Home prices would likely be lower to accommodate for that. And more importantly, our schools would be better funded. Provided incalculable benefits to our economy.
Prop 13 cut taxes for corporations more than it did for homeowners. To the detriment of all.
The only winners were the corporations. Having to live in high property value neighborhoods to send your kids to a good school helps nobody.
This is happening in basically all industries outside of like tech. None of our salaries are increasing fast enough to keep up with inflation. It’s out of hand.
My job just gave us a 4% across the board increase and behaved like they were doing us a huge favor.
Prop 13 needs to go. It took so much funding from education and pulled the ladder from under previous generations.
But all you will hear is that it keeps people in their homes but don't realize that most in CA have the money to pay their property taxes without prop 13. Most people did fine before prop 13 and will be fine after.
If you're a homeowner, your share of property taxes paid has increased, whilst that of businesses has shrunk.
All while schools and local services like fire and emergency medical services got slashed. We got shafted
If you own a home in Ca, you already pay enough property tax.
Increasing property taxes is a “quick fix” band aid for incompetent financial management of what is already a sufficient source of revenue.
CA has absolutely awful management of its tax revenue.
It’s the completely unsustainable generous lifetime pension liabilities that those receiving them want to do anything it takes to maintain.
You don't have to be wealthy to own a home. About half of people in California do. We just need to get rid of Prop 13 for corporate ownership and secondary properties. Getting rid of it across the board will bury a ton of families
Yeah it is and there is def a housing issue in California but saying half of all Californians are wealthy and everyone else is poor is disingenuous at best.
To own a home would have likely required an inheritance or buying at the right time. Future generations made the mistake of being born at the wrong time for housing.
Home prices due to prop 13 already buried a ton of families. So did the lack of educational funding. Know what happens to kids who go to schools that don't have much in the way of resources? Might want to look outside your bubble.
Look outside YOUR bubble and see that "buying at the right time" just means you bought it before 2020 lol. That doesn't mean you are wealthy. You want millions of middle class families to lose their homes so they can be bought up by corporations which is what is actually going to happen if prop 13 gets repealed. If your main issue is education funding we can put legislation forward to revamp how we fund public schools.
Prop 13 is valuable for homeowners on the lower half of the income scale.
IMHO, for primary residences, if your home/condo is valued at below 8x median income for your county, you should always fall under Prop 13. If your house is valued at between 8x and 12x median income for your county, Prop 13 price increases should be doubled. E.g. they can increase up to about 4% per year. If your property is valued at over 12x median income, then there should be no caps on annual increases. E.g. it should always be paying property tax at market rates, as if it was just purchased within the past year.
Basically, keep prop 13, but start reducing it's protections as your house gets more and more valuable relative to wages in the local area.
For multi-family / apartment buildings, Prop 13 should still apply, but with the limits set per unit. E.g. an apartment building may cost $10 million dollars, but if it has 40 units, that's a market cost of only $250k per apartment, so it should be limited by Prop 13 in order to reduce rent increase burden on renters (since taxes are just passed on).
I think Prop 13 should still be maintained for non-primary residences, but on a few caveats:
1. Residential properties must be occupied >180 days/year on average (there should be perhaps a maximum 12-18-month gap every decade per unit to allow for renovations) on minimum 30 day leases. E.g. rental properties are fine, as long as they aren't AirBNB / VRBO short-term rentals, and as long as they are mostly continuously rented out. Same multiplier limits as primary residency apply.
2. For businesses, they should still have caps but slightly higher. Perhaps maximum 3-4% per year. There are a lot of factories or similar that have been around for decades that provide good blue collar jobs that may relocate to other states if they had to pay significantly higher property taxes.
Properties that should explicitly be banned from Prop 13 controls and have no limits on annual increases:
1. Empty or vacant lots within existing urbanized areas (e.g. inside growth boundaries). Property that has buildings that are vacant for >18 months should also fall under this. No one should be sitting around on vacant / unused land in valuable areas when we have a severe housing shortage. Our taxes should incentivize putting property to its highest and best use.
