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.
Hound you for auto registration money (they harassed me for TWO YEARS after I moved away)
Hound you for smog check money
Hound you for toll money
Hound you on that 10-year old stop sign ticket where the cop was just bored and they decided to convert to a tax and send it to the Franchise Tax Board, slapping on a penalty
Hound you on some 8-year old tax form and some field they say wasn't correct, asking you to produce W2s you don't have anymore
Hound you on some parking ticket from downtown that you don't remember getting, but they do
California is a greedy cesspool. And yes, you need a LOT of money to keep up with some of the nonsense.
Here's the thing. You're jaded by the fact you haven't made that much money and you assume it's a lot. And in truth it is.
You're not seeing this fourth dimensionally.
Say I hand you a $1,000 bill. Just hand it to you. Now, say some federal IRS agent walks along and says, "well, you need to pay me $400 because that guy just handed you money, or go to jail. Your choice." Now you're down to $600. Now, a state cop walks by and says, "well, the fact you're standing in my state means you need to pay me half of what you just paid that agent." Which is $200. Now you're down to $400. Your only "crime" was (A) receiving money and (B) being in a location. Don't lie - that would "urine" you off to no end.
But that's how the tax situation feels in California. That's exactly what happens.
What's worse is, you know the money will be misused. It won't go to street repair. It won't go to improving the drought situation. No, it'll go to some overfunded program designed to help illegal immigrants in some way - like that program to help them get driver's licenses despite not being legal citizens. Or to enlist prisoners to bang out license plates for said illegals. Or to provide subsidies for healthcare for said illegals. Or to support used car businesses who sell buckets to said illegals.
When you've lived in state where your take home is 75% or higher (such as Alaska, say) and then go to a state that seems hell bent on taking whatever it can from you and in return giving you the finger by way of obscene home pricing and poor money management...yes, the principle matters. And I guarantee you, if you were in that situation, you'd feel the same.
I make six figures here. If I lived in California, I'd make the equivalent of lower middle class. That's NOT how it should be.
That is an absurd conclusion. Your income may afford you a great standard of living in, say, Cleveland, but Southern California is not Cleveland. Places like Southern California are highly desirable for many reasons, and consequently, people pay a serious premium to live in those places. Other such places include Aspen, Hawaii, San Francisco/Bay Area, NYC, etc. Are these places ones where a six figure income should not render you poor? Said another way, do you think living in Kauai with your 6 figure income means you're rich? NO. If you cannot pay the premium to live here, the only other serous mechanism that would permit you to live in San Diego (or the region) is inheriting wealth or being on the dole.
Seems like having children is the worst thing that middle income people can do to themselves.
Wealthy folks can keep having them, and their standard of living never changes. There is even a strategic reason to do so for passing on inheritance. Poor folks have them because, well, they don't quite get what causes woman to get pregnant.
But the rest of us are wedged in F&%^sville because we can't live in San Diego or even dream about it.
Seems like having children is the worst thing that middle income people can do to themselves.
Wealthy folks can keep having them, and their standard of living never changes. There is even a strategic reason to do so for passing on inheritance. Poor folks have them because, well, they don't quite get what causes woman to get pregnant.
But the rest of us are wedged in F&%^sville because we can't live in San Diego or even dream about it.
Once again, the American Dream.
If I was looking down the barrel at a lower middle class American job for the rest of my realistic life AND I wanted children, I'd quit working and get on the dole.
I'm only like, 30% joking.
You people do NOT live better than poor people milking food stamps and subsidies. You really don't. Sell small amounts of weed or whatever your scam is to make a 1000 bucks a month under the table, and collect food stamps for life.
If you get a woman pregnant you can realistically raise the child easier, and arguably better this way depending how much you value your cynicism impacting the child. Pregnant women get just about everything subsidized, from housing to day care.
If you get a woman pregnant in San Diego and neither of you work more than 15 hours a week, you'll be fine if you know how to play the game. if you do the same thing and you're working class...good luck.
The American Dream is dead for working people, unless you want to live in less desirable parts of the country.
