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.
Yes, $65k salary is low income in the metropolitan parts of CA! Ding! Ding! Ding! That's why the study ALWAYS has a disclaimer that CA has high poverty "adjusted for cost of living"!!! Because CA is so rich, $65k is considered low income. Fact: a $65k salary for a single person qualifies that person for the affordable housing program in San Francisco.
I guess you have no concept of average - and I need to spell it out for you. The Average income in California is under $64K, the average in Los Angeles is under $52k - in Texas it is just over $59K, those are facts reported by US Census Data. Take out a few very high income cities and the average in California drops a lot. Are you trying to say that Los Angeles is not a metropolitan area and cheaper than Texas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Next, I have no clue where you got your property tax rates for CA and TX, and they are not close to reality. CA's prop tax rate is 1%, with a max increase of 2% per year. TX's property tax rate is between 2 to 3%, with assessment every 1 to 3 years. Which means TX property tax is about 2X to 3 times more than CA; plus TX has no Prop 13 to put a cap on the property taxes. It can get reassessed every year and if your house value increases to $450k, then your prop tax will be $12,150. While my CA prop tax will be capped.
I gave the site where I got the property tax data from - I gave the actual figures for average property taxes and reported tax rates in TX (full link Texas Property Taxes By County - 2019 ) and CA (California Property Taxes By County - 2019), you are giving what you think they are, hypotheticals, not actual data. I also gave a link to the actual tax rates in San Diego which are well above 1%. The 1% is before things like bonds, mello roos and the like which can push it up significantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Also, your numbers makes no sense. NV's property tax is around 1%. You said if your house is in NV the property tax would be $300. What house in NV would only cost $30,000??? Do you live in a trailer?
Boy are you bad at reading or at least comprehension - "my similar sized house in NV is about $300/mo" - what part of per month do you not understand. Both CA and NV properties are over 4k sqft, the NV one is actually a little larger. You probably also don't know that NV has a prop 13 like cap - average NV property tax rate is 0.84% (Nevada Property Taxes By County - 2019).
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
No. CA is NOT a few rich and many poor - It is: A LOT of Rich and A LOT of low income. If there are only a few rich then there would be no problem. A few rich guy cannot possibly drive up the cost of living to such level. You said you went to a few 3rd world country. Well, which of those country do you see $3,000 average rent for a one-bedroom??? You don't get that expensive by having just a few rich guy. The more you talk, the more you show you have no grasp of the issue.
In what world does a single city compare to a country or even a state - you bias your stats by using different measures - a city like SF is not equivalent to a state and not to a country. The average income in CA is less than $64K, the average rent is less than $1500. The median rent for a 1br in SF is quite a bit less than the average, a few very high rents push the average up significantly. The average salary in SF is $87,701, they cannot afford the average rent on a 1 bedroom that would be well over half of their take home pay. The median income needed to rent in SF is almost double the median income actually paid in SF. Most must commute long distances/time because they can't afford it, CA is home to the most "super commuters" because of this issue https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/...area-commutes/ . The more you talk the more you show that YOU have no grasp of the issue.
The dems in CA are extremely incompetent. You might as well elect dogs and cats. They don't care about using logic and reason to help raise the quality of life here in CA. The dems in CA have 2 agendas 1.) To get reelected (garner more votes) and 2. Push back against President Trump on everything. They don't give one crap about serving the people they've sworn to serve and who elected them. They broke their sworn promises to serve the people who elected them into office.
It's not fascism to arrest them and put them up on trial for their crimes. It's a public service.
Deflection noted.
The poster I was quoting was advocating for the National Guard to arrest every Democrat.
California Gov. Newsom asks Trump to help with homelessness crisis
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is asking the Trump administration to issue housing vouchers to help low-income families in order to combat the state's growing homeless issue.
I guess you have no concept of average - and I need to spell it out for you. The Average income in California is under $64K, the average in Los Angeles is under $52k - in Texas it is just over $59K, those are facts reported by US Census Data. Take out a few very high income cities and the average in California drops a lot. Are you trying to say that Los Angeles is not a metropolitan area and cheaper than Texas?
What are you trying to argue? The average is just the average, it can be high, it can be low. The average income would be considered low in CA's metro. It's possible for the average to be below the threshold. The average itself doesn't mean much.
Maybe if it's HUD instead of me, you'll have an easier time accepting the reality:
Quote:
Six-figure salary now considered ‘low-income’ in SF, according to feds
“The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 5-year ACS median family income (MFI) estimates are used as the basis for calculating HUD’s” 2018 figures, according to the department’s published methodology. According to fiscal year 2018 figures, “low income” status in San Francisco begins at $82,200/year for a single person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
I gave the site where I got the property tax data from - I gave the actual figures for average property taxes and reported tax rates in TX (full link Texas Property Taxes By County - 2019 ) and CA (California Property Taxes By County - 2019), you are giving what you think they are, hypotheticals, not actual data. I also gave a link to the actual tax rates in San Diego which are well above 1%. The 1% is before things like bonds, mello roos and the like which can push it up significantly.
