4 ms·

> I don't care who lives here. That's actually what I like the most about rural living - for the most part if you leave people alone, they'll leave you alone. W

> I don't care who lives here. That's actually what I like the most about rural living - for the most part if you leave people alone, they'll leave you alone. What I do care about is that the people I grew up with literally cannot afford their taxes anymore Not meaning to pick on you, but this is almost exactly the rhetoric that got California into the situation it is in now. * Taxes going up due to newcomers -> cap property taxes until sale/transfer * Kids can't afford to inherit house -> make property tax assessment inheritable by children/grandchildren * City can't fund more schools/sewers from limited property taxes -> put limits on new housing starts and encourage retail/commercial development * Low property tax for life + high rents -> nobody ever sells a house, market goes up more * Limited housing availability + need for people to fill those offices -> house prices really skyrocket I just hope other places learn from California's mistake.

giantg2 5y ago
Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead - charge the people making money instead of forcing people out of their home through taxes? The main issues (in my opinion) with housing in the parts of CA that are always mentioned is just population density and desired living conditions. I don't see what the right fix is for that. If we're basically taking the policy that we'll raise taxes to make people want to live elsewhere, then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief.
- labcomputer 5y ago
  > Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead Yup, California does that. That's why CA has a reputation as a high-tax state. Although total tax burden isn't that different from places like Austin, TX though (at least that's how the numbers come out when my friend or I have seriously looked into moving there). > I don't see what the right fix is for that. Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses. Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. Be careful where you share this fact though, or you'll be labeled as part of the "growth at all costs" crowd. > then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Because the reality of the situation is that local governments need tax dollars to run services that taxpayers expect (roads, sewers, schools). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But voters hate paying higher income taxes. You've also capped property taxes on existing development. So the way local mayors and city councils fill the gap is by allowing development that requires relatively less city services: retail and commercial space. Of course, now people need to commute to those retail and commercial developments, (because you have limited the amount of housing) so you just created a traffic problem (but, hey, term limits are a great and your successor can deal with it!). > Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief. Lol. Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief, and how property taxes are going up and we need to Do Something to stop it god damn it! And the cycle begins again...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses. Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in." The whole point I was getting at was distribution. Sure you have n households in the country, but nothing says that n/100 need to live in just one or two counties of that country. Even if you get the green light to build more, it will be very expensive to do so, and you will have population density/congestion issues. "Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief" Not exactly. They are seeing influxes in some areas, but it's not an even distribution. They aren't really complaining about spreading out but more about the problems created when going against the established customs, or bringing the same problems with them (taxes, property values, etc), although the costs in that area will still be less than in SV.
    - labcomputer 5y ago
      > The whole point I was getting at was distribution. Sure you have n households in the country, but nothing says that n/10 need to live in just one or two counties of that country. Even if you get the green light to build more, it will be very expensive to do so, and you will have population density/congestion issues. Nobody is forcing everyone to all live in one place. Some combination of lifestyle, economic opportunities, and other stuff makes people want to do that. Locals complain that housing is expensive in SV, but housing is expensive because of a vicious cycle, promulgated by locals, that made it that way. A different set of policies would have prevented the vicious cycle and made housing cheaper and more abundant. In this alternate universe, with smarter housing policy, more people could be living in SV with less traffic congestion for less total cost. The only downside is that locals wouldn't have been able to sell their houses for 20x what they paid. You can either: accept that an area is desirable and make accommodations for housing the people who want to come; or accept that housing is going to be expensive. Or I guess you can just kill all the newcomers and eat them. Normally, though, we like to at least pretend that we live in a civilized society. As a positive side-effect, being known for cannibalism does stand a good chance of reducing your locale's desirability on the lifestyle front! So maybe try that one first and let us know how it goes. In other words, you can learn from California's example or your can make the same mistakes. Your choice. > They are seeing influxes in some areas, but it's not an even distribution. Sure, but it is making the distribution within the US as a whole more uniform. > They aren't really complaining about spreading out but more about the problems created when going against the established customs, or bringing the same problems with them (taxes, property values, etc) That's my point. They are not bringing the problems. They are coming, and locals are creating the problems by following the same bad policies that failed for locals in California. Yes, that does mean some things will change. You can't stop the change, but you do get to choose its character.

giantg2 5y ago

Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead - charge the people making money instead of forcing people out of their home through taxes? The main issues (in my opinion) with housing in the parts of CA that are always mentioned is just population density and desired living conditions. I don't see what the right fix is for that. If we're basically taking the policy that we'll raise taxes to make people want to live elsewhere, then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief.

labcomputer 5y ago
> Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead Yup, California does that. That's why CA has a reputation as a high-tax state. Although total tax burden isn't that different from places like Austin, TX though (at least that's how the numbers come out when my friend or I have seriously looked into moving there). > I don't see what the right fix is for that. Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses. Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. Be careful where you share this fact though, or you'll be labeled as part of the "growth at all costs" crowd. > then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Because the reality of the situation is that local governments need tax dollars to run services that taxpayers expect (roads, sewers, schools). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But voters hate paying higher income taxes. You've also capped property taxes on existing development. So the way local mayors and city councils fill the gap is by allowing development that requires relatively less city services: retail and commercial space. Of course, now people need to commute to those retail and commercial developments, (because you have limited the amount of housing) so you just created a traffic problem (but, hey, term limits are a great and your successor can deal with it!). > Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief. Lol. Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief, and how property taxes are going up and we need to Do Something to stop it god damn it! And the cycle begins again...
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses. Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in." The whole point I was getting at was distribution. Sure you have n households in the country, but nothing says that n/100 need to live in just one or two counties of that country. Even if you get the green light to build more, it will be very expensive to do so, and you will have population density/congestion issues. "Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief" Not exactly. They are seeing influxes in some areas, but it's not an even distribution. They aren't really complaining about spreading out but more about the problems created when going against the established customs, or bringing the same problems with them (taxes, property values, etc), although the costs in that area will still be less than in SV.
  - labcomputer 5y ago
    > The whole point I was getting at was distribution. Sure you have n households in the country, but nothing says that n/10 need to live in just one or two counties of that country. Even if you get the green light to build more, it will be very expensive to do so, and you will have population density/congestion issues. Nobody is forcing everyone to all live in one place. Some combination of lifestyle, economic opportunities, and other stuff makes people want to do that. Locals complain that housing is expensive in SV, but housing is expensive because of a vicious cycle, promulgated by locals, that made it that way. A different set of policies would have prevented the vicious cycle and made housing cheaper and more abundant. In this alternate universe, with smarter housing policy, more people could be living in SV with less traffic congestion for less total cost. The only downside is that locals wouldn't have been able to sell their houses for 20x what they paid. You can either: accept that an area is desirable and make accommodations for housing the people who want to come; or accept that housing is going to be expensive. Or I guess you can just kill all the newcomers and eat them. Normally, though, we like to at least pretend that we live in a civilized society. As a positive side-effect, being known for cannibalism does stand a good chance of reducing your locale's desirability on the lifestyle front! So maybe try that one first and let us know how it goes. In other words, you can learn from California's example or your can make the same mistakes. Your choice. > They are seeing influxes in some areas, but it's not an even distribution. Sure, but it is making the distribution within the US as a whole more uniform. > They aren't really complaining about spreading out but more about the problems created when going against the established customs, or bringing the same problems with them (taxes, property values, etc) That's my point. They are not bringing the problems. They are coming, and locals are creating the problems by following the same bad policies that failed for locals in California. Yes, that does mean some things will change. You can't stop the change, but you do get to choose its character.