The “Texas Miracle” loses some of its magic as Oracle announces it’s moving its new HQ out of Austin and Tesla lays off nearly 2,700 workers.
some of the Californians who moved here during the pandemic realized they had traded Edenic weather for 110-degree summers and no income tax, and they decided that the income tax wasn’t that bad
People discovering what the state provide isn’t free.
Also, just because Texas doesn’t have income tax doesn’t mean you don’t pay taxes. Your taxes come from other places, like property tax, and they don’t provide you with a great living experience like they do in California.
The article even addresses this. Texas Monthly in general is a good gauge of the “44%” of Texas that isn’t crazy, or at least is crazy in the silly fun way.
Meanwhile, Texas is not a low-tax, low-service state, as is commonly held. It’s a high-tax, low-service state: we may have no income tax, but at least one study found that we have one of the ten highest total tax burdens in the nation, with property taxes making up most of the gap. The quality of state services, however, has not improved commensurate with the growth of state budgets.
Toll the shit out of anyone trying to go highway speeds
I’m in CA and while state taxes exist, they are a really small part of the taxes I pay. It’s such a small amount, i can’t imagine anyone moving to motherfucking Texass to escape them. Unless they already want to go.
It’s the CEOs that want to go. They try to drag everyone else with them. Then when half the talent doesn’t go, and they can’t find enough talent there, they realize why they were in California in the first place.
Isn’t Texas built on the same letters as taxes? They need money to run the state or print it (what is a bad idea anywhere).
Texas promotes itself with the no income taxes, but what the state provide afterward is another story. People believe in the argument and discover the reality. Your neighbor backyard isn’t greener. If you cut a tax, you either take the money somewhere else or cut your expense. People discover that paying taxes provides some benefits…
Libertarians discovering reality is such a great genre.
Also, property tax is really high in Texas and unlike California, you aren’t shielded from spikes in property value greatly increasing your property tax burden.
I believe it’s to a degree that the average tax burden is actually higher in Texas than California.
But are they all moving back to California?
Last I heard was most are going to Nashville which has absolutely terrible traffic and infrastructure, soaring land costs and pushing 100 degrees, arming teachers, arresting folks for DUI even if you’ve not had a drink. Weather has absolutely nothing to do with any of the decisions because the CEOs don’t go to the office. It’s all about the latest city tax break.
It’s weird that people are talking this up like anything Texas has done would cause this. The people in charge don’t give a shit about you, they don’t give a shit about you living in 110 degrees weather, and they certainly don’t give a shit if you die because of a pregnancy complication.
Also, isn’t California a bit too warm itself?
a bit is a touch different than opening your front door at midnight and walking into satan’s armpit
That’s a vivid comparison, thanks
If it does reach 110, that’s only for a day or two a year. Most summer days it’s below 100. And I live in San Diego county. In Northern California in the SF Bay Area, I don’t think it ever got to 110 in the nine years I lived there. There was basically one hot month a year, where it would get to the low 90s for a couple weeks.
Texas also sits next to a very warm body of water. Swimming in it is like bathing in a pool of hot sweat. The humidity is off the charts. I could get a general read on the comfort level by which direction the planes were landing and taking off. They always head into the wind. One direction meant high temps plus high humidity, and the other meant less off both due to a cool front blowing in from up north.
California has the opposite. Sure most of it is a desert, but the cool Pacific Ocean cools the air and contributes a lot less humidity.
Houston is beyond trans-Floridian levels of humidity, that’s true. DFW can be humid to people from dryer places, but it’s very much not Floridian and generally dry enough that, for instance, sweating works how it’s supposed to. El Paso is literally in a desert.
As someone from the northern Mississippi basin y’all are crazy to live there. I’ll stick to my wet cool climates. I can handle the frigid weeks and the snow isn’t that bad
LOL, the weather is really not so bad, and after living in a Montreal winter for several weeks, no thank you.
Politically, the biggest of the assholes want the rest of us to leave, which makes me want to stay more. These motherfuckers will not steal Willie Nelson and Townes Van Zandt and Molly Ivins and Anne Richards and Chopped & Screwed and Tejano and Tex-Mex and delicious motherfucking brisket from us.
I still believe there is a better Texas, though I concede there will never be a perfect Texas.
I feel that as an Ohioan. I’m here half out of spite and half out of inability to find a job in the northeast or Chicago.