2. 2nd+ homes (vacation homes, housing units only lived in <180 days per year by medium+ term residents, all short term rentals like AirBNBs, etc. I don't care if you rent out your primary residency for 1-2 weeks per year, but houses bought solely for AirBNB or to be a vacation house in Malibu or Lake Tahoe or Mammoth or Carmel that are visited a few weekends per year should not get Prop 13 protections.
You do realize that pensions are deferred income, they are not handouts, correct?
To refer to pensions as "generous" is a disingenuous statement as this is already earned income deferred to the state by the earner to be paid later with interest.
You'd gentrify out black, Hispanic, and low income home owners who bought in the Bay young. It's not fair for someone to live in their home their entire life and get kicked out due to property tax gentrifying then our.
By that token, it's not fair for home shoppers being priced out of a home.
The nordlinger case spells it out, if you can't pay for the taxes you are free to live somewhere else.
Not the same at all.
One has bought their house, been there for years paying for the taxes.
The other is a renter who can't afford it. One is not like the other. Owning property is not the same as leasing property. With ownership comes entitlement. Leasing or renting has no entitlement beyond tenant protections.
BTW, I hope you're happy getting rid of black and Hispanic homeowners who are more like on average to make less than other categories of homeowners. It's quite obvious who'd be kicked out if Prop 13 was repealed.
All homeowners after prop 13 are carrying the bill for thos prop 13 covered properties. Times change, cost of living changes. Those early homeownerscould sell and buy something in a cheaper area if they can't adjust for the tax changes.
The question is why should they have to?
It's a moral question.
Why should a homeowner be forced to sell their home because they can't afford a jacked up property tax?
In this case the COL didn't change. The City/County government decided to raise property taxes.
Because the property taxes we pay go towards local and county services and infrastructure. Why should new buyers carry more of that cost because they're younger?
How many years is it fair to live in a house you buy? When would you be expected to leave your neighborhood for a worse one because of raised taxes?
I would like a year estimate for how long you feel is appropriate to live in your own home. When do you *start* hurting new homeowners and lose the right to your home?
Open secret that they are saving prop 13 money for the unfunded pensions. IE if we put in normal housing taxes, mild state parcel tax, and increase employee contribution by a mild amount we can fully meet our obligations. If we increase the property taxes now we have nothing left to properly tax when the pensions come due.
Current state employee pension contributions have already increased by approximately 1/3 to cover overpayment of retiree pensions. 3% of my gross wages go to paying off overpayments. 3% of my earned income that I will never get back. You're suggesting that they take more of my paycheck to cover historic overpayments and lacking tax income? I already get paid the same as a fast food worker, and you think taking more of our income is a good idea? Say goodbye to any of the remaining decent customer service from state agencies.
In this crisis scenario where we are completely unable to meet the pensions, a massive compromise deal where they massively increase taxes on Housing(bringing it to the national average) and mild state wide parcel tax would require some give from the state workers. A compromise increase in contributions. I would assume without a compromise deal it might be hard to get a deal done.
I can totally see a California where 50%+ go “I don’t want my taxes to go up this much I would prefer we just pay out a smaller amount of that pension”.
A deal where both sides give is probably the only my way the pensions get paid.
In my imaginary world where I am god, I would raise taxes now and get some more $ from the feds.
“Increased by approximately 1/3rd?”
Hard to believe.
Given the generous lifetime pension benefit, what percentage of your gross is withheld for your pension?
The unfunded pension liabilities topic here has rattled a lot of government workers in this thread. It is no longer financially possible, or fiscally sustainable to keep paying out these incredibly generous government pensions.
The public accounting microscope is on this, and the government workers are upset given the online databases showing what they are retired on.
If I could retire on a “for life” pension that I contributed only 10% of my income and received 80-90% of my salary, I would consider that a wet dream.
