I fill up here, drive to California and fill up there gas is more money. Easy. Same observations with other items, and again this is just observation. It also makes sense that if corporations and small businesses are paying more in tax and labor that consumer items, plus food items would be a bit more money. To me its just a different economy. I can only talk about Texas, but its operating on a lower cost model of the same economy.
Housing is vastly more expensive, which is the lion share of the difference, but its very significant for an average young family. This has nothing to do with which is more desirable either, just straight cost. To me California is the greatest state. Nobody is entitled to anything, but you have to make decisions based on what you can afford. So you look at locations, if you are in San Francisco or SJ, you may move out to Gilroy or Tracy to lower that cost. People have looked to other states, its not always as rosy as they hope, but its the same reasons to create better economic balance for their family.
I am in architecture/construction of homes so I constantly watch real estate, regulation, permit fees and its a completely different economic model here, to building a home in CA.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Most of those shows feature premium construction or coveted areas, so the costs do level out a bit especially in those desirable parts of cities.

We may be talking about different shows, however your use of the term "coveted" works perfectly. Coveted areas around the country appear to have similar values. Whether California or Kansas City.

Back to econ 101, high demand, high prices.

[jw2]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Most of those shows feature premium construction or coveted areas, so the costs do level out a bit especially in those desirable parts of cities.

Any place that has wide expanses of land will have limited price appreciation. Areas such as a lot of Texas, the Inland Empire, and the California Central Valley are examples. An existing house there can't rise much more than the cost to build new because if it did, a developer would just come along and build 1,000 houses next to it.

It isn't so much that these areas are not good areas, it is just there is so much land, it has little value. Therefore, a homeowner will not see his value surpass the building costs

Contrast that with Boulder CO, coastal California, Boston, Manhattan, etc. These areas are built out, no more land to build. Any newcomers have to buy existing homes and if there are a lot of people wanting to live there, up go the prices.

[jm1982]

Sales tax is one that pisses me off a bit. Ours is 9% in L.A ..

I agree though that it's not really the taxes and food prices..it's the base cost of property that is a big hurdle to overcome.

Prices in the late 1990s for example were relatively very affordable compared to now..

Sure that wasn't a couple years ago...but has the average persons salary gone up 300%+ since then?...

Homes in West L.A were 300k they are now typically over 1million for a 3bedroom typical house.

And it's not just West L.A look at the Valley too and other parts of the city.

Examples:
2516 IVAN HILL Ter, Los Angeles, CA 90039 | MLS# 12-638415 | Redfin

1012 North GENESEE Ave, West Hollywood, CA 90046 | MLS# 12-585717 | Redfin

There are many more examples..in the last one is an example of home that went up 600% in value

IN many decent neighborhoods one could buy a house on pretty much a middle class income ..but now you pretty much need to be rich or make hundreds of thousands a year.

Lot's of situations like this one ...

5218 LINCOLN Ave, Highland Park, CA 90042 | MLS# IV13014977 | Redfin

But those cheap value plays/fixers aren't available anymore. Lack of REO inventory that doesn't seem like it will return.

Prices won't go down until people stop paying crazy prices for homes.

It's just kind of funny that everyone thinks real estate is the hot new thing again and willing to pay MUCH higher prices than the previous year. I doubt they suddenly all made a bunch more money than they had the previous year.

Also there was money out there buying with cash to buy the fixers to flip.

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Sales tax is one that pisses me off a bit. Ours is 9% in L.A ..

I agree though that it's not really the taxes and food prices..it's the base cost of property that is a big hurdle to overcome.

Prices in the late 1990s for example were relatively very affordable compared to now..

Sure that wasn't a couple years ago...but has the average persons salary gone up 300%+ since then?...

Homes in West L.A were 300k they are now typically over 1million for a 3bedroom typical house.

And it's not just West L.A look at the Valley too and other parts of the city.

Examples:
2516 IVAN HILL Ter, Los Angeles, CA 90039 | MLS# 12-638415 | Redfin

1012 North GENESEE Ave, West Hollywood, CA 90046 | MLS# 12-585717 | Redfin

There are many more examples..in the last one is an example of home that went up 600% in value

IN many decent neighborhoods one could buy a house on pretty much a middle class income ..but now you pretty much need to be rich or make hundreds of thousands a year.

Lot's of situations like this one ...

5218 LINCOLN Ave, Highland Park, CA 90042 | MLS# IV13014977 | Redfin

But those cheap value plays/fixers aren't available anymore. Lack of REO inventory that doesn't seem like it will return.

But the weather makes the difference, right? At least along the So Cal coast.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

But the weather makes the difference, right?

It certainly does.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

But the weather makes the difference, right? At least along the So Cal coast.

Supply/demand. The free market at work. I'm sure you're a huge fan of the free market.