It’s a hellhole here, but it’s my hellhole and we were supposed to be a purple state that matters none of this fashy bullshit. Fuckin hell these confederate flag waving motherfuckers better get the hell out of the home of John Brown and Ulysses Grant
Inland Imperial who fucks around in the high desert a lot, even with the heat a bit of shade can drop the effective temp down quite a bit. Its the sun that is dangerous really, or maybe im just that much of a pale assed motherfucker IDK.
deleted by creator
No CA really is comfortable outside of some low deserts and high mountainous areas. Stuff stays pretty much in the middle year round.
Anywhere not on the coast or high in mountains, yes. I’m in a large valley, and summers can be pretty rough. Not Phoenix rough, but still rough.
The dry heat in socal is really not that bad, especially in the shade. What’s far worse is the stifling humidity in the east, south, etc.
California is a big place.
Texas is a high tax, low service state.
California is a high tax, high service state.
Texas spends their taxes on corporate welfare.
California spends their taxes on education, infrastructure and health care.
A company made me an offer last year when I was looking for startups, but they required me to move to Austin. Austin is a nice place, but it’s unfortunately surrounded by Texas. Fast forward to today and they are moving out of Texas because it’s too expensive and they are having trouble retaining talent. The incentives the city has been offering to foster their own Silicon Valley are stalling because it’s not much cheaper and the state legislature is a Barnum circus of inhumanity.
Any state that supports a law enforcement that DOESN’T see children dying in a building tells me right away what they are about. Udalve spoke so much to their character and how it was handled after. Just deplorable. I have friends that left the state after the abortion ban because they are women. So, yea. They got issues down there.
I understand why women might be stuck in Texas. But it seems foolish af to move somewhere that would force you to incubate a fetus inside your body.
and won’t protect the kid once it’s born from getting shot. even with cops right there.
nailed it.
Don’t know if it’s a low service state. They have pretty strong welfare programs, despite what Republicans will have you believe. Their public education is ranked pretty similarly to California for K-12, if not better depending on the specific list. Their public universities are among the best in the country. Their hospitals are the best in the country.
The biggest drawback is that their legislators think they can practice medicine without having the relevant qualifications. But Californian medical laws and viewpoints have their own drawbacks. Let’s not forget, before covid, anti-vaxers were primarily associated with crunchy liberal moms refusing to vaccinate their children. California was among the first to have a resurgence of measles. CA is also a state trying to obfuscate medical roles by allowing advanced practitioners (NPs and PAs) to practice independently (without a surprising DO or MD), as well as allowing naturopaths to identify themselves as physicians. While it’s easier to see the harms of Texas’s medical laws right now, California has had it’s fair share of negative impact on it’s populous.
A lot of the Republican rhetoric is empty, meaningless, and far from the truth. This is what makes Republican politics so frustrating. They say one thing, want something else, and do something entirely different. As a liberal it makes it difficult to engage in a meaningful conversation with them. But this sort of state comparison based on broad generalizations also increases the divide, while being very helpful.
Can’t blame them, Texas is an ugly, shithole state and most of the politicians are worse.
As a Texan, not sure what part of Texas you think is so ugly. There is a lot of beauty here.
Our politicians just suck.
Having lived there, Houston to College Station to Waco is 100% ugly. Really all of East Texas. I admit the hill country is pretty decent.
I moved to Seattle, though. Most Texans don’t know what they’re missing.
I’ve traveled the country full time in an RV for two years. Yes, there are more beautiful places in the US (Sequoia, Redwood Forests, Olympic National Park, etc), but I’m just saying that Texas isn’t all just some drab hole-in-the-wall. If you want that, go to Ohio or Indiana.
Every state has some beauty. Ohio has Cuyahoga Valley and Indiana can see the Chicago skyline across Lake Michigan.
I love that you say every state has some beauty and then say that the best thing in Indiana is that you can see the next state over.
Not only that but you look over to see man made beauty not natural like we were talking about lmao
Indiana actually has some very nice state parks, and the Hoosier National Forest is quite pleasant as well
I loved the little dis, but for real the Great Lakes Region is one of the most beautiful parts of the country, I’d put it on par with our mountain ranges. Indiana only has a sliver of it, but northern Indiana is beautiful unlike the hellhole that is Fort Wayne. It’s like if a bunch of people decided to move to Lima for some unknown reason.
I’d put Turkey Run State Park near the top of the list for Indiana.
How did a state with the Appalachian mountains, major cities, a major tributary of the Mississippi, and a Great Lake make your bland list. You want to see nothing? Go to Iowa. The Great Plains are a magnificent ecosystem with immense value, but gods is it a boring one to look at. You glimpse at it and are just like “yep, it’s grass and farmland”.
