People are not leaving CA due to taxes and regulation. (San Francisco: real estate, house)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by DenaDude

Because it would explain this phenomenon you're so confused by.

So what will "historical median income compared to median home price" prove? Are you saying it proves that taxes and regulation aren't making California more affordable?

It's funny when people unwittingly help the point of people they are trying to disprove.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Plus to most people "Taxes" covers all the "Fees" as well. The use of "Fee
is just away around the requirement for, I believe, a 66% vote in favor to raise a tax.

Tax or Fee it still comes out of your pocket and is a ... tax by another name.

I'm glad some people get it.

It's baffling that some people don't.

When people are paying $250 to register a new Toyota Corolla, they don't realize that by all definitions and intent (most important according to James Comey), that's a tax.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Well, if you're that broke, you can't afford to move to Armpit, Texas. lol.

I doubt anyone is leaving California in droves. I have a low income and I can pay rent here.

Well not everyone can stomach living with multiple room mates in the same apartment. Maybe if they are 18 and a freshmen in college, but certainly not 38, and trying to live like an actual adult.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I know people that left the state. Most left when they sold high priced homes and bought lower priced homes somewhere else. We have close friends that left California for Tennessee. They sold a home in the LA area and moved to a beautiful newer home in Tennessee. Interestingly the husband still works in LA for the Fire Department and when he retires in 5 years he will leave for good. It works for him because he has so many days on and then so many days off.

When my parents cashed out 13 years ago, five of their 8 kids ended up following them to Arizona. Of those five one cashed out and moved, Another bought a new home but rented out their California home, which was not so much a stretch as her and her husband have other rentals. Homes are so much cheaper in Arizona then here on the coast.

I have seen people cash out and stay though. One of my coworkers is retiring this week. Him and his wife had owned a large 5 bedroom home with a pool. They sold it a year ago and moved to a 2 bedroom town house in a gated community. More of a down size than anything else and it works for them because they do not want to maintain the outside of the home or the pool anymore. The community they moved to has its own pool. On top of that they ended up sticking a lot of money into savings as the new home cost so much less than the one they sold.

Another thing around here is people moving to lower prices cities more inland while they continue to work on the coast. One of our nurses owns a home in Bakersfield. She rents a room here and works her 3 days a week. then heads back home to be with her husband and kids. We have another guy in our IS department that does the same. Bakersfield is an hour and 45 minutes from here. The guy in IS works from home three days a week.

Other than that I don't know people leaving in droves.

[momomanno]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Study finds that most people leave due to having low income. They can't afford to live here. So they move to cheaper states. Most who leave have household incomes of less than $50,000 and do not have a college education.

So much for the idea that the rich and productive are the ones who leave.

The site did not let me copy and paste so read the article here:

High Housing Costs Are Driving Californians Out in Droves - Curbed LA

That's a pretty amusing article. Here's what it says.

1) People who move out of California are generally poor and do so because housing is so expensive.

2) Later in the article, it makes a point to state that "California has an employment boom" with "great employment opportunities for all kinds of workers."

Those statements are incompatible with reality, since at the very least you'd have to say that clearly California does not have great employment opportunities for the low-skilled, if you believe the rest of it. The source for all of the information is Beacon Economics, a consulting firm that works with California government agencies, so there's your first clue about their motivations.

Secondly, it's odd that California -- not just Los Angeles or San Francisco, but the whole state -- is claimed to have both a lack of affordable housing AND a lack of construction. That's basically impossible, economically ...unless the government creates policies that lead to that situation.

Thirdly, the article has a lot of charts that they paste up, but oddly they don't examine the charts. If you look at where Californians migrate to, it's a mix although Texas is #1. If you look at where people are coming from, it's a lot of liberal blue states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois. So it's strange because people can't make it in blue states in the Northeast or blue states in the Midwest or blue states in the West, but they can make it in Texas? Maybe those states should ask Texas how to solve their problem.

Fourth, it looks like California's chief export is the poor. So why is that? I thought liberal states were the best at taking care of the poor.

Fifth, if either you or Beacon Economics think that businesses and industry aren't leaving California, you're both wrong.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I'm glad some people get it.

It's baffling that some people don't.

When people are paying $250 to register a new Toyota Corolla, they don't realize that by all definitions and intent (most important according to James Comey), that's a tax.

True it is a tax. I was always under the impression that the money was used to pay for the road repairs. For example on the east coast they have toll roads that maintain the roads where we do not have those normally. I know the LA, Orange county area has some toll roads but that is not something you have to drive on to get around. So what I am wondering is the extra money a tax for the roads or not?

[DenaDude]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

So what will "historical median income compared to median home price" prove? Are you saying it proves that taxes and regulation aren't making California more affordable?

It's funny when people unwittingly help the point of people they are trying to disprove.

What exactly am I trying to disprove?


Also, lol @ the fact you can't even follow my point. It's really not very complicated.

[momomanno]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

So what I am wondering is the extra money a tax for the roads or not?

You best bet in life is to not ask that question at all. If you do, you're just asking for someone to lie to you. I'm from New Jersey and there's a very long thread in that forum about the same question, since New Jersey is facing a steep increase in gas tax right now, ostensibly for "roads and bridges." The fact is that once the government collects money from you, you might as well just assume it's all going into a "general fund," regardless of what they tell you. Even in the best case scenario, where a toll increase is actually for roads, it could be for the pensions of the construction union working on the roads. Or, even better, let's say the toll increase raises $3 billion. Then that allows people to offload $3 billion from the infrastructure budget to other things, making it a net wash AND they didn't lie to you. That's win-win!

That's why each state spends billions on "roads and bridges" and yet, oddly, you keep hearing about our "crumbling roads and bridges." With the amount spent on them, you should be driving on gold streets. There is a general knowledge, however, that the public will never oppose a fee for "roads and bridges" because it affects them directly. So you just waste a ton of money and then just go "do you want to die when a bridge collapses? No? Then you should want to give me more."

So, in other words, don't ask.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by DenaDude

What exactly am I trying to disprove?


Also, lol @ the fact you can't even follow my point. It's really not very complicated.

That's my point, you're actually proving me right.

Thanks!

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

True it is a tax. I was always under the impression that the money was used to pay for the road repairs. For example on the east coast they have toll roads that maintain the roads where we do not have those normally. I know the LA, Orange county area has some toll roads but that is not something you have to drive on to get around. So what I am wondering is the extra money a tax for the roads or not?

The way the current assembly and senate work, it can be used for anything, anytime for any reason. Remember accounting ethics (or any ethics at all) don't apply in California politics.