I agree with everything you said. The posts about moving first and finding a job second always make me scratch my head, especially when there is a family/kids involved. Taking a risk like that as a single, childless person is one thing, but with a family in tow is something else.
What prompted my post yesterday, though, was a thread about a family of 3 making almost a quarter of a million dollars per year combined income, and people were discouraging them from moving to SD. Could you save more for retirement somewhere else? Sure. Could you afford a McMansion on that salary in another state? Yep. Could a family of 3 "survive" in SD, buy a reasonably-sized home in a decent area (not beachfront, obviously ), and continue to save for retirement (albeit, a smaller amount per paycheck most likely) on nearly $250,000 per year? Of course, and to suggest otherwise is being too overcautious in my opinion.
looks like OP is mentioning my thread
We had no plans to move to San Diego until couple of months back. With sudden job opportunity, wanted to try San Diego and take chances now when we are still in early 30's and kid in preschool/elementary school. If something doesn't work out as planned, we can always return to Texas. Dilemma now is whether to buy a house or rent a nice apartment in La Jolla for a couple of years and send kid to torrey pines or la Jolla elementary. Owning few rental income properties, we very well aware rent is like throwing away money and no tax benefits. However major pro is we are not tied to house sale and associated costs like real estate agent fees, closing costs etc
Basically moving to San Diego is a life style choice. gain some, lose some
We had no plans to move to San Diego until couple of months back. With sudden job opportunity, wanted to try San Diego and take chances now when we are still in early 30's and kid in preschool/elementary school. If something doesn't work out as planned, we can always return to Texas. Dilemma now is whether to buy a house or rent a nice apartment in La Jolla for a couple of years and send kid to torrey pines or la Jolla elementary. Owning few rental income properties, we very well aware rent is like throwing away money and no tax benefits. However major pro is we are not tied to house sale and associated costs like real estate agent fees, closing costs etc
Basically moving to San Diego is a life style choice. gain some, lose some
Yes, I had your thread in mind when I posted this. Some of the negative responses you are getting were a bit much, in my opinion. Reading through your own responses, it's obvious that you have a good head on your shoulders, a solid financial foundation, reasonable housing desires, and a willingness to make some compromises/downsize to make the move happen. If someone such as yourself couldn't make it in SD, nobody can. That's my 2 cents.
Oh, and the comments on job loss being a devastating proposition? Well, no $#!+! If you lose your job in Anytown, USA, you don't have any money to pay the mortgage on a $150,000 house, either. No income is no income and is devastating no matter where you are.
Renting for a year before you buy isn't a bad idea. I wouldn't call it "throwing money away." It's allowing you to get to know the area, decide which specific neighborhood is the best fit for your family, etc. So you lose a year of tax benefits and rental payments. Better than rushing into buying a home and then regretting it. It also gives you an out in case you decide that SD isn't for you. As I've said before, the roads go both ways. Would it be a pain and an extra expense to move back to TX? Sure, but it's doable. People do it all the time, and it's not the end of the world.
I truly believe some people just enjoy being naysayers and devil's advocates. Living in San Diego is absolutely a lifestyle choice. It is different from living in TX or NC or anywhere else. To say that the lifestyle is only about one or two things (beaches and/or hiking) is selling this area really short. Maybe folks haven't lived other places and don't understand why people would be willing to pay a premium to live here. I wonder if any of the naysayers eat out at restaurants? Why? Eating at home is cheaper. What about luxury cars? Do any of the naysayers drive Mercs or BMWs? A Kia will get you there...100,000 mile warranty and good gas mileage to boot! I know these are minor comparisons, but it's the same principle. We all make choices, have different priorities, make sacrifices for what is important to us, etc. Life is too short to be miserable, and I really think that the people who are miserable in SD should try living elsewhere. Maybe they'll be happier. Maybe not, though, because contrary to what people seem to think, it's not always easier because your house payment is cheaper. Simple fact: lower COL usually means lower desirability and lower quality of life. But honestly, I wouldn't stay somewhere that made me that miserable and angry.
