3 ms·
> $100K income, $1M house Methinks you may have picked these numbers to tilt things in favor of CA. If the income were _slightly_ more in line with what might
by xienze 4y ago
> $100K income, $1M house
Methinks you may have picked these numbers to tilt things in favor of CA. If the income were _slightly_ more in line with what might be considered “reasonable” for a $1M house, like say $250K, suddenly the math makes
much more sense in Texas.
And this doesn’t even get into the whole “house that costs $1M in CA wouldn’t cost $1M in Texas” thing...
- mbesto 4y agoThe point was to illustrate that a rise in home prices with stagnating wages, means the effective tax rate for an individual will only get worse under Texas's system, hence, regressive. Whether it's at that tipping point right now, I don't believe thats the case when comparing like-for-like income+property as you rightfully point out. As I understand the source data it also introduces sales/excise taxes which does make it tip over. With more and more people moving to Texas, it's not unrealistic to see more $1M homes.
- vineyardmike 4y ago> And this doesn’t even get into the whole “house that costs $1M in CA wouldn’t cost $1M in Texas” thing... People tend to buy the most house they can afford, not just the most house they need. If you have 1M for a house, you buy a 1M house in Cali or TX. Most wouldn’t move to TX and buy something cheaper, but instead something bigger.