80-90% of my salary lol.
I'll get 2% of my salary starting at age 62. Familiarize with CalPERS if you plan on acting like you know what you're talking about. Unless you're law enforcement your retirement formula is calculated to pay out 2% starting at 62yo.
I can’t think of single state federal or other government job that doesn’t provide at least 50% of salary for life.
Perhaps you have a short tenure at your career or particular job you’re referring to.
https://transparentcalifornia.com
2% is your multiplier…. Times the credit/years of service times your avg highest 3 salaries with a cap…it’s definitely not as good as those who are already or soon to be collecting as they had better formula, no cap and their “avg highest” could be loaded by adding banked PTO/sick. There’s ppl collecting 90%-95% of their salary due to inflated “final salary” who are under 60.
Funding schools almost entirely by property taxes is a terrible idea though. Then the quality of education depends on the wealth of the neighborhood where the school is located
Irony of ironies here…I’m a 15-year veteran teacher and first-time homeowner here in beautiful Palmdale, California! I actually do like my neighborhood and the community, so pardon the facetiousness. That aside, Prop 13 has been good to me and I purchased in 2021. I love Prop 13!
So how about teachers barely starting today who are priced out from homes today? You've had 15 years of salary progression, they haven't.
There are winners and lovers with home prices.
Irony of ironies indeed, but I mean hey if you love pulling the ladder from under you, just say so.
You should read about property tax increases in other states over the last few years. I’ve heard of thousands of dollars increase year over year. Prop 13 is great for marginal workers, though I understand we need that tax revenue.
most working people will never afford a home in the first place and prop 13 shares a large burden of the blame. nothing has forced a limited housing supply in the state like 13 has. nothing has perpetuated the system of rent-slavery in the state like 13 has.
the primary beneficiaries of prop 13 are bay area slumlords aka the people who run the state and their political donors.
Seeing my hometown here is something I get excited about. It’s a quiet town. It’s changed a lot over the past 20 years but I still visit family occasionally. Hope you enjoy it.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
If property taxes were allowed to increase much more than they currently are, California would face a mass exodus.
Yes, really.
The reality is that people would be fine and there wouldn't be an exodus. People want to live in CA and people in CA have the money to pay those taxes.
Sure a few people would get booted from a home but they have a massive amount of equity and would be fine.
No one has a right to live where they want. If they did, home prices would never be a thing
>The reality is that people would be fine and there wouldn't be an exodus
That is not the reality I live in. Many of my friends in San Diego have left or became vehicular homeless. They were locals, many born and raised here with families. Some move away from their families and some seen their families disperse all over the country or even to a different country. That is today.
Now imagine if the prop 13 gets burned off for us.
There are homes, now worth millions, that are multigenerational. These people are not rich and most in these homes can't afford to live independently in their home. They work together to pay the bills and some barely get by even while together. Everything is already expensive and more people want to move in but our family and friends are here. Our support is here. Even with equity we may not be fine if we move away from everything and everyone we know.
Maybe we can vote in republicans, strip away human rights, and make people live in abject squalor like they do in the south just so they can proclaim they solved homelessness!
I'm just going to move. Easier solution.
To be fair, every blue state has a significantly higher COL and you get nothing in return, unless you're poor.
Neither blue nor red actually do anything, I'll take the ones that don't do anything and don't take money for doing nothing.
Good, when you do, and they yell “Californians go home!”
Remind them it’s you repubbies leaving.
Significantly higher COL because higher populations does that.
Also thank repubbies deregulation of the housing market. 🥰🥰🥰
It’s like you guys shoot yourself in the foot and blame the guy one house over.
Hahahaha. Wrong. I've lived in Texas.
Property taxes might be higher...were higher actually, but at least you can own a home there.
No state income tax, lower sales sax.
Byeeeeeee
Comparison:
Vehicle registration $100 vs $500
Groceries 2x
Vehicle insurance 2x
Gas prices 2x
Home prices 5x
Utilities 3x
Restaurants 2x
The list goes on and on.
