Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol in Texas much of the price differential between housing prices there and in California is eaten up by Texas property tax, and housing is really not that cheap in desirable areas of Texas like Austin. It's stupid to try to make this into a political issue, it's more complex than that and making it left vs right just makes it harder to resolve.
I agree it's more complex than what appears on the surface. The only reason I made it into a political issue is because, based on lots of past experience, someone else inevitably will. I'll get called out as a right wing nut job or some other epithet if I don't point out that liberal types are now at least somewhat in agreement with many of the things I and other more conservative leaning folks have been saying for many years--and sometimes decades.
People love to mention that Texas has high property tax rates, but quite frankly, I think it's overblown. California home prices are so high that a low property tax rate still means a very high dollar amount of taxes paid. And as other posters who live here can attest, voters in many local jurisdictions pass additional special taxes for school bonds, libraries, park districts, etc. So the property taxes here are almost always higher than advertised.
As far as Austin goes, it's one metro area in a huge state. When you look at places like California, even the economically depressed areas have pretty expensive real estate relative to local incomes. So I think if you compare like with like i.e. an economically depressed area in CA vs. a similarly economically depressed one in TX, you'll find CA is still much more expensive. Or for that matter, compare the cost of living in Austin, Texas' tech capital, with the cost of living in Silicon Valley. There's no comparison.
I completely agree with this from your article: "The bill sponsored by Mr. Wiener, one of 130 housing measures that have been introduced this year, would restrict one of the biggest development tools that communities wield: the ability to use zoning, environmental and procedural laws to thwart projects they deem out of character with their neighborhood." That nonsense has to stop, and some building codes could be relaxed to allow builders to build cheaper and higher density housing. San Jose relaxed on street parking requirements a few years ago so that homeowners could build in-law units and rent them out. That should be encouraged statewide. In Sac County you can't build an in-law unit unless your lot is 1 sq ft larger than 1/4 acre which is just stupid. Ours is exactly 1/4 acre, if we could buy a square foot we would definitely build a small rental unit in our back yard, we have RV access on the side of our house and plenty of room but no..some numb nuts decided that it has to be 1/4 acre plus 1 sq ft. [/quote]
That's what I'm saying and I'm glad we agree.
At risk of further politicizing the issue, I do think liberal areas tend to have more of these ridiculous regulations---and then the people who live there wonder why housing is so expensive....then they want more regulations (like minimum wage hikes) to fix the problem the previous set of regulations caused. And when more conservative leaning folks point out that over-regulation is at least part of the problem the liberal hyperbolists come out of the woodwork saying "Oh no! They're going to get rid of all regulations and give everything away to those greedy developers!" That kind of mentality is what has made most California metro areas hostile to the working and middle class, and now even the younger upper middle class folks are being hurt by this kind of extremist thinking.
I also did point out that there are other things driving up the cost of housing, such as the fact that productivity in home building is the same it has been since WW2. That's pathetic and needs to change. I would've provided quotes from the article (which I'd read previously), but, as I said, I hit the paywall.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 06-16-2018 at 06:49 PM..
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,345 posts, read 8,554,998 times
Reputation: 16674
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982
I really don’t get the part about getting a place to live for free .
That’s never been a thing in America at least for everyone . Even section 8 housing the tenant has to pay a small amount towards rent.
actually there are a few that get 100 percent paid. Not many though.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,345 posts, read 8,554,998 times
Reputation: 16674
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
People love to mention that Texas has high property tax rates, but quite frankly, I think it's overblown. California home prices are so high that a low property tax rate still means a very high dollar amount of taxes paid. And as other posters who live here can attest, voters in many local jurisdictions pass additional special taxes for school bonds, libraries, park districts, etc. So the property taxes here are almost always higher than advertised.
This is exactly true. Many Ca who put down Texas love to bring this up, but don't look at the reality. Case in Point I had a 60's ranch home 1400 sq ft 3/2/2 in Pleasanton, Ca. Cost of home was $600K, taxes were about $7500 a year. This was years ago.
But people will say in Texas you would pay $15k a year in taxes. This would be true if you bought a home for $600K in Texas.
At the same time I bought a brand new 3/2/2 house that was larger , 2100 sq ft, nicer finishes , excellent schools in Houston. The price for the nicer house was $161K. Taxes were high, but still came in at just under 5K.
So Taxes aren't necessarily higher in Texas.
Add in no state income tax and that's a nice chunk of change in your pocket.
I think we need to be very careful about economic value and value to society. I generally agree with your POV, but this whole concept of earning more money automatically equaling more value to society really rubs me the wrong way. The two are far from perfectly correlated. Are actively involved stay at home moms worth nothing because they're not being paid? Just one example I could give.
To the rest of society? Yeah pretty much.
What we earn is reflection of the value that society places on us. It generally has nothing to do with the value that our spouse or our children place on us.
I really don’t get the part about getting a place to live for free .
That’s never been a thing in America at least for everyone . Even section 8 housing the tenant has to pay a small amount towards rent.
Not necessarily. Sec 8 provides a voucher for a particular dollar amount. If they rent a place that costs more than the voucher, they pay the difference. If they rent a cheaper place, it costs them nothing.
Yes, thanks for the additional examples. Just to add a few more...do cigarettes and alcohol and other products harmful to human health add value to society? I'd argue they do not.
But they add value to those that are paying for it. That’s the point.
What we earn is reflection of the value that society places on us. It generally has nothing to do with the value that our spouse or our children place on us.
So do you disagree with my example or do you subscribe to the idea that people who make more money automatically add more value to society?
As per my example, I think de-valuing children and family is starting to have very negative effects in pretty much every rich society. Birth rates are too low and there aren't enough young people to support the old people.
So do you disagree with my example or do you subscribe to the idea that people who make more money automatically add more value to society?
As per my example, I think de-valuing children and family is starting to have very negative effects in pretty much every rich society. Birth rates are too low and there aren't enough young people to support the old people.
We are paid by society, not by our spouses. A SAHM isn’t paid, not because what she does isn’t valuable (it is), but rather because it isn’t generally valued by society. At least not in a way that would cause society to pay her.
I don’t really disagree with your second point above, but we currently don’t have a mechanism for society to value child bearing, other than by those that value it actually having children.
Corporations...and those of means...and even some common people have championed borrowing trillions (let's be honest - they are really just printing it) and giving it out free to themselves.
Then the very same people fill up a thread about how exact "value" to society is what creates wealth!
Oh, thou Hypocrites! If the government would have let the Great Crash in 08 just play out, we'd probably all be living in tents or perhaps one bedroom per family...that is, if we avoided civil war or being easily taken over by another country....
I just love it when people give all those stolid Economic Rules and Answers after having been the beneficiaries of the biggest welfare scams in the history of the world....those being tax cuts and other financing of the security state, health care, etc. out of DEBT and DEFICIT that someone else has to pay....
But...Oh, No....the minimum or low wage worker. They don't deserve anything. They must get some skills and climb up the ladder and play by the rules....
My head is spinning. Anyone with a lick of sense knows the true American Dream is long dead and replaced by shareholder and CEO value and a government that borrows money to give to those same people.....for FREE.
So only the wealthy and the corporations get the real big free money. The rest can eat cake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/quote]