Texass........

[grapedrink]

Also, if the Mother Jones article isn't accounting for the renter's contribution to property tax, that bolsters their argument, because Texas has higher property tax rates and lower-income people spend more of their income relative to middle/upper income brackets.

I'm not sure how they would determine that, these graphs are aggregated data based on tax returns. If you are going to count property taxes figured into renters for Texas then you have to do the same in California. Either way, you if you are a tenant you aren't paying taxes, you are paying rent. If there was an exodus from Dallas, there would be some landlords willing to rent their units for less than what their taxes were if it meant not taking a 100% loss. It's not unusual for a landlord to take a paper loss because they are banking on appreciation. At the end of the day the free market decides the price of rent, not the landlords expenses.

Beyond that I'm not making the case about what the lower to middle class pays. What I'm saying is that once you make the kind of money where you can afford to raise kids in a decent area, go on 1-2 vacations a year and maybe help with their college without living on spagettios, you will be taxed more for that privelege in California than you will in Texas.

A brief googling tells me Texas's property tax rate is more than double California's.

Based on assessed value. That difference is wiped out if you pay double the price for the same house in California.

Let me know if you need suggestions on where you want to move in Texas. Best surf options are Waco, SPI Nat'l Seashore and Corpus/Aransas in my view.

No thanks I'm good

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Actually no, they aren't the most fortunate. I'm talking about everyone between 20% and 1% that was conveniently left out of that graph that's been floating around. I would imagine that you are somewhere in that bracket, along with many other regulars here. This link covers the range used in the graph:

Yes, I am in the next 15%. And since I went to public school from third grade and got a scholarship to a public university and the only reason I don't have to house my father is his public sector pension and I remember where my family came from, I am not some dead eyed soulless whats-in-it-for-me-based-on-the-dumbest-calculation-imaginable ghoul with a thousand podcast stare obsessing over two fucking percent difference in effective taxation.

Yes, Texans actually pay more in taxes than Californians do

While the findings were from compiled from 2018 data, one expert says not much has...

www.chron.com

"In Texas, the middle 20 percent of income earners ($35,800-$56,000) pay 9.7 percent in state and local taxes in contrast to middle income Californians ($39,100-$62,300), who only pay 8.9 percent. Most glaringly, the top 1 percent of earners in Texas ($617,900 or more) pay 3.1 percent of their income in contrast to top earnings in California ($714,400 or more) who pay 12.4 percent."

So I'll ask again . . . . where on the graph are the people between ~$60K and $600-700K That is an incredibly huge range, and it is beyond dishonest to leave that out. The thresholds on the Mother Jones link seem a bit more accurate and show a higher amount to crack the top 20%, but either way it shows that once you crack 6 figures and up mark in Texas you pay significantly less. And a lot of the people who left California for Texas are of that ilk.

The link in Mother Jones and The Houston Chronicle are to the exact same study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The people between ~$60k and $100k/$112k are represented by the highest third of the middle 60% in the Houston Chronicle article. You did a good job identifying the 80th to 99th percentiles as being omitted but fucked up the gap in the income range.

This is comical that the problem is one outlet's presentation of the same data omits 19% of the population, rather than Texas being a backwards shithole festooned with school shootings and regressive tax policy.

 

[grapedrink]

obsessing over two fucking percent difference in effective taxation.

OK great, somebody has finally acknowledged that there is a difference once you crack into 1-19.999% bracket. Progress! Are you seeing now why that was conveniently omitted Also, I wouldn't call 2% to be insignificant. If you make $100-150K a year that's an extra $2-3K. That is not chump change by any means.

The people between ~$60k and $100k/$112k are represented by the highest third of the middle 60% in the Houston Chronicle article. You did a good job identifying the 80th to 99th percentiles as being omitted but fucked up the gap in the income range.

Well, when I have to search for information that was blatantly omitted and fill in the blanks after the fact then don't expect perfection. Either way it still illustrates my point.

This is comical that the problem is one outlet's presentation of the same data omits 19% of the population, rather than Texas being a backwards shithole festooned with school shootings and regressive tax policy.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Also, I wouldn't call 2% to be insignificant. If you make $100-150K a year that's an extra $2-3K. That is not chump change by any means.

It's pricey for a surfboard but it's chump change over a year at that income level. Found the basis of our disagreement! Pretty fast by erBB standards.

Have you considered moving to Orange County since you're too elitist to sack up and go Big Tex? You could talk with like-minded people about how California is cucked, and make exclamations like if you lived in Texas, the tax savings would more than pay for the ebike you ride to Lowers, except Texas doesn't have a Lowers.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Okay Autumnal mead!

 

[grapedrink]

It's pricey for a surfboard but it's chump change over a year at that income level. Found the basis of our disagreement! Pretty fast by erBB standards.