Last edited by ccrash; 06-23-2015 at 08:48 AM..
Reason: Typo
There's a reason why California is the most populist state. You may believe California a 'greedy cesspool', but many, many more of us I think otherwise.
First of all, the reason it's the most populist state is because of illegal immigration over the past 10 years. They don't count.
Second, even those who live in (Southern) California think it's a greedy cesspool. You select few who are swayed by persistent sunshine are one voice. But by and large the consensus is that California only cares about itself. Evident by their request that you stop watering lawns despite it not making a dent in the drought.
Third, businesses are uprooting nearly weekly. Large businesses. Northrup Grumman was a shocker. Gateway in the late 90's was a shocker. If it weren't the greedy cesspool I and many others claim it to be, the so-called "Silicon Valley" would be better equipped to keep the large businesses in place. As it stands it's mostly Apple keeping the ship afloat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd-bound
And I can guarantee you, I would not feel the same. You see the state as greedy, but for the life of me, I don't understand the greed of many wealthy people. But I understand that conservatives have a much bigger issue with taxes then the rest of us...
I'm not wealthy. I'm practical.
If I know a state is going to misuse money I'm less inclined to give it to them. If I see the state is putting my money towards the roads, towards healthcare, etc., things that benefit all and not just the illegal, then I'm ok with it.
California takes a LOT of money from people and gives little back. Southern California shrugs and says, "welp, our weather doe". Northern California says, "don't look at us, we wanted to secede anyway and make the state of Jefferson". Central California says, "but we need that water for these almonds!!" Meanwhile, the money is essentially flushed down a hidden drain, never to be seen again, and has been starting with Pete Wilson.
Yes, I know California history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd-bound
To each his own. I make six figures here in Portland and I'm able to maintain two households, one rental in Oregon and one house I own in the Bay Area. I'll be retiring in SD and you couldn't pay me to live anywhere else.
That's good for you. You pay income tax to one state, double state taxes, and Federal tax, so your six figures (unless it's HIGH six figures, aka 200k or higher) is now 5 figures. That's unacceptable for me. But that's me.
If we'd sit down and fix the tax code rather than trying to push amnesty for illegals or socialized healthcare, It wouldn't be so bad. Then California would be SOL because it could no longer turn everything into a tax and take from people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC
[/b]
That is an absurd conclusion. Your income may afford you a great standard of living in, say, Cleveland, but Southern California is not Cleveland. Places like Southern California are highly desirable for many reasons, and consequently, people pay a serious premium to live in those places. Other such places include Aspen, Hawaii, San Francisco/Bay Area, NYC, etc. Are these places ones where a six figure income should not render you poor? Said another way, do you think living in Kauai with your 6 figure income means you're rich? NO. If you cannot pay the premium to live here, the only other serous mechanism that would permit you to live in San Diego (or the region) is inheriting wealth or being on the dole.
Here's what you're missing. Or ignoring.
"Highly desirable" is subjective.
"Highly desirable" to me means that the money I make is maximized by the time it hits my hands/account, not after I've filed pointless forms to government agencies.
"Highly desirable" to me means that I can comfortably be spending no more than 30% of my monthly income towards my house all told (which is currently the case).
"Highly desirable" to me means I can drive my car in confidence the roads and freeways are properly built and maintained to support cars. The one thing San Diego excels at versus any other city is its freeway system, especially I-15 and the 54.
"Highly desirable" to me means I see the changes in the seasons. Blatant changes in the seasons.
"Highly desirable" to me means that I don't constantly see illegal immigrants hanging out in front of Home Depot.
"Highly desirable" to me means that when I shop for homes in my price range, they're not all fixers. This is a problem in Southern California, always has been.
"Highly desirable" to me means I have ready access to any sort of facility I need. San Diego excels in this regard.
"Highly desirable" to me means I am not constantly at odds with political agendas (e.g. war on cars). San Diego excels in this regard.
"Highly desirable" to me means I don't want to be in a place where my race is dominant. It's diverse, and after a fashion, my race starts to matter less.
