Where do Austinites fed up with Austin move? (Spring, San Marcos: HOA fees, safe area)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by tom331

Here is what I found from other in the forum:

"You are required to file a Nonresident or Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return (Long of Short Form 540NR) with California if you have income from California sources, such as, rental income, income from the sale of property, or partnership income in 2008....."

I don't think part time or even full time residents need to pay California state income tax if who do not have income from California source. I believe that this situation would apply to most of the retirees from the outside of California.

You could not possibly be more wrong regarding your assumptions about the taxation of California residents - full or part time. They tax ALL income of part-time residents - from ALL sources - received while in California. It is your LOCATION - not the source.

What you found in a forum will be ZERO defense when the FTB comes after you. Here's what the FTB says:

California residents - Taxed on ALL income, including income from sources outside California.
Nonresidents of California - Taxed only on income from California sources.
Part-year residents of California - Taxed on all income received while a resident and only on income from California sources while a nonresident.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by tom331

Yes. I was living at SCal and moved to Texas in early 80s. When avoiding tax becomes illegal? People exercise their right daily to avoid paying the tax by shopping on line; investing their money in 401K/Roth IRA; donating money to the charities; paying less property tax by downsizing or moving to lower property tax areas. Are they subjected to some sort of penalty from taking these legal activities?

The FTB will consider not paying taxes on any income received while resident in California as tax avoidance, subject to penalties and interest. That has ZERO to do with the issues you are pointing to, just as not declaring income to the IRS is.

[Aquitaine]

scm53 is correct.

I am in the reverse situation: half of our clients are in California, but I am not, and so even though they are paying us we do not owe CA state tax since we do not have a nexus in California and I don't live there.

The flip side of that is that, when for a couple years I lived in PA, even though I had no clients in PA, I owed PA state income tax on all our revenue from other states because of where I was when we earned it.

[tom331]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

scm53 is correct.

I am in the reverse situation: half of our clients are in California, but I am not, and so even though they are paying us we do not owe CA state tax since we do not have a nexus in California and I don't live there.

The flip side of that is that, when for a couple years I lived in PA, even though I had no clients in PA, I owed PA state income tax on all our revenue from other states because of where I was when we earned it.

If scm53 is correct, you should own California state income tax for the few years you was not living in California, but receiving income from your california clients. It states that none resident need to report the income from California source. I left california long time ago and visited it many times since I left. But, I don't realize the state agent become so ruthlessly trying to get tax revenue from someone from other states.

I might need to reconsider my retirement plan from moving to San Diego part time. I don't want to pay California state income tax for the investment income from Texas. My backup plan of moving to Seattle might be OK because there is no state income tax in Washington.

I appreciate the information from scm53 and Aquitaine.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Anyone who wants to make the case about suburban SD not being considerably more expensive than suburban Austin needs look no further than this example from my old neighborhood of Bonita. 4/2, 1900 sq. ft, built in 1970, dated everything - kitchen, baths, all of it. $525K. To most destinations south of I 8 will be a thirty minute commute. Now draw a thirty minute circle around downtown Austin and see what you get for $525K. It won't be that.

Apples to apples comparisons seem to put houses in San Diego about 60% more expensive for the same size/bedrooms.

Home Listing Report 2014 » Coldwell Banker Blue Matter

[mark311]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Apples to apples comparisons seem to put houses in San Diego about 60% more expensive for the same size/bedrooms.

I'd say that's probably about right. You could pick up the city of Cedar Park and drop it into San Marcos, CA (North County San Diego) without really knowing that you moved it in a lot of ways other than the mountains in the horizon. I'd say that a $400K house in Cedar Park would be about $640K in San Marcos, CA. Both would feed into great public schools, similarly aged/sized, etc.

Edit: I think one of the real differences is that San Diego just doesn't have the "entry level" housing like the Austin area does. You can still get a starter house here out in Leander for pretty cheap with low crime and acceptable schools. You have to drive really far out to find anything sub $250K for a single family home in the San Diego area (you basically have to go North East to the Inland Empire).

