Texans actually pay more in taxes than Californians do? (Dallas: insurance, credit)

[done working]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

It's all dependent on the individual's circumstances.

Someone with a low income, but who owns a house with a high assessment, could very well pay more in Texas.

If you want to make decisions based on tax burden, you have to consider your own situation, not a clickbait media article.

a low income owner in Texas then would have a home valued 150k plus/minus - there no fracking way a house in Calif is anywhere near that value unless its owned by a 80 year old that never remodeled. I was born and raised there and bough my home in 82 for 159 k but remodeled it several times and now our property tax here in texas is 30% lower than the old calif house.

and any difference would be greatly offset by no income tax, utility taxes, fuel tax and car registration. As i stated before we are seeing a real life saving of almost 30% after 4 years living here in Texas.
When mandatory withdrawals in my IRA/SEPA accounts kick in it will be even bigger.

[lepoisson]

Texas is not a low tax state, by any means. Our sales tax rate is slightly higher than average and there are some random taxes on things like online services (Netflix) that a lot of other states don't charge. Property taxes are out of control. The only saving grace is no income tax, but this really only benefits rich people.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by lepoisson

Texas is not a low tax state, by any means. Our sales tax rate is slightly higher than average and there are some random taxes on things like online services (Netflix) that a lot of other states don't charge. Property taxes are out of control. The only saving grace is no income tax, but this really only benefits rich people.

Completely agree
and on top of that, we get a bunch of toll roads

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by lepoisson

Texas is not a low tax state, by any means. Our sales tax rate is slightly higher than average and there are some random taxes on things like online services (Netflix) that a lot of other states don't charge. Property taxes are out of control. The only saving grace is no income tax, but this really only benefits rich people.

More than half of the states charge taxes on online streaming services (Netflix). Plus a lot of other states charge taxes on things Texas does not (e.g. groceries, utilities . . . )

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by done working

a low income owner in Texas then would have a home valued 150k plus/minus - there no fracking way a house in Calif is anywhere near that value unless its owned by a 80 year old that never remodeled.....

Well, there are an awful lot of retired people in places like University Park and Lakewood with houses valued at $700k and little income. Those people are paying a lot of property tax.

[lepoisson]

Originally Posted by oil capital

More than half of the states charge taxes on online streaming services (Netflix). Plus a lot of other states charge taxes on things Texas does not (e.g. groceries, utilities . . . )

I think no matter what, the tax man is going to get you. From what I remember reading, Texas is somewhere in the middle on a list of states overall tax burden which includes things like sales tax, income tax, property tax, and vehicle taxes.

A couple other things that add up cost that aren't necessarily tax related: Most things in Texas are really spread out so you end up driving more which means more money spent on gas. In Chicago I filled up my car once a month and here it's once a week. Car insurance rates here are astronomical. My electric bill is far more expensive here than in other states I've lived because the AC has to run much more often.

[done working]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

Well, there are an awful lot of retired people in places like University Park and Lakewood with houses valued at $700k and little income. Those people are paying a lot of property tax.

Households in University Park, TX have a median annual income of $247,716, which is more than the median annual income of $64,994 across the entire United .
Households in Lakewood Village, TX have a median annual income of $108,333, which is more than the median annual income of $65,712 across the entire United ...

Not many it seems.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

Well, there are an awful lot of retired people in places like University Park and Lakewood with houses valued at $700k and little income. Those people are paying a lot of property tax.

The increased deductions on property tax when you turn 65, as well as the freezing of the school tax, make property taxes quite reasonable - especially over time as other taxes go up, but school taxes (2/3 of property taxes in many places) stay the same. As we approach retirement, we have taken a pretty good look at some other states and the property taxes in Texas do not really come out bad at all.

[tstone]

Not sure I believe this article, but doesn't CA lock your property taxes to your home value when you bought it? While in TX it can rise up to 10% every year if you homestead. That would be a huge factor for people in CA who have lived there a long time, and sort of acts as a trap while keeping newcomers at bay. Where the system in TX is the opposite- it is more welcoming to newcomers but will run off people who can't keep up. And it's not really ideal to retirees, unless you want to live in the sticks.

Whatever the case the two states have a lot of the same issues and problems. We are just 20 years behind...

[EDS_]

I happened to be in Eastern CA a couple of weeks ago...........and paid $102.88 for 15.83 gallons of 87 octane ($6.49gal I took a pic so I know that is correct/IIRC 91 octane was maybe $.45 more and diesel was over $7).


A couple of reasons why the OP's linked info is nothing but left-wing propaganda.

1. The delta between CA v. TX fuel prices is about more than state gas taxes (per gas.....CA ~ $.53 per gallon, TX $.20 per gallon). But the fact is high fuel prices in CA due to taxes, regulations, near refusal to drill and increase refining yield a crushing regressive tax on the poor and especially the working poor and lower middle classes. Members of these cadres trend to dive a lot for work related various reasons.*


2. Regulation costs and tax costs are baked into prices over time (see the gas example above) the poor, working poor and lower middle classes are once again smoked by reg and tax costs per things like electricity, housing, food etc. etc.

2.1. For any doubters think about any fairly large or large city or even country.......the higher taxes and fees the more everything costs making local dollars/currency worth less in these areas. This data is a little stale it hasn't been reworked since before covid but the value of $1 in national buying power terms at median income spending habits is/was worth ~$0.65 in NY (state not NYC) and somewhere around $0.72 in CA, Texas about $0.98. All of that is per C2ER economic research out of Virginia they will have new like values out leter this year.....it'll be worse for NY and CA almost certainly.


*In the economic weeds for a second there is a decent argument that firms and businesses lacking pricing power cannot raise prices enough in the face to net new tax and regulation costs in the short term these new costs......in effect they must either go broke or wait until close competitors raise prices to offset the new costs. There is really no decent argument I've read that net new reg and tax costs are anything but passed on in the medium and longer term and of course bigger firms with pricing power adjust prices and pass though new fees and taxes almost immediately.

__________________


Back to C2ER......using its city by city COL data and tax info. I've worked out true cost of living calculations for workers thinking about moving, mostly people educated and working in NOCAL and thinking about transfers to TX, FL, OK, NC and a few others. Out of nearly 200 calculations exactly 1 person/family was significantly better off financially staying in CA. and it was something of an oddball situation, maybe 30 were so close I'd call each one a push, the rest were pretty clear to very clear financial wins for the new state/city. And in nearly every case commute times could be cut sometimes by hours per day. My fav. was a guy who drove to parking lot got an a ferry into SF then walked to his office and did the reverse every afternoon the yield was a commute that took between 2.5 and 3 hours total every day. He swapped that for a commute he can walk in a few minutes.