Texans actually pay more in taxes than Californians do? (Dallas: apartment complex, rentals)

[NP78]

Originally Posted by done working

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.

He wasn't referring to Lakewood Village, just FYI. That's a small place on Lake Lewisville.

Lakewood is a neighborhood within the City of Dallas.

[NP78]

Originally Posted by lepoisson

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.

Almost any study you look at would indicate average commute times in Chicago are longer than DFW. Mileage traveled just slightly less. No real evidence that your claim is representative of others experiences.

[supfromthesite]

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.

For this reason texas is a good state to work in but not necessarily to retire in… unless you have a ranch or a little land that is.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by NP78

Almost any study you look at would indicate average commute times in Chicago are longer than DFW. Mileage traveled just slightly less. No real evidence that your claim is representative of others experiences.

My wife went to school in Chicago; fwiw, they have an actual transportation system that allows you to avoid driving everywhere.

[Need4Camaro]

Yeah, that is the one thing I do have to give Chicago credit for, you don't need a car to live anywhere in the metro area. The transit there is very robust. I drove in the suburbs of Chicago but I rarely drove into Downtown, you always take a train to get Downtown. Driving through Chicago however is more of a pain than driving through DFW. That stated though, most commuters in Chicago still drive. Transit ridership is less than 30% of commuters last I checked, which is still high.. but doesn't account for a majority...and Chicago is runner up to NYC in terms of transit ridership (NYC was 50% of commuters last I checked)

I've been stuck in rush hour traffic jams along the Dan Ryan and also I-94 Northside @ 8pm - 9pm .. .. just crawling, no accidents, no events, just Chicago traffic for miles and miles. I pay tolls to avoid Chicago whenever I go that way now. Its just too much of a pain..

..One thing Chicago and DFW do have in common though is an abundance of reckless drivers and road rage...Chicago is a bit worse when it comes to impatient drivers as well.

[lepoisson]

Originally Posted by NP78

Almost any study you look at would indicate average commute times in Chicago are longer than DFW. Mileage traveled just slightly less. No real evidence that your claim is representative of others experiences.

It's because a lot of people choose to live in the suburbs and commute to downtown where most of the jobs are. That can be 20-30mi depending on where in the suburbs. But there are also trains to get you into downtown which a lot of people take advantage of. Also, traffic in Chicago is horrendous so it takes an hour to go 10mi.

I used to have a part-time gig in the west suburbs twice a week and that was a soul crushing drive. Bumper to bumper traffic going like 20mph for an hour. No idea how someone could make that drive every day.

Living in the city, I had only a 3mi commute and almost never needed to use my car. I could get there on the bus in 30mins or ride my bike in 20.

Regardless, there is so much wasted space in DFW that could be filled in to create more dense housing and shopping. It's crazy to me that they are developing in places like Anna and Melissa which are 45+ miles outside of downtown Dallas, but there is wasted space in places that are only 10mi from Dallas or in Dallas itself.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by lepoisson

It's because a lot of people choose to live in the suburbs and commute to downtown where most of the jobs are. That can be 20-30mi depending on where in the suburbs. But there are also trains to get you into downtown which a lot of people take advantage of. Also, traffic in Chicago is horrendous so it takes an hour to go 10mi.

I used to have a part-time gig in the west suburbs twice a week and that was a soul crushing drive. Bumper to bumper traffic going like 20mph for an hour. No idea how someone could make that drive every day.

Living in the city, I had only a 3mi commute and almost never needed to use my car. I could get there on the bus in 30mins or ride my bike in 20.

Regardless, there is so much wasted space in DFW that could be filled in to create more dense housing and shopping. It's crazy to me that they are developing in places like Anna and Melissa which are 45+ miles outside of downtown Dallas, but there is wasted space in places that are only 10mi from Dallas or in Dallas itself.

I just feel its a double edged sword. SFH's, your own private car, and your own lot is part of the American Dream. People are fighting to retain that, some willingly even paying $500k + for homes just for that. There's also the factor that suburban areas generally have better schools than intown counter-parts and are more feasible to raise a family in as well. There is still enough of a market to justify building this kind of development as large sprawling communities. Unfortunately, this leads to massive land-use problems.. ..there needs to be betters ways to accommodate both needs.

Also while its true that the city proper and intown areas of Chicago are far more dense than Dallas proper, the suburban foot print between DFW and Chicago are fairly identical in size and density numbers... For example:

Naperville IL is 3,708 PPSM
Plano is 3,630 PPSM / Frisco is 3,090.

Chicago is also a very sprawly city. Its MSA extends beyond the borders of Indiana and Wisconsin. Chicago MSA and DFW MSA are actually similarly sized as well...

Chicago MSA is 9,581 mi²
DFW MSA is 9,286 mi²

I think what makes DFW feel sprawly is it doesn't have as strongly defined of a Downtown as Chicago does.

[NP78]

Originally Posted by lepoisson

It's because a lot of people choose to live in the suburbs and commute to downtown where most of the jobs are. That can be 20-30mi depending on where in the suburbs. But there are also trains to get you into downtown which a lot of people take advantage of. Also, traffic in Chicago is horrendous so it takes an hour to go 10mi.

I used to have a part-time gig in the west suburbs twice a week and that was a soul crushing drive. Bumper to bumper traffic going like 20mph for an hour. No idea how someone could make that drive every day.

Living in the city, I had only a 3mi commute and almost never needed to use my car. I could get there on the bus in 30mins or ride my bike in 20.

Regardless, there is so much wasted space in DFW that could be filled in to create more dense housing and shopping. It's crazy to me that they are developing in places like Anna and Melissa which are 45+ miles outside of downtown Dallas, but there is wasted space in places that are only 10mi from Dallas or in Dallas itself.

Definitely agree with the last part. Lots of opportunity for in-fill and redevelopment.

[lepoisson]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I think what makes DFW feel sprawly is it doesn't have as strongly defined of a Downtown as Chicago does.

For me it's the open space near highways and not seeing anything from the highways. It's just underpasses, overpasses, and empty grass fields. And most of the shopping centers are right off the highway, so it feels like you never really get to see most parts of the city/town.

This is an example of what I'm talking about: https://goo.gl/maps/AJC4rrDfxosiyNQF6

A big wall on one side and trees on the other. All of the guests I bring here always comment on how bland it is.

Isn't the DFW airport ground actually bigger than all of Manhattan? That gives you an example of how spread out this area is.

In Chicago there are houses built right on the edge of the highway and you can see the skyline from far away. Much better scenery, IMO. https://goo.gl/maps/a3m2V8NhtCzpRrLL6

[kingdomcome1]

Originally Posted by elnina

While ITEP's findings were compiled from 2018 data, one expert says not much has changed in Texas over the last four years.

A popular post recently shared on Reddit's main economic forum displayed a graphic that explained how Texans actually pay more in taxes than Californians do, unless those Texans are in the top 1% of all earners.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...s-17400644.php

https://itep.org/whopays/

Not even close...is this from The Onion or Babylon Bee? Lifelong resident of Texas with family in San Diego and Ontario, CA. If we had to pay what they pay(not including living expenses), we would be on the street (like so many thousands are in California) ...