U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2024

[kalvado]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

You may still find some free cheese lying around. But most likely it would be in a mousetrap.

[NWI_Irish96]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

[SEWIGuy]

2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

The difference in monthly mortgage payments between the two houses above is something like $3,700 assuming they put 20% down in both cases. (Which doesn't make a lot of sense since they could buy the Texas house outright for the California downpayment...but whatever.)

It doesn't cost $3,700 per month more to live in Texas than California even if they have to buy and finance two cars they aren't going to come close in Texas to paying what they would need to pay in California.

[jgb191]

2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

Oh and don't forget the $10K to $15K property taxes every year, and interest rates for borrowing.  Because they've never owned a car or a house, (I could be wrong) I believe interest rates for first-time borrowers can be quite high.  So let's say $750/month per car payment (with interest) times two cars plus $500/month to insure two cars plus car maintenance/registration plus nearly 3,000/month house payments (price of house + HOA fees + property tax + homeowners insurance) can all add up to a lot and really eat into their considerably smaller salary in Texas.  Again from what they told me (and this is generally what I've been hearing about the Bay Area) they've never owned or drive cars there until moving to Houston.

And you're not going to find very many new houses for less than a quarter-million anymore even in Texas unless you buy a very old one built decades ago.  Today's newly built houses are approaching a half-million nowadays.

[Bobby5280]

More than just housing costs more in California than Texas. Gasoline prices in California are often the highest in the nation. Texas is on the low end of the pricing scale. Fuel prices make an impact all sorts of other costs.

HOA's were mentioned earlier in the thread in regards in housing in Texas. Yeah, there are quite a few HOA-controlled housing subdivisions in the more douchey parts of Texas. Last time I checked California has done nothing to ban HOA's in that state.

[Max Rockatansky]

Probably worth pointing out that our house in Fresno cost 171k when purchased in 2010.  Even now we probably could likely get 330-340k for it with the new school across the street.  I feel like I should point out that San Francisco isn't an apples to apples comparison with much of the state. 

I particularly don't like the gas prices here and question the need for a state specific blend of gas.  All the same, I paid way more factoring inflation as a visitor on work trips to Los Angeles circa 2007-2013.  That said the difference of $20-40 dollars a month for gas isn't going break the bank, at least not for me. 

[kphoger]

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

I did read the post.  It didn't say anything about them preferring to have "kept renting in San Francisco", just "staying in SF".

[vdeane]

2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

Or just homeownership in general.  Many people seem to just compare rent to mortgage and not consider things like maintenance.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

[kalvado]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

[DTComposer]

2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

I'm in no way arguing whether California vs. Texas is more or less expensive, but I don't think these two houses are the best comparison. Houston (the city proper) has 13 times the land area and 3 times the population of San Francisco (the city proper). You've picked a house in San Francisco 4 miles out of downtown vs. a house in Houston 21 miles out of downtown.

A more apt California house might be:
4125 Miflin Avenue, El Sobrante (20 miles from downtown San Francisco)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1,225 square feet
$599,000

Or a more apt Texas house might be:
2117 Gostick Street (4 miles from downtown Houston)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1,176 square feet
$635,000

Again, I'll be first in line to tell you how expensive California is, but I don't know if the first comparison was really apples to apples. (and I'll admit I don't know enough about Houston to tell you if my selections are, either).

[Rothman]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

[kalvado]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

[Rothman]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

[Scott5114]

It doesn't cost $3,700 per month more to live in Texas than California even if they have to buy and finance two cars they aren't going to come close in Texas to paying what they would need to pay in California.

But most people also make far less money in Texas than they do in California.

Taking my own experience (which doesn't involve Texas or California but rather the states just north of each), we are living in a house in Nevada which cost twice as much as the one we were living in in Oklahoma. But my wife, who did the same kind of work in both states, is making way more than twice what she was making in Oklahoma. I'm kind of shocked at how well the move went for us, and I wish we had done it years ago. After years of living paycheck to paycheck we might actually be able to start saving money again soon (once we pay off the debt we accumulated moving out here, that is).

A move to Texas might make sense if you're able to keep working remotely for a California company paying California wages while living in Texas. Or maybe if you have a gob of money saved up to buy a place in Texas, are going to live there for a few years to build up equity, and then sell that and use the proceeds for a down payment in California.

[jgb191]

Taking my own experience (which doesn't involve Texas or California but rather the states just north of each), we are living in a house in Nevada which cost twice as much as the one we were living in in Oklahoma.

What are the state income taxes and/or local property taxes like living in NV or OK?

[Ted$8roadFan]

IIRC, Nevada doesn't have an income tax.

[jgb191]

I think you could be right.  Any state that has legalized gambling probably wouldn't need state income tax (both NV & OK are two of those states) right?  In the case of my state, the 'Texas Lottery' generates several billions of dollars in state revenue per year.

[hotdogPi]

45 out of 50 states have a state lottery. Nevada is one of the five that doesn't, most likely because it wouldn't sell well compared to all the casinos.

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gambling/articles/the-lottery-sucks

It's a few years outdated, but you can see the average loss per resident at the table at the bottom. These numbers are way lower than what income tax would be.

[SectorZ]

45 out of 50 states have a state lottery. Nevada is one of the five that doesn't, most likely because it wouldn't sell well compared to all the casinos.

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gambling/articles/the-lottery-sucks

It's a few years outdated, but you can see the average loss per resident at the table at the bottom. These numbers are way lower than what income tax would be.

That list always makes me laugh when you see how "educated" Massachusetts is relative to how much money its residents piss away.

[kalvado]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

#17 in Education
#22 in Best States Overall
#40 in graduation rates
#1 in costs per student.

I would say that's pretty much not getting what is paid for!

[kalvado]

I think you could be right.  Any state that has legalized gambling probably wouldn't need state income tax (both NV & OK are two of those states) right?  In the case of my state, the 'Texas Lottery' generates several billions of dollars in state revenue per year.

NY called to comment that  the best of both worlds at the same time is certainly possible.

[Bobby5280]

What are the state income taxes and/or local property taxes like living in NV or OK?

Oklahoma does have a state income tax. Rates are progressive, with the top rate being 4.75%. I think Oklahoma is in the lower half of state rankings on income tax rates. Property taxes vary by locale, but are generally moderate compared to rates in others states like Texas.

Every now and then some state politician will float the idea of abolishing Oklahoma's state income tax while trying not to say anything about hiking property tax rates to offset the revenue loss. And those property tax hikes would probably be big since there are so many people in Oklahoma who are partially or fully exempt from paying property taxes. Lawton has a LOT of people who pay little or nothing in property taxes. The folks who still pay property taxes have to make up the difference. Oklahoma will probably have even more teachers leaving in droves since the state superintendent of schools is such a fucking nutjob. Maybe if we have a bunch of schools shut down from lack of staff that might lead to a property tax decrease.

[hotdogPi]

For reference



from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States

[JayhawkCO]

Maybe it's just too early for me, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out how that chart is sorted. It's not by any individual colored bars. It's not by total tax burden. Strange.

[Rothman]

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

#17 in Education
#22 in Best States Overall
#40 in graduation rates
#1 in costs per student.

I would say that's pretty much not getting what is paid for!

I'll take the combination of all factors which certainly shows NY outranks TX.