San Diego has positives. But they're exclusive to San Diego and it has a LOT more negatives, primarily because of it being in California. It's a mismanaged state. That's fact.
Oh, and the comments on job loss being a devastating proposition? Well, no $#!+! If you lose your job in Anytown, USA, you don't have any money to pay the mortgage on a $150,000 house, either. No income is no income and is devastating no matter where you are.
Simple fact: lower COL usually means lower desirability and lower quality of life. But honestly, I wouldn't stay somewhere that made me that miserable and angry.
On your first point, I strongly disagree. The low ratio of income premium to housing premium in SD means most there are spending a higher % of income on housing. In a job loss situation, this is double whammy in that it has been affecting savings rate and is now affecting cash flow needs.
Basic Example:
Both -- $6,000/mo take home
Joe -- $3,000/mo housing in San Diego
Jane -- $1,500/mo housing in Idaho
Both -- $2,500/mo all other expenses
Joe and Jane work in SD and Idaho, respectively, for three years and then both lose their jobs. Joe has $18K saved while Jane has $72K. Joe will run out of money in 3.3 months while Jane will run out of money in 1.5 years. On top of that, since everyone wants to live in San Diego, Joe has much more competition when trying to find a new job than Jane does. And Joe has a lot less flexibility to take a lower paying job than Jane does.
I agree in part with your second point. San Diego with its temperate weather and ocean proximity is very desirable to most people. However, quality of life is subjective. To me, yes, amazing weather is a big draw. But so is personal financial solvency.
There is also the longer-term question of retiring. Joe will need more in retirement (assuming he stays in SD) than Jane but is saving a lot less than Jane. Assuming the same spending in retirement, Jane has to work two years for every one year worth of retirement. Joe has to work eleven years for every one year worth of retirement.
On your first point, I strongly disagree. The low ratio of income premium to housing premium in SD means most there are spending a higher % of income on housing. In a job loss situation, this is double whammy in that it has been affecting savings rate and is now affecting cash flow needs.
Basic Example:
Both -- $6,000/mo take home
Joe -- $3,000/mo housing in San Diego
Jane -- $1,500/mo housing in Idaho
Both -- $2,500/mo all other expenses
Joe and Jane work in SD and Idaho, respectively, for three years and then both lose their jobs. Joe has $18K saved while Jane has $72K. Joe will run out of money in 3.3 months while Jane will run out of money in 1.5 years. On top of that, since everyone wants to live in San Diego, Joe has much more competition when trying to find a new job than Jane does. And Joe has a lot less flexibility to take a lower paying job than Jane does.
I agree in part with your second point. San Diego with its temperate weather and ocean proximity is very desirable to most people. However, quality of life is subjective. To me, yes, amazing weather is a big draw. But so is personal financial solvency.
There is also the longer-term question of retiring. Joe will need more in retirement (assuming he stays in SD) than Jane but is saving a lot less than Jane. Assuming the same spending in retirement, Jane has to work two years for every one year worth of retirement. Joe has to work eleven years for every one year worth of retirement.
I can't really argue with any of your points. There's definitely truth there. I guess, for us, the move made sense. We had next to no family time when my husband was in his former position with the company, since he was traveling all week most of the time. This went on for years. He stayed in SD on a regular basis by himself for work, also, and it was just too hard on him to be nearly bicoastal and away from family 5-6 days per week. Yet, he works for a great company and didn't want to leave and start over in a new company. He got a nice raise to move out here. The kids and I aren't trapped inside all day due to oppressive heat/humidity/mosquitoes/thrips/noseeums. We're not 3 hours from the closest beach or mountains anymore. As I said, the worst part was leaving family back east.
I guess you can talk to me in 20+ years when we're in retirement mode to see if I feel the same , but for now I'm glad we moved. My dad barely lived to see his retirement, so maybe that gives me an "enjoy life while you can" mentality. That's entirely possible.