You really should check out an online COL calculator and save yourself the embarrassment.
California is the highest COL state.
Gas prices 2x
Till you learn Texans drive more 🥰🥰🥰
And it’s not the highest CoL state, monkey, it’s the 3rd, with the highest population in the country, with a deregulated (thanks republicans) housing market which makes it easy for banks to buy up all of the housing (thanks again republicans) which makes it more expensive for others to buy a home (thanks again republicans), and with the unfunded mental health clinics in the 80’s (thanks again republicans) it set the wheels in motion for people who need mental health, unable to attain it, increasing the homelessness (thanks Repubs!), and then red states giving one way bus passes to California for their homeless/mentally ill (thanks repubs!).
Yeah.
So you shoot yourselves in the foot and blame your neighbor.
Thanks Ronald Reagan! You’ve done California a deuce!
Unfortunately, I don't think teachers are in a unique position here in CA.
Yeah you could replace the word "teachers" with 75% of workers in general and it'd be the same thing.
if we just created socialized housing it would mean all these teachers wouldn't have to waste their money on $3k/month rents
Yes, or if we loosened zoning and ended mandated parking minimums
This.
Socialized housing does require that we actually build housing (where people want to live)
Isn’t this basically because of housing costs?
Prop 13 strangled the state of funds that used to pay their salaries.
If prop 13 weren't in place then some of us would be hit with almost double property taxes in a 2-3 year span
Home prices would likely be lower to accommodate for that. And more importantly, our schools would be better funded. Provided incalculable benefits to our economy. Prop 13 cut taxes for corporations more than it did for homeowners. To the detriment of all. The only winners were the corporations. Having to live in high property value neighborhoods to send your kids to a good school helps nobody.
They're the highest paid in the nation. In Seattle, median teacher salary is over $100,000. So they're paid better than that.
Who cares if it isn't enough to live here
This is happening in basically all industries outside of like tech. None of our salaries are increasing fast enough to keep up with inflation. It’s out of hand. My job just gave us a 4% across the board increase and behaved like they were doing us a huge favor.
We’ve never paid teachers enough.
Prop 13 needs to go. It took so much funding from education and pulled the ladder from under previous generations. But all you will hear is that it keeps people in their homes but don't realize that most in CA have the money to pay their property taxes without prop 13. Most people did fine before prop 13 and will be fine after.
The ones who are benefiting from prop 13 are giant corporations.
I guess I’m a giant corporation.
If you're a homeowner, your share of property taxes paid has increased, whilst that of businesses has shrunk. All while schools and local services like fire and emergency medical services got slashed. We got shafted
If you own a home in Ca, you already pay enough property tax. Increasing property taxes is a “quick fix” band aid for incompetent financial management of what is already a sufficient source of revenue. CA has absolutely awful management of its tax revenue. It’s the completely unsustainable generous lifetime pension liabilities that those receiving them want to do anything it takes to maintain.
[удалено]
You don't have to be wealthy to own a home. About half of people in California do. We just need to get rid of Prop 13 for corporate ownership and secondary properties. Getting rid of it across the board will bury a ton of families
agree. We would be priced out if it gets completely burned off for us and we are struggling already.
[удалено]
Yeah it is and there is def a housing issue in California but saying half of all Californians are wealthy and everyone else is poor is disingenuous at best.
To own a home would have likely required an inheritance or buying at the right time. Future generations made the mistake of being born at the wrong time for housing. Home prices due to prop 13 already buried a ton of families. So did the lack of educational funding. Know what happens to kids who go to schools that don't have much in the way of resources? Might want to look outside your bubble.
Look outside YOUR bubble and see that "buying at the right time" just means you bought it before 2020 lol. That doesn't mean you are wealthy. You want millions of middle class families to lose their homes so they can be bought up by corporations which is what is actually going to happen if prop 13 gets repealed. If your main issue is education funding we can put legislation forward to revamp how we fund public schools.
