4 ms·
Yep, I agree. I only looked at absolute numbers. I built a relatively complex model of my expected income and expenses in Houston vs SF for 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 y
by sithadmin 8y ago
Yep, I agree. I only looked at absolute numbers. I built a relatively complex model of my expected income and expenses in Houston vs SF for 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 year periods, factoring in things like annual COLA and potential deviations in things like the price of gasoline. A majority of the time, I would have ended up worse off. So I turned down the offer.
- baddox 8y agoWhy would the price of gasoline matter in SF? If you’re living and working in the city, you almost certainly aren’t driving enough for the gas price premium to matter. I don’t mean to pry, but I’m having trouble imagining an income that is so comfortable in Texas, but so uncomfortable in SF when doubled. There must be at least one major factor that doesn’t apply to my calculations, perhaps child care or private school or something.
- briandear 8y agoTaxes. A doubled income in California isn’t a doubled income. It’s much less: higher tax bracket, state income taxes. What needs to be compared is the after tax income. Because it sure isn’t doubled. Even if you add it property taxes — tax on a Houston $500k house is going to be less than taxes on an equivalent $2 million house. The median prices of condos in San Francisco is almost $1.4 million. $1.4 million could buy you a grand house in Houston. A nice condo might cost $350k. Because, even if you double the income, your post-tax pay isn’t actually doubled. Adding housing into the mix (even ignoring taxes) and the math is still rather difficult because houses cost far more than double what they do in Houston. That’s a big difference when you talk about doubling income. Taxes and housing; that’s the problem with California.