First of all, the reason it's the most populist state is because of illegal immigration over the past 10 years. They don't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
Second, even those who live in (Southern) California think it's a greedy cesspool. You select few who are swayed by persistent sunshine are one voice. But by and large the consensus is that California only cares about itself. Evident by their request that you stop watering lawns despite it not making a dent in the drought.
Third, businesses are uprooting nearly weekly. Large businesses. Northrup Grumman was a shocker. Gateway in the late 90's was a shocker. If it weren't the greedy cesspool I and many others claim it to be, the so-called "Silicon Valley" would be better equipped to keep the large businesses in place. As it stands it's mostly Apple keeping the ship afloat...
First of all - Sorry my friend, but you couldn't be more wrong. We became the most populist state way back in 62 and we have a larger population than either Canada or Australia. If everyone hated California as much as you do, that wouldn't be the case.
Second - You like painting with a broad brush, don't you? I agree, by and large the consensus is that conservatives think California's a cesspool. Everyone else, not so much. And btw, if the state has a problem with watering lawns, farmers should be banned from growing rice during a drought.
Third - Silicon valley has come roaring back from the dotcom bust and while Apple is one of our largest employers, they're by no means the only company keeping the valley afloat. Have you ever heard of Google or eBay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
...That's good for you. You pay income tax to one state, double state taxes, and Federal tax, so your six figures (unless it's HIGH six figures, aka 200k or higher) is now 5 figures. That's unacceptable for me. But that's me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
If we'd sit down and fix the tax code rather than trying to push amnesty for illegals or socialized healthcare, It wouldn't be so bad. Then California would be SOL because it could no longer turn everything into a tax and take from people...
I wish, no, I'm in the low six figures and while I do pay my share of taxes I would be happy to pay more for 'real' socialized medicine, instead of the Republican inspired kludgy ACA. You seem to be fixated on illegal immigration. Until conservatives start proposing real sanctions and harsh penalties on employers for hiring them, I don't take their bellyaching seriously. Don't hold your breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
...Here's what you're missing. Or ignoring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
"Highly desirable" is subjective.
"Highly desirable" to me means that the money I make is maximized by the time it hits my hands/account, not after I've filed pointless forms to government agencies.
"Highly desirable" to me means that I can comfortably be spending no more than 30% of my monthly income towards my house all told (which is currently the case).
"Highly desirable" to me means I can drive my car in confidence the roads and freeways are properly built and maintained to support cars. The one thing San Diego excels at versus any other city is its freeway system, especially I-15 and the 54.
"Highly desirable" to me means I see the changes in the seasons. Blatant changes in the seasons.
"Highly desirable" to me means that I don't constantly see illegal immigrants hanging out in front of Home Depot.
"Highly desirable" to me means that when I shop for homes in my price range, they're not all fixers. This is a problem in Southern California, always has been.
"Highly desirable" to me means I have ready access to any sort of facility I need. San Diego excels in this regard.
"Highly desirable" to me means I am not constantly at odds with political agendas (e.g. war on cars). San Diego excels in this regard.
"Highly desirable" to me means I don't want to be in a place where my race is dominant. It's diverse, and after a fashion, my race starts to matter less.
San Diego has positives. But they're exclusive to San Diego and it has a LOT more negatives, primarily because of it being in California. It's a mismanaged state. That's fact.
Jeez, I got it already, you don’t like California. I believe Texas is a living hell-hole with a disgusting history, backward reactionary leadership and I’d be happy to see them secede. Yet I don't post endlessly about how horrible it is. There's no accounting for taste, but some like it and who am I to try to dissuade them? To each his own...
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.
), and continue to save for retirement (albeit, a smaller amount per paycheck most likely) on nearly $250,000 per year? Of course, and to suggest otherwise is being too overcautious in my opinion.
Dilemma now is whether to buy a house or rent a nice apartment in La Jolla for a couple of years and send kid to torrey pines or la Jolla elementary. Owning few rental income properties, we very well aware rent is like throwing away money and no tax benefits. However major pro is we are not tied to house sale and associated costs like real estate agent fees, closing costs etc