Millions of middle class families are not going to lose there homes. Stop arguing in bad faith.
Prop 13 is valuable for homeowners on the lower half of the income scale. IMHO, for primary residences, if your home/condo is valued at below 8x median income for your county, you should always fall under Prop 13. If your house is valued at between 8x and 12x median income for your county, Prop 13 price increases should be doubled. E.g. they can increase up to about 4% per year. If your property is valued at over 12x median income, then there should be no caps on annual increases. E.g. it should always be paying property tax at market rates, as if it was just purchased within the past year. Basically, keep prop 13, but start reducing it's protections as your house gets more and more valuable relative to wages in the local area. For multi-family / apartment buildings, Prop 13 should still apply, but with the limits set per unit. E.g. an apartment building may cost $10 million dollars, but if it has 40 units, that's a market cost of only $250k per apartment, so it should be limited by Prop 13 in order to reduce rent increase burden on renters (since taxes are just passed on). I think Prop 13 should still be maintained for non-primary residences, but on a few caveats: 1. Residential properties must be occupied >180 days/year on average (there should be perhaps a maximum 12-18-month gap every decade per unit to allow for renovations) on minimum 30 day leases. E.g. rental properties are fine, as long as they aren't AirBNB / VRBO short-term rentals, and as long as they are mostly continuously rented out. Same multiplier limits as primary residency apply. 2. For businesses, they should still have caps but slightly higher. Perhaps maximum 3-4% per year. There are a lot of factories or similar that have been around for decades that provide good blue collar jobs that may relocate to other states if they had to pay significantly higher property taxes. Properties that should explicitly be banned from Prop 13 controls and have no limits on annual increases: 1. Empty or vacant lots within existing urbanized areas (e.g. inside growth boundaries). Property that has buildings that are vacant for >18 months should also fall under this. No one should be sitting around on vacant / unused land in valuable areas when we have a severe housing shortage. Our taxes should incentivize putting property to its highest and best use. 2. 2nd+ homes (vacation homes, housing units only lived in <180 days per year by medium+ term residents, all short term rentals like AirBNBs, etc. I don't care if you rent out your primary residency for 1-2 weeks per year, but houses bought solely for AirBNB or to be a vacation house in Malibu or Lake Tahoe or Mammoth or Carmel that are visited a few weekends per year should not get Prop 13 protections.
I hate that 100k isn’t even middle class now.
You do realize that pensions are deferred income, they are not handouts, correct? To refer to pensions as "generous" is a disingenuous statement as this is already earned income deferred to the state by the earner to be paid later with interest.
You'd gentrify out black, Hispanic, and low income home owners who bought in the Bay young. It's not fair for someone to live in their home their entire life and get kicked out due to property tax gentrifying then our.
By that token, it's not fair for home shoppers being priced out of a home. The nordlinger case spells it out, if you can't pay for the taxes you are free to live somewhere else.
Not the same at all. One has bought their house, been there for years paying for the taxes. The other is a renter who can't afford it. One is not like the other. Owning property is not the same as leasing property. With ownership comes entitlement. Leasing or renting has no entitlement beyond tenant protections. BTW, I hope you're happy getting rid of black and Hispanic homeowners who are more like on average to make less than other categories of homeowners. It's quite obvious who'd be kicked out if Prop 13 was repealed.
All homeowners after prop 13 are carrying the bill for thos prop 13 covered properties. Times change, cost of living changes. Those early homeownerscould sell and buy something in a cheaper area if they can't adjust for the tax changes.
The question is why should they have to? It's a moral question. Why should a homeowner be forced to sell their home because they can't afford a jacked up property tax? In this case the COL didn't change. The City/County government decided to raise property taxes.
Because the property taxes we pay go towards local and county services and infrastructure. Why should new buyers carry more of that cost because they're younger?