As a kid we drove from Dayton to Denver and yeah that chunk of Ohio is boring, as is that chunk of Indiana and Illinois, but once you pass the Mississippi holy fuck is there just nothing until mountains show up. It’s like being on the open ocean
I’m enjoying the hell out of just my commute here in Seattle, on a motorcycle in the rain.
Mt Rainier is unbelievable, the way it looms.
I moved away from Seattle (not to Texas), and while it’s gorgeous, it’s also kinda depressing. So I live in Utah, which is sunny, has gorgeous mountains, and lots of other natural beauty. I do try to make it back to the PNW periodically (planning to go this June).
The only place I’ve been in Texas is San Antonio, which was pretty (esp. the river walk).
June is a great time to go back. I always dream of being a snow bird and just living in Seattle when the weather is great (June through Sept), then going somewhere warm and deserty for the winter.
I’ve considered moving back, but honestly, I’m happy just being within driving distance of the PNW. I’m thinking of maybe moving to E. Washington or E. Oregon near the mountains to get a bit of the best of both worlds: lots of sun and only an hour out two drive from the green mountains.
That doesn’t really solve the winter months, but it means I would only move south for 3-4 months of the year (December-March).
So for now, I go back almost every year. I’m going for a wedding in June, and two years ago we did a big road trip up there and visited Victoria, BC. Next year we’ll probably do another trip there.
But I much prefer the sun, so I’m content to travel.
Driving i35, getting to i35, its all parking lots and shopping malls.
It looks like a giant oversized strip mall.
Within city walls it’s beautiful. But since Texas is so car dependent most of what you see are strip malls, giant bridges, and poor road design.
Sounds like I-15 through northern Utah.
i mean, if you could appreciate it anywhere it would be a lot better. how the fuck do so many people actually not have ANYWHERE BETTER to take pictures of wildflowers than the side of the freeway. that really highlights a big problem with Texas. they may have had beauty, but they bought, sold, rented, and ruined most of it until there’s only a trash covered vestige at a dangerous crossing left. it’s the biggest contiguous state, and somehow has nearly the least public land.
Try visiting a not ugly state like California.
I’ve seen basically all of the West half of the US and lived there. Yes, California is more beautiful. I’m just saying Texas isn’t some horribly drab state all around. Big Bend, Davis Mountains, etc. are beautiful in their own right.
?? Socal is pretty ugly. It has gross rolling hills that remind me of S. Idaho, suburban sprawl, and the beaches are all crowded. San Diego is nice, but pretty much anything between San Diego and SF Bay area is pretty ugly imo, and that’s where most of the population lives.
Northern California is pretty though, as are the national parks. But imo, pretty much everything California has, somewhere else does it better:
- forests - PNW; Olympic rainforest, and anywhere on the west side of the cascades beats anything Cali has
- mountains - cascades and the Rockies are much prettier imo
- beaches - surfing is good in Cali, but for pretty much everything else, I prefer the gulf for warmer, calmer water
I really don’t like visiting Cali. My in-laws live in LA and my cousin’s live in SF, and both are unpleasant to visit imo. If I had to live anywhere, I’d probably pick San Diego or northern Cali (well north of SF.
I currently live in Utah, which I much prefer. It has:
- pretty mountains
- gorgeous state and national parks
- fishing
- mountain bike and hiking trails near my house
- enough population to have everything I need
If I moved, I’d probably go east (N. Caroline seems nice) or back to the Northwest (grew up near Seattle, so I’d probably go east of the mountains for more sun). Never to California.
I’m very much not a desert person, but the scale of the inland valley, the quiet beauty of Joshua tree, etc… Moved from socal, but there was a lot of beauty that doesn’t call you to it loudly, you just suddenly notice and enjoy it.
Joshua tree looks like a bunch of rocky hills… Till you notice they’re all rounded and stacked perfectly. You notice how arid it is, and then notice green leaves in spite of that.
If you’re observant, there’s beauty everywhere natural.
Sure, but try comparing that to southern Utah, western/central Colorado, northern Arizona/New Mexico, or western Wyoming/Montana.
There’s cool stuff in Cali, it’s just largely locked away in national and state parks. In all of the areas I mentioned, you can live in that beauty all the time, or go visit national and state parks for even more of it.
In my area, I can be away from people and among natural beauty with a 15 min drive up the canyon, or ride my bike about 30 min to hit some trails. I look out my windows and see towing mountains, and on my commute I can take the long way (about 15 min extra) and drive through the mountains instead of the highway.
Cali is fine if you’re into urban stuff and want beauty on the weekends and are fine sitting in traffic to get there. I prefer beauty all the time.