[austin-steve]

I think the gist of all of the who/when/what taxes are paid, whether income, property, sales, etc., is that it's difficult pin down a true number on the TCL (Total Cost of Living) of a particular location/lifestyle, either full or part time.

Thus, when trying to decide "can I retire yet?" and the answer being, as it is for me, "yes, but not in Austin", I (and those like me) have to be meticulous and scrupulous in our cost of living assessment of what we believe to be a "cheaper" locale with acceptable lifestyle.

I'll add that it isn't cost alone that will drive me away. It's cost on top of "lifestyle overhead", namely traffic and the less identifiable/describable feeling that it's just become "too much" going on for my taste. Austin is no longer laid back and chill. It's frenetic. That's not to say I don't still love Austin and much that the growth has brought, but the Pros and Cons list is tilting Cons now, and I don't see a reversal of that on the horizon at the current pace of change.

Steve

[Rock Climber]

Northwest Arkansas and Fayetteville is one magnet.

There is more than a handful of ex-Austin people up here in Northwest Arkansas. Specifically in Fayetteville. There are definitely some similarities between Northwest Arkansas and the Texas Hill country. Fayetteville has the college town thing down pat. It is highly underrated in our opinion. Hills, trees, springs, clear streams and lakes. We have the local co-op, and Whole Foods is under construction. There's even a Chuy's a few miles up the road now.

[Rock Climber]

I don't know if anybody from Austin relocates to down in Little Rock, but as someone who spent most of my life in Austin, and who has only visited Little Rock, I'll say there are similarities, at least to the landscape and relative size of the cities.

The riverfront in Little Rock reminds me a bit of town lake, and there are great hills and landscape to the west.

We are happily in Fayetteville for the time being but recently traveled down to Little Rock and I left really impressed. The downtown area is buzzing with new activity. They have a beautiful waterfront, a presidential library and lots of local/small businesses, breweries, etc. It lacks the college town vibe, but there seemed to be lots of young people there. If you could combine Fayetteville with Little Rock, you'd have Austin all over again.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by mark311

I'd say that's probably about right. You could pick up the city of Cedar Park and drop it into San Marcos, CA (North County San Diego) without really knowing that you moved it in a lot of ways other than the mountains in the horizon. I'd say that a $400K house in Cedar Park would be about $640K in San Marcos, CA. Both would feed into great public schools, similarly aged/sized, etc.

Edit: I think one of the real differences is that San Diego just doesn't have the "entry level" housing like the Austin area does. You can still get a starter house here out in Leander for pretty cheap with low crime and acceptable schools. You have to drive really far out to find anything sub $250K for a single family home in the San Diego area (you basically have to go North East to the Inland Empire).

You can get a 2,500+ sf house in San Marcos for the mid 500K's. I'll assume a similar sized house in Cedar Park could be $375k, although now that I look at Redfin there are quite a few above $400k. PITI on that $550k house in San Marcos which includes $200/mo HOA dues is $2915/mo with 20% down.

On the $375k house in Cedar Park it would be $2,318/mo. with $50/mo HOAs.

So a $600 monthly difference. One has to ask if that extra money is worth it to live in San Marcos. Add in higher utility costs in Texas and the difference is even less, but let's just say gas costs may offset some that and leave it at $600/mo more to live in San Marcos. Yes, there will be income taxes, but that variable will vary significantly per person.

Salaries in CA were higher than Dallas or Austin, but the gap is narrrowing as more people are moving from other large cities and bringing their salary with them to Dallas or Austin. I know we still pay people right out of college 15% less in Texas than in CA and on average people that have been in CA for some time make more than people in Texas at many companies, excluding Houston, so sure you may pay 7-10% on state income taxes but more than make up for it with a higher salary.

Then think 5-10 years in the future, and the $375k house in Cedar Park is now $500k. At 2.3% property tax (not sure what it is in Cedar Park), you have $958/mo in property taxes compared to not much more than the $550/mo you started paying in San Marcos on the $550k house.

Again, every situation is different, but most people don't need to buy as large of a house in CA because there is more time spent outside on average.