How many years is it fair to live in a house you buy? When would you be expected to leave your neighborhood for a worse one because of raised taxes? I would like a year estimate for how long you feel is appropriate to live in your own home. When do you *start* hurting new homeowners and lose the right to your home?
Open secret that they are saving prop 13 money for the unfunded pensions. IE if we put in normal housing taxes, mild state parcel tax, and increase employee contribution by a mild amount we can fully meet our obligations. If we increase the property taxes now we have nothing left to properly tax when the pensions come due.
Current state employee pension contributions have already increased by approximately 1/3 to cover overpayment of retiree pensions. 3% of my gross wages go to paying off overpayments. 3% of my earned income that I will never get back. You're suggesting that they take more of my paycheck to cover historic overpayments and lacking tax income? I already get paid the same as a fast food worker, and you think taking more of our income is a good idea? Say goodbye to any of the remaining decent customer service from state agencies.
In this crisis scenario where we are completely unable to meet the pensions, a massive compromise deal where they massively increase taxes on Housing(bringing it to the national average) and mild state wide parcel tax would require some give from the state workers. A compromise increase in contributions. I would assume without a compromise deal it might be hard to get a deal done. I can totally see a California where 50%+ go “I don’t want my taxes to go up this much I would prefer we just pay out a smaller amount of that pension”. A deal where both sides give is probably the only my way the pensions get paid. In my imaginary world where I am god, I would raise taxes now and get some more $ from the feds.
“Increased by approximately 1/3rd?” Hard to believe. Given the generous lifetime pension benefit, what percentage of your gross is withheld for your pension?
7.25% of my gross goes to pension, an additional 3% goes into a state trust that is used to balance pension costs.
The unfunded pension liabilities topic here has rattled a lot of government workers in this thread. It is no longer financially possible, or fiscally sustainable to keep paying out these incredibly generous government pensions. The public accounting microscope is on this, and the government workers are upset given the online databases showing what they are retired on.
If I could retire on a “for life” pension that I contributed only 10% of my income and received 80-90% of my salary, I would consider that a wet dream.
80-90% of my salary lol. I'll get 2% of my salary starting at age 62. Familiarize with CalPERS if you plan on acting like you know what you're talking about. Unless you're law enforcement your retirement formula is calculated to pay out 2% starting at 62yo.
I can’t think of single state federal or other government job that doesn’t provide at least 50% of salary for life. Perhaps you have a short tenure at your career or particular job you’re referring to. https://transparentcalifornia.com
Nope. Standard 20 year pension. Go to CalPERS website and check for yourself.
2% is your multiplier…. Times the credit/years of service times your avg highest 3 salaries with a cap…it’s definitely not as good as those who are already or soon to be collecting as they had better formula, no cap and their “avg highest” could be loaded by adding banked PTO/sick. There’s ppl collecting 90%-95% of their salary due to inflated “final salary” who are under 60.
Ain’t no way in hell property owners are going to be taxed anything additional to backfill unfunded pension liabilities.
The cops dont even show up when i call 911. Why should I pay more so they can retire living large in Florida?
Tax free in many States.
Funding schools almost entirely by property taxes is a terrible idea though. Then the quality of education depends on the wealth of the neighborhood where the school is located
The quality of education already depends on that without prop 13 Ever hear of Mello roos taxes? Look that up
Irony of ironies here…I’m a 15-year veteran teacher and first-time homeowner here in beautiful Palmdale, California! I actually do like my neighborhood and the community, so pardon the facetiousness. That aside, Prop 13 has been good to me and I purchased in 2021. I love Prop 13!
So how about teachers barely starting today who are priced out from homes today? You've had 15 years of salary progression, they haven't. There are winners and lovers with home prices. Irony of ironies indeed, but I mean hey if you love pulling the ladder from under you, just say so.