Not knocking your choices, just to be clear. I do in fact like keeping up with entertainment and arts, can’t really get concerts, symphonies and plays out in the hills. For me and many others, cities are great. There are places that are still nestled in the hills with small town vibes in soCal, check out Silverado canyon as an example.
I camp when I want to reconnect to nature, and ride my bicycle all over the place. Cities can be very beautiful in their own right, though I admittedly have an engineer’s bias when viewing.
can’t wait get concerts, symphonies and plays out in the hills
I’m like 40 min from downtown SLC, and there’s a commuter rail like 10 min from my house. So going to concerts, symphonies, and plays really isn’t an issue.
Worst case, I’ll take a flight to an urban center for a weekend (regular flights to NYC, SF, LA, etc) if there’s an event I really want to go to (I like the Seattle Nutcracker). Vegas is like 6 hours away, so it’s also an option for events.
Likewise if I lived near Denver.
Silverado
Looks nice, but a bit pricey. Then again, my area is getting pretty pricey as well (like $500-600k for a decent place, when it used to be $200-300k when I moved here).
I would be a bit nervous about fires and flooding though. No issues with that in my area.
Cities can be very beautiful in their own right
Sure, and I like visiting ours, I just don’t want to live in one. Give me close access to commuter rail and a canyon and I’m happy. That way I can get the best of both worlds.
My main complaint is that my area isn’t very bikable, so I bought a house right next to a major bike path, which goes like 20 miles in either direction through fields, near urban areas, and along train tracks. I used to commute 10 miles each way on that path for work, and I regularly exercise on it now that I commute to far (25 miles downtown). Most of my trips are fine on a bike, with the grocery, library, and lots of parks within a mile or two with no major roads in between (or just one with a solid crosswalk).
Utah is gorgeous.
There are definitely parts of Socal that are ugly. Also parts that are sublime.
Eh, I’ve been around a but and the “good” parts usually have better analogues elsewhere. And then you add all the smog and traffic and it’s just not where I want to spend my time.
The weather is nice and predictable though, so I’ll give it that.
someone from utah complaining about smog somewhere else? now I know they haven’t left the state in decades.
It only sucks in February and parts of November. Most of the year it’s totally fine. Most days are green, with a handful of red and yellow throughout the year, and most of the red days are from Cali and Nevada wildfires.
I grew up near Seattle, and I regular visit family there. We visit Cali (LA) almost every year too (my in-laws), and I visit family in Montana as well. My in-laws almost always have crappier air than us because smog in LA is a constant, instead of inversion-based like it is in Utah.
And yeah, I wish they air was better. We’re doing something to fix it, with tier 3 gas at most stations (lower particulate emissions), lots of people moving to solar power (net metering), and EV charging stations getting more and more available. I wish we’d do more (e.g. tax big trucks like crazy), but air quality is rarely an issue.
That said, I’m acutely aware of air quality issues here because I used to commute almost every day by bike. It’s worse near SLC, which is part of why I’m in northern Utah county (close-ish to downtown, but less pollution).
Fucking lmao. Dude, Texas has its own beauty, but it isn’t a pretty state.
I have driven across 49 states. When I go back to the photos I took in Texas, I think “huh, wonder what I thought looked cool here… That lump in the distance?”
Yes there are hills. There’s even mountains. Not near anything though. Where everything is, it’s flat as fuck. Brown, dirt, sandy boring.
Hamilton Pool is the most gorgeous thing in the whole state. It is a sight to behold. It’s also 1 hour of boring scenery away from any group of humans conducting any kind of business.
Easily the ugliest scenery of any state I can think of. Second only to Alabama and Mississippi? At least Louisiana has the bayous. Tennessee has real mountains. Oklahoma has… Grass?
Texas is fucking hideous. It’s like Nevada without anything cool.
You haven’t seen Texas, then. Texas has Big Bend, which is my second favorite National Park in the whole country. And I’ve been to over 100 National Parks, Preserves, and Monuments.
Yosemite is still more beautiful, though.
deleted by creator
National parks are owned by the Feds, so using them as “my state is beautiful” is cheating. Guarantee it TX was actually responsible for the maintenance of their parks… Well they probably wouldn’t exist to begin with, but sure as shit wouldn’t be what they are today
That’s ridiculous.
lol ever been to Houston?
Im not sure they’re issuing blanket dismissal. Parts of Texas are indeed ugly. I’m sure part of you is ugly to, but that doesn’t mean all of you is ugly, you beautiful bastard.
