3 ms·

Could it be that CA receives less in federal aid per capita than the average state

akhosravian 5y ago
I think its more likely that the state's rules on increasing property taxes hamstrung its ability to raise revenue through the increasing property values in the state. Instead they make up the difference through other means of taxation.
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  Aren’t property taxes only paid to local municipalities? Pretty sure it’s that way in NJ at any rate
  - asdff 5y ago
    It's complicated in CA. Yes, they stay local in the county and are meant to fund education. The caveat is that due to proposition 13 property taxes no longer are able to fund education completely and the state has to step in to cover the gap, so property taxes have a large impact on the state budget. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1129...
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Those who work are subsidizing those who own property.
  - xibalba 5y ago
    Those are not mutually exclusive sets. In fact, one is pretty close to a subset of the the other.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      I invite you to try attaining home equity in California through labor. Vanishingly few people in the highest reaches of the state's most lucrative industry are able to do that. These prices aren't made out of saved-up paychecks. Not even for white collar jobs. They are wealth. A group of people who were in the right place at the right time, trading amongst themselves. When an uppity little worker somehow makes enough to break into their club, they take it as a reminder about how that pesky income inequality really needs fixing. Turn up the taxes on wages until he goes away. But no more taxes on our ownership. That's out of the question.
      - xibalba 5y ago
        The data do not agree with you. 55% of housing units are owned by their occupant in California[1]. That statistic is trending up. There are estimated to be 13.3 million housing units in California[2]. This means 7.3 million of those units are owned by their occupant(s). The adult population (>=18yo) of California is estimated to be 24.9 million[3]. So if we assume all 7.3 million owner occupied housing units have a single owner-occupant, this would mean that approximately 29% of adult Californians own their residence. This, of course, is an underestimate because many homes are owned by more than one occupant (i.e. families). Thus, at a minimum, 1/3rd of Californians are "attaining equity through labor". Are you telling me all of these people are the moneyed, flying-over-everything capital class? Please fact check your defeatist attitude and consider widening your gaze as to the opportunities available to you. There is no free lunch. Sacrifices and compromises must be made to achieve your goals. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAHOWN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAHOWN [2] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html?s_areas=00006&s_year=2019&s_tablename=TABLE1&s_bygroup1=1&s_bygroup2=1&s_filtergroup1=1&s_filtergroup2=1 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive... [3] https://censusreporter.org/profiles/04000US06-california/ https://censusreporter.org/profiles/04000US06-california/
        closeparen 5y ago
        The median home price is $818k [0]. That works out to about $3,400/month. To afford that you need to make $130k [1]. That is an 89th percentile wage locally [2]. And that's a single family home. In the cities for that price we're probably talking about a condo with a $500-$1000 monthly HOA. The vast majority of the value in these homes is appreciation. Having more in appreciated asset value than 90% of your neighbors could ever catch up to through wages is exactly what defines the moneyed, flying-over-everything class. I have a home in California, btw. I was able to stretch for a 1BR condo by earning half a million a year. That is definitely not what most other homeowners did, and it's not as if the people with 2BR and 3BR have even better salaries. They have wealth. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/realestate/california-housing-prices.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/realestate/california-hou... [1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/how-much-house-can-i-afford/calculate-affordability https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/how-much-house-can-i-af... [2] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    In states with no income taxes, it ends up being the opposite. At least you all get a break. I live in a state with relatively high property taxes (1.5%), state income tax, local income tax (both where you work, and where you live, 1.5%), school district income tax (1.5%), state sales tax (6.5%), local sales tax(1-2%), and a whole slew of special interest sales taxes (professional sports stadiums). This is a solidly red, "we hate taxes" state too. Sometimes I wonder if I would save on taxes by moving to CA.

I think its more likely that the state's rules on increasing property taxes hamstrung its ability to raise revenue through the increasing property values in the state. Instead they make up the difference through other means of taxation.

bingohbangoh 5y ago
Aren’t property taxes only paid to local municipalities? Pretty sure it’s that way in NJ at any rate
- asdff 5y ago
  It's complicated in CA. Yes, they stay local in the county and are meant to fund education. The caveat is that due to proposition 13 property taxes no longer are able to fund education completely and the state has to step in to cover the gap, so property taxes have a large impact on the state budget. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1129...
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Those who work are subsidizing those who own property.
- xibalba 5y ago
  Those are not mutually exclusive sets. In fact, one is pretty close to a subset of the the other.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    I invite you to try attaining home equity in California through labor. Vanishingly few people in the highest reaches of the state's most lucrative industry are able to do that. These prices aren't made out of saved-up paychecks. Not even for white collar jobs. They are wealth. A group of people who were in the right place at the right time, trading amongst themselves. When an uppity little worker somehow makes enough to break into their club, they take it as a reminder about how that pesky income inequality really needs fixing. Turn up the taxes on wages until he goes away. But no more taxes on our ownership. That's out of the question.
    - xibalba 5y ago
      The data do not agree with you. 55% of housing units are owned by their occupant in California[1]. That statistic is trending up. There are estimated to be 13.3 million housing units in California[2]. This means 7.3 million of those units are owned by their occupant(s). The adult population (>=18yo) of California is estimated to be 24.9 million[3]. So if we assume all 7.3 million owner occupied housing units have a single owner-occupant, this would mean that approximately 29% of adult Californians own their residence. This, of course, is an underestimate because many homes are owned by more than one occupant (i.e. families). Thus, at a minimum, 1/3rd of Californians are "attaining equity through labor". Are you telling me all of these people are the moneyed, flying-over-everything capital class? Please fact check your defeatist attitude and consider widening your gaze as to the opportunities available to you. There is no free lunch. Sacrifices and compromises must be made to achieve your goals. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAHOWN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAHOWN [2] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html?s_areas=00006&s_year=2019&s_tablename=TABLE1&s_bygroup1=1&s_bygroup2=1&s_filtergroup1=1&s_filtergroup2=1 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive... [3] https://censusreporter.org/profiles/04000US06-california/ https://censusreporter.org/profiles/04000US06-california/
      - closeparen 5y ago
        The median home price is $818k [0]. That works out to about $3,400/month. To afford that you need to make $130k [1]. That is an 89th percentile wage locally [2]. And that's a single family home. In the cities for that price we're probably talking about a condo with a $500-$1000 monthly HOA. The vast majority of the value in these homes is appreciation. Having more in appreciated asset value than 90% of your neighbors could ever catch up to through wages is exactly what defines the moneyed, flying-over-everything class. I have a home in California, btw. I was able to stretch for a 1BR condo by earning half a million a year. That is definitely not what most other homeowners did, and it's not as if the people with 2BR and 3BR have even better salaries. They have wealth. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/realestate/california-housing-prices.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/realestate/california-hou... [1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/how-much-house-can-i-afford/calculate-affordability https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/how-much-house-can-i-af... [2] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/
- mywittyname 5y ago
  In states with no income taxes, it ends up being the opposite. At least you all get a break. I live in a state with relatively high property taxes (1.5%), state income tax, local income tax (both where you work, and where you live, 1.5%), school district income tax (1.5%), state sales tax (6.5%), local sales tax(1-2%), and a whole slew of special interest sales taxes (professional sports stadiums). This is a solidly red, "we hate taxes" state too. Sometimes I wonder if I would save on taxes by moving to CA.