I agree, $2-3K/year isn't a lifestyle gamechanger. But it adds up over the years, especially if you invest it. Either way it shows that Texans will be better off once they make it into the $100-600k/year tax bracket that the authors of the graph pretended didn't exist.

Have you considered moving to Orange County since you're too elitist to sack up and go Big Tex? You could talk with like-minded people about how California is cucked, and make exclamations like if you lived in Texas, the tax savings would more than pay for the ebike you ride to Lowers, except Texas doesn't have a Lowers.

No, it's too expensive. Instead I'm making the kind of investments that allow for much bigger write offs. My next tax return will be

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Texans will be better off once they make it into the $100-600k/year tax bracket that the authors of the graph pretended didn't exist.

Well, their take home pay will be slightly better off if a magic carpet moves them for free. But they'll still be in Texas and therefore already dead.

That's what happens when you source your reporting from an image posted on Reddit. It's amazing how bad the woke narrative is. First, they act like 19% of the population doesn't exist. GretaHowDareYou.gif

Then, they don't even take into account how much money the Texan has started saving since, in 2018 when that study went down, Cracker Barrel hadn't yet offered an impossible burger that prompted a boycott so extensive it was an embargo, and that used to be like one of their largest expenses - Californians are house-poor; Texans are Cracker Barrel-poor - and now they're eating at home instead of out, compounding the savings and decreasing their effective tax burden.

 

[StuAzole]

Finally, somebody willing to post all of the income distribution . . . . And it shows exactly why the other graph left out the 1.1-20%

It makes sense that a state without an income tax would play out like this. There is only so big of a house that most people want to live in, even if they are super wealthy, which caps how high the property taxes can get. Whereas income for the 1% scales up much higher. Which is why it's tough to compare a state with income taxes to another without.

How exactly are the poor being taxed in Texas if they are not homeowners? Sales tax? I honestly don't know.

Landlord charges what the market will accept. If it will accept a bump in rent to cover property tax increases the landlord was under-valuing rent to begin with.

 

[hal9000]

It's funny how I posted graphs that include all of the income brackets but GrapesDad still continues to pontificate on the point about the graphs that omitted the 19%.

Classic debate tactic. Remain laser-focused on one specific point and never let it go.

I wonder which income brackets own houses near water and have boats In both CA and TX. It would seem to me that those groups aren't exactly ~suffering~.

 

[grapedrink]

It's funny how I posted graphs that include all of the income brackets but GrapesDad still continues to pontificate on the point about the graphs that omitted the 19%.

I addresses those as well, and they illustrated exactly what was missing with the previous graph Mother Jones ( ), while at least covering the full distribution of incomes, is also ignoring the drop in taxes when approaching a 6 figure income, and they are also using the same dishonest tactic of equating property taxes and income taxes. Renters don’t pay property taxes, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use, so you could be a high 5 to 6 figure renter in Texas and have significantly more take home pay than both renters and owners in California.

Math is hard.

Classic debate tactic. Remain laser-focused on one specific point and never let it go.

Some talking points are too juicy to let go. Be careful what you hang your hat on.

I wonder which income brackets own houses near water and have boats In both CA and TX. It would seem to me that those groups aren't exactly ~suffering~.

Somewhere between $100-600k #iamthe19%

 

[kidfury]

I addresses those as well, and they illustrated exactly what was missing with the previous graph Mother Jones ( ), while at least covering the full distribution of incomes, is also ignoring the drop in taxes when approaching a 6 figure income, and they are also using the same dishonest tactic of equating property taxes and income taxes. Renters don’t pay property taxes, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use, so you could be a high 5 to 6 figure renter in Texas and have significantly more take home pay than both renters and owners in California.

Math is hard.


Some talking points are too juicy to let go. Be careful what you hang your hat on.


Somewhere between $100-600k #iamthe19%

What's with all the words? You should be posting numbers

 

[grapedrink]

What's with all the words? You should be posting numbers

I’ve posted plenty of them, more so than anyone else, and you guys still struggle.

Math is hard

 

[Mike_Jones]

.
This happened in Alabama. Many states allow for the same arrest process.

In terrible "Texass" we have exactly what the U.S. Constitution says, the right to remain silent. Texas law says that people are not required to identify themselves until they have been "lawfully arrested".

https://saputo.law/criminal-law/texas/failure-to-identify/

These Alabama cops had no evidence that any law had been broken. In Texas this would have been an illegal arrest.
.

 

[StuAzole]

I'm not sure how they would determine that, these graphs are aggregated data based on tax returns. If you are going to count property taxes figured into renters for Texas then you have to do the same in California. Either way, you if you are a tenant you aren't paying taxes, you are paying rent. If there was an exodus from Dallas, there would be some landlords willing to rent their units for less than what their taxes were if it meant not taking a 100% loss. It's not unusual for a landlord to take a paper loss because they are banking on appreciation. At the end of the day the free market decides the price of rent, not the landlords expenses.

