Hacker News Reader

Comment by kagakuninja | Hacker News Reader

Texas actually has higher taxes than California, despite the lack of income tax. They make up for it in property tax AFAIK. California actually has low property taxes for many property owners, thanks to the controversial proposition 13.

Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing.

View on HN

As a Texan, who has considered moving to California many times, this is laughable. I pay maybe $10k-$11k in property taxes (https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/estim...). I work for myself at the moment, but if I took my previous salary of $200k and earned that in CA instead, I would owe CA closer to $15k, and I'm not grandfathered into prop 13. Never once in my career has the math made any sense for living in CA over TX from a tax perspective. And you if you don't own your property, you don't owe TX anything.

> And you if you don't own your property, you don't owe TX anything.

If you're renting, it's not like your landlord isn't baking that I to your rent.

But the rent is way lower on the average because cost per sq ft is way lower.

Wages are lower as well.

Housing is presumably more expensive here. I know my uncle has a house twice as large as mine at similar cost, although that was 20 years ago. But then of course you have to pay much higher AC bills.

The tax thing is just something I hear in the California reddit groups when people discuss the never ending claims of a "California exodus". Allegedly, people have moved to Texas and discovered that they aren't actually saving money compared to California, and the weather is way worse.

Back in 2018 I did the math and ended up buying a house in Texas. Table stakes for a 2- or 3-bed shack on the SFBA peninsula was ~$1.5M at the time. At 1%, that's $15k / year in perpetuity to CA. In TX I found an amazing house in the town I was looking at for about $450k, and the property tax on this particular one (every house is in a locality, county, school district, maybe some other domains, and each has their own tax) added up to about 3%, or $13.5k / year.

In addition to being fewer dollarbucks out of my pocket, I had confidence that that money was going to be used closer to my own community.

(All of this is to say nothing of TX having no capital gains tax, which pushed the move from being kind of a wash to being a slam dunk.)

I didn't end up actually moving there for personal reasons, and having done all this analysis makes the California taxes all the harder to stomach.

In Washington, the property tax rate is 1% with no income tax.

> Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing.

I hear this a lot about California and other places. But I also know lots of people look to buy a 2nd, 3rd, etc property for rental income. For those homeowners, buying more property is rational because it's an investment they already understand. They can reap economy of scale benefits, even at a low multiple like 2-3 properties: water heaters, dishwashers etc become easier to maintain. The incentives are strong for homeowners to buy rental property. And they're in a stronger position to buy than renters.

My gut tells me that 7-8 of every 10 new houses built are bought with the intention to rent it out. It seems like "build more homes" will result in current property owners owning more property to rent out, and most renters will still be renters.

Then that would result in lower cost rental units. While not what everyone wants, it would be a great improvement over the current situation. There are also ways to create tax incentives that could discourage your scenario from happening.

This is a large reason why many of our larger municipalities now forbid to buy a home in their zone if it isn’t (going to be) your primary residence. It seems to be working quite well.

The only thing that matters is how many homes there are; stuff like this and vacancy taxes has barely any effect. The main reason to do it is if you want to appear to solve the problem without actually trying to solve it.

The main reason anyone would own two SFHs is that you need to do this in order to move. If you sell your first home before moving you're homeless. And after that it can take a long time to find a buyer.

They're a bad rental investment though because it's way too risky to own one; one bad renter or one roof replacement means you've lost money.

>The only thing that matters is how many homes there are

Cost of construction also matters - it reduces the renter's BATNA which reduces bargaining power.

That sounds like a policy I can get behind. Can you share a name of such a policy or a link to one?

That’s an idiotic law. It discourages home building.

Houses are not built with any particular intent. Developers and property owners are not the same people, and don't even have the same interests. Single family homes for rental are actually quite rare and most businesses that try to enter the market fail and leave again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com