You interpreted the number wrong. Homes that have been owned for many number of years in CA pay way below 1% of its real value - therefore it drives down the average; but it is irrelevant. We're talking about a family that just moves to TX vs the same family that buys in CA. We need to compare apples to apples. CA tax rate is 1%. TX tax rate is between 2-3%. That's the reality.
I don't know why you keep mentioning mello roos. It affects so little of the overall stock. It really only comes into play if you buy in a very new development, but no one is forcing you to buy there. There are so many other houses with no mello roos. You keep bringing up these irrelevant stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Boy are you bad at reading or at least comprehension - "my similar sized house in NV is about $300/mo" - what part of per month do you not understand. Both CA and NV properties are over 4k sqft, the NV one is actually a little larger. You probably also don't know that NV has a prop 13 like cap - average NV property tax rate is 0.84% (Nevada Property Taxes By County - 2019).
I am fully aware that NV has a similar law that caps the property tax rate. I'm confused why you keep bringing up this state that was not part of the discussion about property tax. More irrelevant stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
In what world does a single city compare to a country or even a state - you bias your stats by using different measures - a city like SF is not equivalent to a state and not to a country. The average income in CA is less than $64K, the average rent is less than $1500. The median rent for a 1br in SF is quite a bit less than the average, a few very high rents push the average up significantly. The average salary in SF is $87,701, they cannot afford the average rent on a 1 bedroom that would be well over half of their take home pay. The median income needed to rent in SF is almost double the median income actually paid in SF. Most must commute long distances/time because they can't afford it, CA is home to the most "super commuters" because of this issue https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/...area-commutes/ . The more you talk the more you show that YOU have no grasp of the issue.
-
You're the one who compared SF to a 3rd world country. Yes, indeed - "In what world does a single city compare to a country or even a state"????? Maybe you can answer your own question. LOL. SMH.
You're so over the map with this post that you actually contradicted your own argument. You said a few expensive rentals pushed the average price up - that the actual rent is much cheaper than the average (btw, I'm glad you understand this logic - that the average can be very different from the actual numbers on the ground. But you didn't apply it to your very first argument above.), implying that rentals are much cheaper and affordable than the average suggests. But in the very next sentence, you said all rentals are expensive and residents have to live far away and commute long distance despite making way above the CA average salary. I'd suggest you actually think it through before posting.
I'm also confused why you suddenly raised the issue of long commute - an issues that you just brought up out of the blue; but somehow it shows that I have no grasp of the issue. Mmmmm Ooookay.
Also you use CA data to justify your perception of SF. Those two are not always equal. You can't use the whole to justify part of the whole. It's a logical fallacy, but I don't expect you to listen to me.
.
What are you trying to argue? The average is just the average, it can be high, it can be low. The average income would be considered low in CA's metro. It's possible for the average to be below the threshold. The average itself doesn't mean much.
Maybe if it's HUD instead of me, you'll have an easier time accepting the reality:
Try to keep up - It was you that attempted to change the argument to SF - SF is NOT CA - and LA city has a LOWER income than TX and higher cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
You interpreted the number wrong. Homes that have been owned for many number of years in CA pay way below 1% of its real value - therefore it drives down the average; but it is irrelevant. We're talking about a family that just moves to TX vs the same family that buys in CA. We need to compare apples to apples. CA tax rate is 1%. TX tax rate is between 2-3%. That's the reality.
I don't know why you keep mentioning mello roos. It affects so little of the overall stock. It really only comes into play if you buy in a very new development, but no one is forcing you to buy there. There are so many other houses with no mello roos. You keep bringing up these irrelevant stuff.
I am fully aware that NV has a similar law that caps the property tax rate. I'm confused why you keep bringing up this state that was not part of the discussion about property tax. More irrelevant stuff.
I brought up actual figures that showed average TX property tax is LESS than in CA - you continue to use hypotheticals, not actual figures - apples to apples. Your original argument was that Income Tax in CA was offset by higher property tax in TX, it is not because TX property tax is actually lower so CA income tax is an additional expense above that in TX. Prop 13 does NOT help new buyer and mello roos CAN push new buyer property taxes to much higher % than TX at over 2%. Again, property tax NOT lower in CA for someone moving in. NV is NOT irrelevant because it is where many CA are choosing instead and again shows that CA income tax is NOT offset by property tax - try to keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
You're the one who compared SF to a 3rd world country. Yes, indeed - "In what world does a single city compare to a country or even a state"????? Maybe you can answer your own question. LOL. SMH.
