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.
The rate is higher, but no Mello Roos and cost is lower, so the actual dollar amount is usually similar or lower than in CA. I know I owned in both States. Plus no State income tax.
The rate is higher, but no Mello Roos and cost is lower, so the actual dollar amount is usually similar or lower than in CA. I know I owned in both States. Plus no State income tax.
Mello Roos is not universal in California. We have purchased 5 new homes in California in 1970, 1972, 1985, 2000, and 2002. These homes were in Southern California and The SF Bay area. We have never paid Mello Roos or any similar fees on any of our homes.
Mello Roos is not universal in California. We have purchased 5 new homes in California in 1970, 1972, 1985, 2000, and 2002. These homes were in Southern California and The SF Bay area. We have never paid Mello Roos or any similar fees on any of our homes.
True and I bought a home in 2000 in the IE and the taxes were the same dollar amount as the home I sold in TX. Now the CA home was bigger, but on a 7000 sq ft lot. The TX home was nice sized and had a large swimming pool a large barn and out buildings and 3.5 acres and ... 5 minutes from town. Property taxes in actual dollars were the same but the home in TX sold in 2000 for $70,000.00 less than I paid for the CA home. You get more for your dollar in TX and similar actual property taxes in dollars and no State income tax. My TX home in SoCal in a similar location would at the very least, say in a similar area of SoCal like Valencia or even Valley Center, would be over $1,000,000.00 and in OC wayyyyy beyond that.
property tax rate is about 2% we pay about 800 bucks less in texas than we did in so calif - plus not income tax - that saves thousands of dollars
housing prices are alot lower naturally in Texas we downsized from 2600 sq ft to 2000 but neighbors who just sold at 2800 sq with pool and 1 acre went for 350k
Lol. No they’re not. I have a few friends who moved to Texas. They all took a paycut to move there. I had two tenants move from Texas to SoCal and they all had a 30/35% higher income here than Texas.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Texas. I’m not sure if I would want to move there.
Although I don't agree that people are leaving CA in droves, I think we should be clear on the rest of your comment. If they only increased their salary by 30/35% moving from Texas to SoCal, they are doing much worse financially than they were. Obviously it depends on where you were living, but I can assure you that if it was any Metropolitan area, they would have been better off financially staying in Texas. A friend of mine moved from San Francisco to Austin and took a 30% pay cut (going from $100k to $70k). It was like he just got a raise from his income of $100k to $136k (based on a $70k job in Austin). Most people would love to get a raise like that. Taken in the other direction, they would only need an income of $56k in Austin to be living like someone at $100k in San Francisco. A 35% raise moving to California only gets them to roughly $76k.
Using your example, someone that earns $100k in Austin would need to earn $148k in LA, but the 35% raise only gets them to $135k.
Although I don't agree that people are leaving CA in droves, I think we should be clear on the rest of your comment. If they only increased their salary by 30/35% moving from Texas to SoCal, they are doing much worse financially than they were. Obviously it depends on where you were living, but I can assure you that if it was any Metropolitan area, they would have been better off financially staying in Texas. A friend of mine moved from San Francisco to Austin and took a 30% pay cut (going from $100k to $70k). It was like he just got a raise from his income of $100k to $136k (based on a $70k job in Austin). Most people would love to get a raise like that. Taken in the other direction, they would only need an income of $56k in Austin to be living like someone at $100k in San Francisco. A 35% raise moving to California only gets them to roughly $76k.
Using your example, someone that earns $100k in Austin would need to earn $148k in LA, but the 35% raise only gets them to $135k.
Quite honestly, I think most are quibbling about things which we already know and obvious to the masses.
1. Living anywhere near coastal California metros and even their outer boundries (LA, OC, SD, SF) are more expensive than most other states.
2. There are parts of CA that are more affordable and nice by many standards. These includes areas further inland near the Sierra foothills (Sacramento, Grass Valley, Chico, etc...)
3. California offers more sought after ammenities combined than most other states can provide:
- Better weather
- Greater geographic diversity: extensive beaches, mountains, deserts, redwood forests, valleys (Yosemite, Kings Canyon)
- More year outdoor opportunties based upon above. Skiing, surfing, hiking, biking, etc...
4. Extensive professional opportunities which can accelerate one's career. And pay will be higher in places like SF. But in most cases it will not offset the higher COL. The trade-off is rapid advancement which could eventually be leveraged anywhere. So it can be a great place to launch or expand one's career.
5. CA isn't perfect and it has it's share of problems like every other state. It is just publicized more because it has the greatest population, the largest economy along with all of the above.
The OP's position was that if all these things aren't really needed, desired or could be lived without then another state 'may' be a good fit. It's also obvious that 'some' have left CA and are relatively happy in their new, more affordable home. While in other cases they would like to return if possible like we did from CO. It simply boils down to different strokes for different folks with no one size or state fitting all.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 11-02-2018 at 01:20 PM..
Quite honestly, I think most are quibbling about things which we are really known and obvious to the masses.
1. Living anywhere near coastal California metros and even their outer boundries (LA, OC, SD, SF) are more expensive than most other states.
2. There are parts of CA that are more affordable and nice by many standards. These includes areas further inland near the Sierra foothills (Sacramento, Grass Valley, Chico, etc...)
