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.
Baloney. No State pays more than they get back. If that was the case we wouldn't have trillion dollar deficits year after year. I am guessing you are using a very narrow definition of federal money flowing to CA. Do you dial in the military spending, payrolls and benefits for federal employees, upkeep of federal properties, Etc. Etc?
The fact that you think that, shows me you are poor at math and logic. That's like saying, "if Dad really makes mid 6-figure, why don't we have enough to buy grocery?" Er, it's because you can ALWAYS spend more than you earn, no matter how much you earn.
You know who said CA is a donor state?? A Republican. The former CA governor Arnold cited the following study that shows CA only receives $0.78 for every dollar it gives to the Fed. Notice the top of the list are filled with red states who takes more then they give, and the bottom is filled with blue states who gives more than they take.
I was responding to a poster that said it was liberal policies that made 3 bedrooms in SF cost $4,000/month. It is capitalism that set such high prices in SF. It's supply and demand. There is high demand and little supply. The poster was also incorrect, a 3 bed would cost A LOT more than 4k/month. I think maybe 5-6k+/month depending on where and age. Anyway, I think the person I was responding needs to re-check their definition of liberal policies.
So like I said in my previous post, who is going to work all the jobs that keep the city running if we ship em all to flyover country? Relatively low earners are needed in the city too.
Then people will have to pay more for those jobs that "keep the city running" if they want the city to keep running.
(Though the real solution that wealthy cities like SF implement for this is expanded public transit and more parking for people driving in.)
It's because many people in poverty manages to move up the economic ladder and then their spots are filled by poor new arrivals, who then will eventually move away from poverty if they work hard.
In CA, the low-income is NOT static like the red states. In red states, the poor stay poor. In CA, they have a chance and many make the most of it. This is what people like you don't get.
.
You just make stuff up all the time and think everyone is going to believe it..
I was responding to a poster that said it was liberal policies that made 3 bedrooms in SF cost $4,000/month. It is capitalism that set such high prices in SF. It's supply and demand. There is high demand and little supply. The poster was also incorrect, a 3 bed would cost A LOT more than 4k/month. I think maybe 5-6k+/month depending on where and age. Anyway, I think the person I was responding needs to re-check their definition of liberal policies.
It's actually some "conservative" policies that contribute to it too. The property tax increase limits discourage people from selling, dramatically impacting the supply over time. Strict zoning policies (particularly in coastal cities) have also constricted the supply.
$4,000 a month for a three bedroom unit in a place like San Francisco is very typical. Some would even consider that a bargain.
It is grossly IGNORANT and MISINFORMED by saying that the vouchers are driving up rent. It is because the region is very affluent and housing is limited, not because of government.
.
lmao..Affluent and housing vouchers don't belong in the same sentence so which is it, are they affluent or poor? Can't be both.
It's actually some "conservative" policies that contribute to it too. The property tax increase limits discourage people from selling, dramatically impacting the supply over time. Strict zoning policies (particularly in coastal cities) have also constricted the supply.
How the **** does a limit on property taxes discourage people from selling? That shouldn't even be a consideration for selling, it's only a consideration for buying. If you are trying to say people won't sell their house because their taxes are cheap, then they didn't need to sell to begin with. Most people don't sell their homes just to sell them and keep bouncing around. They sell them out of necessity, like moving or upgrading.
It's actually some "conservative" policies that contribute to it too. The property tax increase limits discourage people from selling, dramatically impacting the supply over time. Strict zoning policies (particularly in coastal cities) have also constricted the supply.
Yes, strict land use policies, NIMBYism, etc also constrict supply. Prop 13, which limits property tax increases, may contribute but I do not see how??? One can transfer their property tax limit to a new home in a few counties if one is 55+ (I believe). The elderly or those that bot a house for 70k and now is worth 1.5 million will be able to transfer their tax basis if move locally. Or, it doesn't matter if they move out of state to a low prop tax area. Anyway, yes, these are more "conservative" policies.
Disband HUD. The whole scheme is immoral. In no way should someone in Kansas be forced to pay for the housing of another who chooses to live in CA (or anywhere else).
Exactly. People shouldn’t breed if they can’t afford to house them.
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.
