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.
I keep seeing people post, "Well, they can just move!" And that's the point. The state needs to subsidize the typical middle class worker (teachers, nurses, social workers, police officers, firemen, dog catchers, small business owners) in order to keep them in the area.
It's always amazing to me that people really have no idea how bad things are in the whole Bay Area. A friend who just a few years out of college has already founded and sold a company and was doing well at a startup in NYC (well enough to afford a studio at 25 in the Village) recently took a job at Facebook. Despite getting a huge raise, he's now living in one of those homes you see on TV that has been converted into basically a techie barrack. He pays over $1000 a month to share a bedroom with someone else in a house with 12 people and 3 bathrooms. For him, that experience at Facebook is worth it so he can turn around and leverage those connections a few years down the line back east. Or, like every Silicon Valley dreamer, he hopes to use the connection to the VC boom in SF to start another company. There's nowhere in the country - or the world - like SF for those connections. You just can't make the comparison. You don't find the best and the brightest in the industry in Indianapolis or Omaha.
But that said, for every rising tech star there are 50 people making more average incomes serving coffee, answering phones, delivering office supplies, sorting mail, teaching kids, cutting hair, etc. The state can't demand a salary freeze or put a cap on housing costs, so it props up a growing class of middle-class-anywhere-but-the-Bay-Area so the whole thing doesn't implode.
It's a shame those early tech companies didn't evolve in an area that was already densely populated with more mountains and bays than buildable land. Like other expensive metropolitan areas (NYC, Boston) they are much more limited in where they can build housing, leaving a perpetual shortage.
Many people WON'T live in places like NYC, Chicago, DC and so on because the weather sucks. Back in the day; a LOT of people LEFT the cold east coast and Midwest TO live in decent weather Calif so that's why a LOT of tech kinds of people still move there. Tho with the crazy rents; IMHO SF and LA WILL fall on themselves because at least Americans will say enough and leave.
Many people WON'T live in places like NYC, Chicago, DC and so on because the weather sucks. Back in the day; a LOT of people LEFT the cold east coast and Midwest TO live in decent weather Calif so that's why a LOT of tech kinds of people still move there. Tho with the crazy rents; IMHO SF and LA WILL fall on themselves because at least Americans will say enough and leave.
Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not a subsidy.
Sure it's a subsidy, if a state or local government - which must balance its books annually and therefore cannot borrow and spend - increases taxes on some people in order to allow some other people to keep more of their money.
i.e. if government cannot allow some taxpayers to keep more of their money without allowing other taxpayers to keep less of their money, it's a subsidy.
This is simple supply and demand. *******s complaining about being firefighters and trying to live in Palo Alto are insane. Theres scores of tech executives making 300k+ a year living in the area. How many firefighters own homes in Monaco and fifth avenue? For everyone else go to East Bay and Commute. Unionized firefighters and nurses making 150k out here getting 45k elsewhere need to realize theyre not really making 150k. Theyre worth about a third of that and making triple due to COL. However, working out here and beefing up those social security and 401ks and commuting in on the train can be worth it to some for a while.
The cities and state can solve this by beefing up public transit, improving water desalnization projects to get more water and building up in more high density housing. Will Palo Alto build that housing? Doubt it. But high speed rail is coming and people wil be able to commute in from San Jose and beyond then. And SJ and some other cities are finally building up.
They get a tax break for buying a house on credit. That is a subsidy.
No it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Sure it's a subsidy, if a state or local government - which must balance its books annually and therefore cannot borrow and spend - increases taxes on some people in order to allow some other people to keep more of their money.
i.e. if government cannot allow some taxpayers to keep more of their money without allowing other taxpayers to keep less of their money, it's a subsidy.
No people keeping their own money is not a subsidy. govt's need to stop deficit spending.
No people keeping their own money is not a subsidy. govt's need to stop deficit spending.
People who borrow to buy a house get a tax break, but people who buy a house outright do not.
What is a 'Subsidy'
A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
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.
