3 ms·

I wouldn't define 'rich' by income alone, because 150k ain't rich in the Bay Area.

ojbyrne 18y ago
While I do understand what you're saying, it ain't poor.
gjm11 18y ago
That's like saying "150k ain't rich if you have a 100k/year gambling habit" or "150k ain't rich if you have an enormous house purchased with a big mortgage". Living in the Bay Area is a luxury that only the well-off can afford without great hardship; it has benefits which mean that many people do it even though after paying to live in the Bay Area they don't have much disposable income. Just as many people choose to take out large mortgages, or buy fast cars, or gamble, or whatever, even though they may not then have much disposable income left.
- diego 18y ago
  The same can be said of living in the US. You could move to a cheaper part of the world, perhaps even telecommute. You could argue that you grew up in the US, so staying home is not a luxury. Those who grew up in the Bay Area don't see living there as a luxury any more than you see living in the US as a luxury.
  - gjm11 18y ago
    Actually, I don't live in the US. But yes, living in the US is a luxury, but that isn't relevant to the US tax system because everyone taxed by the US (more or less) lives in the US. (When people say things like "we should tax the rich more" or "we shouldn't tax the rich more", "rich" is really shorthand for "among the best-off of the people being taxed".)
Tangurena 18y ago
I'd consider the Bay Area to be like Greenwich Village - a luxury area. In most parts of the country, median house divided by median income is running about 4-6. In those 2 areas, I've seen ratios in the ballpark of 40 and 75. I live in Denver, and within walking distance of my apartment I see homes ranging from $175k to $15M. Should we subsidize the lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed - because you want to live in a nice area? I don't think so.
helveticaman 18y ago
Keep in mind the Bay Area has an artificial housing shortage. Palo Alto is zoned as agricultural land, despite having no real agriculture.

While I do understand what you're saying, it ain't poor.

gjm11 18y ago

That's like saying "150k ain't rich if you have a 100k/year gambling habit" or "150k ain't rich if you have an enormous house purchased with a big mortgage". Living in the Bay Area is a luxury that only the well-off can afford without great hardship; it has benefits which mean that many people do it even though after paying to live in the Bay Area they don't have much disposable income. Just as many people choose to take out large mortgages, or buy fast cars, or gamble, or whatever, even though they may not then have much disposable income left.

diego 18y ago
The same can be said of living in the US. You could move to a cheaper part of the world, perhaps even telecommute. You could argue that you grew up in the US, so staying home is not a luxury. Those who grew up in the Bay Area don't see living there as a luxury any more than you see living in the US as a luxury.
- gjm11 18y ago
  Actually, I don't live in the US. But yes, living in the US is a luxury, but that isn't relevant to the US tax system because everyone taxed by the US (more or less) lives in the US. (When people say things like "we should tax the rich more" or "we shouldn't tax the rich more", "rich" is really shorthand for "among the best-off of the people being taxed".)

Tangurena 18y ago

I'd consider the Bay Area to be like Greenwich Village - a luxury area. In most parts of the country, median house divided by median income is running about 4-6. In those 2 areas, I've seen ratios in the ballpark of 40 and 75. I live in Denver, and within walking distance of my apartment I see homes ranging from $175k to $15M. Should we subsidize the lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed - because you want to live in a nice area? I don't think so.

helveticaman 18y ago

Keep in mind the Bay Area has an artificial housing shortage. Palo Alto is zoned as agricultural land, despite having no real agriculture.