3. California offers more sought after ammenities combined than most other states can provide:
- Better weather
- Greater geographic diversity: extensive beaches, mountains, deserts, redwood forests, valleys (Yosemite, Kings Canyon)
- More year outdoor opportunties based upon above. Skiing, surfing, hiking, biking, etc...
4. Extensive professional opportunities which can accelerate one's career. And pay will be higher in places like SF. But in most cases it will not offset the higher COL. The trade-off is rapid advancement which could eventually be leveraged anywhere. So it can be a great place to launch or expand one's career.
5. CA isn't perfect and it has it's share of problems like every other state. It is just publicized more because it is the most populous state and has all of the above.
The OP's position was that if all these things aren't really needed, desired or could be lived without then another state 'may' be a good fit. It's also obvious that 'some' have left CA and are relatively happy in their new, more affordable home. While in other cases they would like to return if possible like we did from CO. It simply boils down to different strokes for different folks with no one size or state fitting all.
Derek
Actually I'm not quibbling at all. My comment (since you quoted me) was specifically in relation to the comment made by Electrician4you which implied that someone made out better on a financial basis by getting an increase in pay to an area where the COL difference was somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50% higher, so no need to go into the rest of your comment. Had you referenced post #36, you would see I am not debating why someone stays or leaves California (see below). Everyone has their reasons (no need for anyone to bash in either direction, although these kinds of threads always end up being that way....not saying you were bashing but felt you needed some clarification on my comment).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII
Everyone has reasons for staying or leaving. Just to say people are bashers because their reasons don't align with yours is pretty close minded. People should live were they're comfortable and they need to be the one that defines what that means. Could be family/friends or weather. Could also mean financial independence. I think people should calm down and realize that there are valid points to both sides.
Last edited by JJonesIII; 11-02-2018 at 01:29 PM..
Actually I'm not quibbling at all. My comment (since you quoted me) was specifically in relation to the comment made by Electrician4you which implied that someone made out better on a financial basis by getting an increase in pay to an area where the COL difference was somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50%, so no need to go into the rest of your comment. Had you referenced post #36, you would see I am not debating why someone stays or leaves California (see below). Everyone has their reasons (no need for anyone to bash in either direction, although these kinds of threads always end up being that way....not saying you were bashing but felt you needed some clarification on my comment).
Ok, fair point. I do think this will also vary quite a bit. You've got people who've made their fortunes in CA even with it's high cost of living. But in that specific case you were mentioning a ~ 30% pay increase may not be enough to compensate for the higher COL. I would agree in some areas that will not be enough. There are probably 100s of examples of when it worked out better or not given the individual's financial situation. Sometimes going to the lower COL state works out better if they still get decent 'relative' pay, sometimes not especially if limited career growth opportunities. I think that has to be factored into the equation as well.
BTW, even though I quote you, I was speaking more generally about the threads direction and forum's tendancy to quibble over obvious things or common knowledge.
Truly never understood why "marijuana" is listed on the same level as sunshine, beaches, and mountains. Really? Why not say "beer?" or "Really good coffee?" If it is SO crucial to a positive quality of life, what does that say about a person seeking it out as a must for living?
I mean, I love Blake's Lottaburger, but it's not a key reason I stay in New Mexico. Nor would I move here from out of state for it.
There's a HUGE difference between beer/burgers and cannabis - obviously being that the latter is not legal in every state, which is important to consider for those who use it (whether for medical and/or recreational purposes). So all it "says" about a person is that they don't like getting arrested for a plant.
I would certainly be concerned about moving to a state where it wasn't legal, since I've been using it for both medical and recreational purposes for many many years... and I don't want to be forced to quit, or risk criminal charges over this. One of my friends moved to Idaho, continued using it, and ended up in JAIL over simple possession. Uhhh, no thanks.
Quite honestly, I think most are quibbling about things which we already know and obvious to the masses.
1. Living anywhere near coastal California metros and even their outer boundries (LA, OC, SD, SF) are more expensive than most other states.
2. There are parts of CA that are more affordable and nice by many standards. These includes areas further inland near the Sierra foothills (Sacramento, Grass Valley, Chico, etc...)
3. California offers more sought after ammenities combined than most other states can provide:
- Better weather
- Greater geographic diversity: extensive beaches, mountains, deserts, redwood forests, valleys (Yosemite, Kings Canyon)
- More year outdoor opportunties based upon above. Skiing, surfing, hiking, biking, etc...
4. Extensive professional opportunities which can accelerate one's career. And pay will be higher in places like SF. But in most cases it will not offset the higher COL. The trade-off is rapid advancement which could eventually be leveraged anywhere. So it can be a great place to launch or expand one's career.
5. CA isn't perfect and it has it's share of problems like every other state. It is just publicized more because it has the greatest population, the largest economy along with all of the above.
The OP's position was that if all these things aren't really needed, desired or could be lived without then another state 'may' be a good fit. It's also obvious that 'some' have left CA and are relatively happy in their new, more affordable home. While in other cases they would like to return if possible like we did from CO. It simply boils down to different strokes for different folks with no one size or state fitting all.
Derek
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
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.