GO back and look - I said the state of CA, you brought up SF with average 1 BR over $3k and then said show you a 3rd world country where that was the average - you don't know your own posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
You're so over the map with this post that you actually contradicted your own argument. You said a few expensive rentals pushed the average price up - that the actual rent is much cheaper than the average (btw, I'm glad you understand this logic - that the average can be very different from the actual numbers on the ground. But you didn't apply it to your very first argument above.), implying that rentals are much cheaper and affordable than the average suggests. But in the very next sentence, you said all rentals are expensive and residents have to live far away and commute long distance despite making way above the CA average salary. I'd suggest you actually think it through before posting.
I'm also confused why you suddenly raised the issue of long commute - an issues that you just brought up out of the blue; but somehow it shows that I have no grasp of the issue. Mmmmm Ooookay.
I was comparing CA, you brought up SF - go back and read, I guess you forgot.
Commute shows how unaffordable the place is - it shows that you have no grasp of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Also you use CA data to justify your perception of SF. Those two are not always equal. You can't use the whole to justify part of the whole. It's a logical fallacy, but I don't expect you to listen to me.
.
Again - the argument was CA, NOT SF - that is your fallacy. I never expressed my perception of SF other than its affordability. The argument was about CA not being less expensive than where they are moving to - try to keep up.
You seem to be so fixated on San Francisco that you forgot the original argument that CA was as affordable as TX, it is not.
Try to keep up - It was you that attempted to change the argument to SF - SF is NOT CA - and LA city has a LOWER income than TX and higher cost.
I didn't. I was talking about CA metro. You then followed that argument with income in SF and LA. I thought we were on the same page. But now I don't know what your point is. LA has a lower income and higher cost than TX proves what exactly??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
I brought up actual figures that showed average TX property tax is LESS than in CA - you continue to use hypotheticals, not actual figures - apples to apples. Your original argument was that Income Tax in CA was offset by higher property tax in TX, it is not because TX property tax is actually lower so CA income tax is an additional expense above that in TX. Prop 13 does NOT help new buyer and mello roos CAN push new buyer property taxes to much higher % than TX at over 2%. Again, property tax NOT lower in CA for someone moving in. NV is NOT irrelevant because it is where many CA are choosing instead and again shows that CA income tax is NOT offset by property tax - try to keep up.
What do you mean "property tax NOT lower in CA for someone moving in"?? Are you talking about the first year only??? I certainly wasn't. I was referring to people who actually MOVED to a city, which means they could be living there for 10, 20, 30 years. The cost for property tax adds up without Prop 13 protection.
And even in the first year. CA taxes is cheaper.
If I buy a house in CA for $650k and you buy a similar house in Dallas for $300k. My property tax is $6,500/yr. Your property tax is $8,100/yr. Because CA property tax is 1% and Dallas prop tax is 2.7%. Over a decade, you would pay roughly $30k-$40k more with that TX house than the CA house, taking reassessment into account. But even in the first year, the TX buyer is paying $1,600 more than the CA buyer.
If someone is making $65k, taxable income is around $40k after all the deduction and whatnot. So the CA state tax would have been $2,400. The person saves this amount by moving to TX and assuming he/she get a job with exactly the same pay.
Now, also take into account the much higher property insurance and the higher car insurance. Whatever the person saves on state income tax has gone to pay these higher prop tax and insurance. That's my point. I hope you get it now.
In all of my decades in CA, I never ever had to deal with Mello Roos. It is only limited to certain new development. Is SD littered with Mello Roos???? Is that why you kept bringing it up? Because in SF, Sacramento, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Fremont, and San Jose; this is not a thing. Nada. And no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to buy houses with Mello Roos. I suspect you are dwelling on this one outlier because otherwise your argument completely falls apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
GO back and look - I said the state of CA, you brought up SF with average 1 BR over $3k and then said show you a 3rd world country where that was the average - you don't know your own posts.
I was comparing CA, you brought up SF - go back and read, I guess you forgot.
I was referring to this quote by you:
Quote:
I think you don't understand 3rd world, many very poor and a few rich, that is what CA is becoming. BTW - I have been to more than a few 3rd world countries.
And this quote:
Quote:
In what world does a single city compare to a country or even a state
I guess I could have worded it more clearly. What I meant was - you compared a state (CA) to a country (3rd world), but you said I can't compare a city to a state; when what you were accusing me of is doing is very similar to what you did.
At any rate, I was not comparing a city to a state. I was pointing out that parts of CA is very expensive. Especially the parts where lots of rich people lives. You are trying to claim that CA only has a few rich people in it, and I said that is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Commute shows how unaffordable the place is - it shows that you have no grasp of the issue.
Did I in any part of my post say that CA is affordable?????????? In fact, I repeatedly said the contrary. You bring this out-of-left-field argument and then somehow that shows I have no grasp of the issue when I haven't even said one peep about it. That's just odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Again - the argument was CA, NOT SF - that is your fallacy. I never expressed my perception of SF other than its affordability. The argument was about CA not being less expensive than where they are moving to - try to keep up.
You seem to be so fixated on San Francisco that you forgot the original argument that CA was as affordable as TX, it is not.
No one in this thread has EVER claimed that CA is as affordable as TX.
.
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.