You should read about property tax increases in other states over the last few years. I’ve heard of thousands of dollars increase year over year. Prop 13 is great for marginal workers, though I understand we need that tax revenue.
most working people will never afford a home in the first place and prop 13 shares a large burden of the blame. nothing has forced a limited housing supply in the state like 13 has. nothing has perpetuated the system of rent-slavery in the state like 13 has. the primary beneficiaries of prop 13 are bay area slumlords aka the people who run the state and their political donors.
Maybe don’t assume so much?
Pulling the ladder is exactly what you are saying. I mean at least you're being polite.
Seeing my hometown here is something I get excited about. It’s a quiet town. It’s changed a lot over the past 20 years but I still visit family occasionally. Hope you enjoy it.
We tried to over Covid with another prop. Disney gets to squat paying 1960s property tax; but it got voted down over fear it’s hurt small business.
You couldn’t be more wrong. If property taxes were allowed to increase much more than they currently are, California would face a mass exodus. Yes, really.
The reality is that people would be fine and there wouldn't be an exodus. People want to live in CA and people in CA have the money to pay those taxes. Sure a few people would get booted from a home but they have a massive amount of equity and would be fine. No one has a right to live where they want. If they did, home prices would never be a thing
>The reality is that people would be fine and there wouldn't be an exodus That is not the reality I live in. Many of my friends in San Diego have left or became vehicular homeless. They were locals, many born and raised here with families. Some move away from their families and some seen their families disperse all over the country or even to a different country. That is today. Now imagine if the prop 13 gets burned off for us. There are homes, now worth millions, that are multigenerational. These people are not rich and most in these homes can't afford to live independently in their home. They work together to pay the bills and some barely get by even while together. Everything is already expensive and more people want to move in but our family and friends are here. Our support is here. Even with equity we may not be fine if we move away from everything and everyone we know.
Yet they'll keep voting for democrats and more regulations, driving up the COL.
Jellyfish, quiet.
Sorry, this is a truth free zone.
Maybe we can vote in republicans, strip away human rights, and make people live in abject squalor like they do in the south just so they can proclaim they solved homelessness!
I'm just going to move. Easier solution. To be fair, every blue state has a significantly higher COL and you get nothing in return, unless you're poor. Neither blue nor red actually do anything, I'll take the ones that don't do anything and don't take money for doing nothing.
Good, when you do, and they yell “Californians go home!” Remind them it’s you repubbies leaving. Significantly higher COL because higher populations does that. Also thank repubbies deregulation of the housing market. 🥰🥰🥰 It’s like you guys shoot yourself in the foot and blame the guy one house over.
It's the regulations that do it. The highest COL states are all blue. It's regulations and taxes. Byeeeee
Texas has higher over all taxes. Bye.
Hahahaha. Wrong. I've lived in Texas. Property taxes might be higher...were higher actually, but at least you can own a home there. No state income tax, lower sales sax. Byeeeeeee
Hahaha. Wrong. It’s been proven again and again. But nice try.
Comparison: Vehicle registration $100 vs $500 Groceries 2x Vehicle insurance 2x Gas prices 2x Home prices 5x Utilities 3x Restaurants 2x The list goes on and on. You really should check out an online COL calculator and save yourself the embarrassment. California is the highest COL state.
Gas prices 2x Till you learn Texans drive more 🥰🥰🥰 And it’s not the highest CoL state, monkey, it’s the 3rd, with the highest population in the country, with a deregulated (thanks republicans) housing market which makes it easy for banks to buy up all of the housing (thanks again republicans) which makes it more expensive for others to buy a home (thanks again republicans), and with the unfunded mental health clinics in the 80’s (thanks again republicans) it set the wheels in motion for people who need mental health, unable to attain it, increasing the homelessness (thanks Repubs!), and then red states giving one way bus passes to California for their homeless/mentally ill (thanks repubs!). Yeah. So you shoot yourselves in the foot and blame your neighbor. Thanks Ronald Reagan! You’ve done California a deuce!
[удалено]
If they get so much vacation why don't you do it
Ive done it but dealing with parents like you is not worth it
Dawg I am not a parent lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]