Beyond that I'm not making the case about what the lower to middle class pays. What I'm saying is that once you make the kind of money where you can afford to raise kids in a decent area, go on 1-2 vacations a year and maybe help with their college without living on spagettios, you will be taxed more for that privelege in California than you will in Texas.


Based on assessed value. That difference is wiped out if you pay double the price for the same house in California.


No thanks I'm good

Unless you get double the return on said house which then allows you to move to Texas to exploit their lower cost of living.

Eventually, Texas will catch up to Ca. Ask Austin.

The Atlantic: How California Exported Its Worst Problem to Texas » NCRC

The Atlantic, August 10, 2022, How California Exported Its Worst Problem to Texas

ncrc.org

 

[hal9000]

So the tax burden in both states is basically a wash and grapesdad is upset about it?

 

[grapedrink]

Unless you get double the return on said house which then allows you to move to Texas to exploit their lower cost of living.

That's how you do it! Except for the having to live in Texas part.

Eventually, Texas will catch up to Ca. Ask Austin.

Austin is an anomaly because it is the most liberal friendly and they have a strong tech sector. Therefore those who leave LA or SF/SJ Bay Area can still find a well paying job and drink their hempsoylattefrupacinos. The culture shock is minimal. Even then, the median home price in Austin is still lower than the coast. A quick search on Realtor shows ~1000 3/2 SFRs for in the city limits sale compared 12 in San Diego for under $600K.

I don't see Dallas or Houston approaching anything near California prices. San Antonio will probably be next, but will still be a ways off.

 

[hammies]

.
This happened in Alabama. Many states allow for the same arrest process.

In terrible "Texass" we have exactly what the U.S. Constitution says, the right to remain silent. Texas law says that people are not required to identify themselves until they have been "lawfully arrested".

https://saputo.law/criminal-law/texas/failure-to-identify/

These Alabama cops had no evidence that any law had been broken. In Texas this would have been an illegal arrest.
.

The guy was being a dick but he shouldn't have been arrested.

 

[StuAzole]

That's how you do it! Except for the having to live in Texas part.


Austin is an anomaly because it is the most liberal friendly and they have a strong tech sector. Therefore those who leave LA or SF/SJ Bay Area can still find a well paying job and drink their hempsoylattefrupacinos. The culture shock is minimal. Even then, the median home price in Austin is still lower than the coast. A quick search on Realtor shows ~1000 3/2 SFRs for in the city limits sale compared 12 in San Diego for under $600K.

I don't see Dallas or Houston approaching anything near California prices. San Antonio will probably be next, but will still be a ways off.

the creep is real though. All these red states use taxes as a way to lure CA business without realizing they’ll eventually just be CA.

CA is a high pressure zone, and Texas, CO, WA, ID etc are nearby low pressure areas. It‘s a natural law that high pressure flows to low seeking equilibrium.

And Texas doesn’t have to catch CA to experience its problems. Look at the affordability crisis going on in Florida. Still cheaper than CA, but highly unaffordable for those earning old Florida wages.

Florida is the least affordable place to live in the U.S.

Rent and home prices in the Sunshine State have hit stratospheric heights, making it the epicenter of America's housing crisis.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[grapedrink]

So the tax burden in both states is basically a wash

No, it's not a wash for the upper half of the income distribution. Once you transition up from the middle 20%, your take home pay increases substantially in Texas and decreases in California. This is in your very own source and I've shown this over and over. That take home pay is even greater in Texas if they are renters.

The cognitive dissonance is strong on this one. Math is hard!

and grapesdad is upset about it?

What makes you think I'm upset I friggin love crushing leftard narratives

 

[StuAzole]

No, it's not a wash for the upper half of the income distribution. Once you transition up from the middle 20%, your take home pay increases substantially in Texas and decreases in California. This is in your very own source and I've shown this over and over. That take home pay is even greater in Texas if they are renters.

The cognitive dissonance is strong on this one. Math is hard!



What makes you think I'm upset I friggin love crushing leftard narratives

Your take home pay doesn’t diminish in CA when you make more money. And you’re assuming renting is cheaper than owning, which may or may not be true.

 

[hal9000]

No, it's not a wash for the upper half of the income distribution. Once you transition up from the middle 20%, your take home pay increases substantially in Texas and decreases in California. This is in your very own source and I've shown this over and over. That take home pay is even greater in Texas if they are renters.

The cognitive dissonance is strong on this one. Math is hard!



What makes you think I'm upset I friggin love crushing leftard narratives

who still wins? Who still owns more valuable real estate in the end?

that's right......rich folk.