Why Texas and not Arizona, or Florida or some other state?
Taxes-wise, I think California is underrated. At 150k a year, the tax rate is basically the same as most states, and prop 13 is incredibly beneficial from a planning perspective. You just can’t afford the parts of coasts with access to good medical care unless affordability isn’t even a question for you.
Texas near Dallas, austin, Houston have medical, culture, etc at extremely low prices. The property tax is insane and regressive but it’s a wash.
I’ve been living in PHX for 2+ years now, and have to disagree.
Low cost of living and high QoL. Great school districts and master plan communities designed to make pre-k -> 12 schools walkable. Great food, amazing supply chains (the stuff you find at grocery stores here can be mind blowing), and well maintained infrastructure.
We are positive sum water, when you build here you are expected to bring the water for your project into the valley. We don’t ration water during the summers here the way I experienced in CA.
We supply electricity to many neighboring states (including CA) thanks to Palo Verde. Our nuclear power plant beats solar at lifetime cost per kilo-watt; the only way solar companies sell their product here is by exaggerating payback.
To me, this state is a testament to man’s perseverance and a great example of positive sum work. We’ve taken a desert and transformed it into an oasis.
Our approach to water is part of why we are able to give up so much from our pull on Lake Mead during this drought. Nevada is giving up 21k acre-feet, Mexico 80k af, and AZ is giving up a whopping 512k af. Nothing as far as I know for cutbacks from CA's draw.
I’ll repeat, when you build here you bring your water. And we actually enforce that. You don’t get to build a new subdivision or plant a nut tree farm without sourcing every drop of water you’re going to use.
Water is running out in some states. It’s not running out there because there isn’t water - it’s a symptom of failed water management strategies.
My point is, anyone who lives in an overpopulated desert and says “we don’t have a water problem” should be taken with a grain of salt.
How are property taxes regressive? Working class people bear the tax burden with income taxes, land owners bear the tax burden with property taxes, I'd argue that having 0 income tax and funding the state through property tax is as progressive as it gets. Of course, rental property has to pass that tax on to renters to remain profitable, but still that allows for the vast majority of property that is not rental property to bear more of the tax burden.
Relatively speaking, a steep progressive income tax regime is less regressive than a property tax since the burden is entirely on home value which is largely out of the control of homeowners.
For those who don’t live in Texas, there’s a whole cottage industry of companies that will contest the annual assessment (typically tax increase) for you, often with a guarantee that they can save more than their fee.
Here's a billionaire - literally worth $1 billion. He doesn't have a $3 billion house. So the ratio of total assets to amount covered by property tax is much more favorable to the billionaire. His house may be $30 million, but total assets / house price is 33/1.
But when you also have sales taxes or value added taxes, chances are the billionaire is living a little more exorbitantly than the regular guy. If you want to get more progressive than that you can introduce luxury item taxes.
More importantly though, the brunt of the tax burden is still resting on the higher value properties. If we decide that progressive means "pays more of a percentage of their wealth/income" then you're right, but if we decide it means "most of the overall tax burden falls on richer people" then it is still more progressive than income tax schemes that exist now.
Weather was nice, though a bit hot for my taste. Everywhere I looked, they were building condos. This was 5 years ago, not what the deal is now.