Have you? Houston isn’t the “concrete jungle” it was in the 80’s… I personally prefer it over NYC and LA. Chicago is a close second to Houston for me.
I have multiple times and i strongly believe that it’s the ugliest city I’ve ever seen.
Like many southern states, there is much natural beauty in Texas. It doesn’t seem like many of the locals realize what they are blessed with.
What happens is that it all gets paved over for wider highways, more expansive empty parking lots, and sprawling suburbs.
It happens everywhere in the US, but particularly in Texas. It’s an asphalt nightmare.
Well, you’ve got Big Bend and Palo Duro. Where’s the 3rd beautiful place?
Davis Mountains, Palo Duro, Enchanted Rock…Texas is a huge ass state with a lot of different stuff to see.
Yosemite is my favorite National Park in the country, but Big Bend is a close second.
Deaf Smith county is so ugly.
I love it.
I wouldnt say Texas ia ugly per se but y’all aint got much goin on ya dont even got mountains. Even Arkansas has ya beat with their hills.
This was always going to happen
Estateware you can’t get an abortion and the power grid isn’t stable who’s only attraction was cheaper rent than San Francisco and even that’s not really a thing anymore? What a dumb move
I would invite you to consider that tech billionaires value their talent so little that they’d make them move to Texas for a tax break.
I was asked to relocate to Texas for a position when I was hired. I said no thanks and went to the NYC office instead.
I know I wasn’t the only one to do this.
They were trying to hire in Austin and instead only found NYC talent. Tough break for them.
Well, I heard that Austin is very good and progressive, especially compared to the rest of Texas, and feels free of weird shit. But that was quite some time ago, and now it seems not to outweigh being in Texas anymore
Unfortunately, you would still be a blue dot in a sea of red backwater thinking, human rights limiting, crazy religious, and racist people that make up Texas as a whole.
The state government also hates the city and works to actively sabotage it. When they tried to reform their police after they murdered several protestors, the state took over the department. Despite being a small city, it has terrible transportation because the state never allocates any funding for it.
Austin is progressive compared to the rest of Texas, but that’s faint praise.
A pretty low bar to set, I understand
I’ve never understood the logic with the rent. Of course it’s cheaper, the weather is shitty and you’re stuck in the middle of fucking Texas. Texas is a trash state full of backwards laws and extremists.
Right? I always wondered why tech moved to Texas it has all the things data centers would hate:
- unstable electricity
- high heat
- high property taxes
If anything, I’d think they’d move to the great lakes.
- Close to the Chicago IXP
- Water for energy
- Cool weather
Keep them out of our post industrial hellhole!
But for real idk if these people can handle snow, so give it a few years before they move here
It didn’t keep them out of Utah or Colorado, so I wouldn’t give it much hope
They in fact cannot. Neither California nor Texas is prepared for freezing in any sense of the word.
LA is bad with snow but its also not a factor for most of em. I fucken hate snow but I know how to deal with it cause im in the foothills of the San Bernardino mountains and it sometimes slushes the fuck up. I hate it. Also NorCal freezes a lot theres areason why the Donner party happened up there.
For the first two decades of the century, what it meant to be Texan—as explained by the state’s politicians—was largely wrapped up in a feeling of competition with California.
As a Californian, I can’t help but think of that Mad Men meme: “I don’t think about you at all” or some such. Do all Texans really think this way or does this author just have a huge California-shaped chip on his shoulder?
Yeah, as weird as it sounds older Texans see California as some sort of threat, some weird liberalist state that is too far gone to save or some shit. Almost any political conversation thats had about red vs blue ends up mentioning California. It is the typical ‘old man shaking fist at clouds’ group though. Younger peeps either dont care or say something like ‘why would you want to move there??’ Wothout any way to backup why they said it.
“there’s nothing wrong with California that a good earthquake wouldn’t fix”. Heard that one a few times.
I’ve lived in both. The average people don’t seem to care.
Older Texans might namedrop California at times when they’re airing political grievances, but older people everywhere seem to have some casual “product of the times” prejudices against something.
Yeah, as I age I definitely wonder what is going to be my “product of the times” prejudice. I try really hard not to be prejudiced but it can be hard. For instance, I really don’t understand poly relationships. But I’m also not going to yuck someone else’s yum, especially when it comes to the rights of someone to do what they want if it isn’t harming anyone else.
We have plenty of things to be old grumpy grouches about.
“Those banks ruined the American dream and we bailed them out!”
“Fossil fuel companies successfully lobbied the government to allow them to poison our planet in the name of profit!”
“Those Disney crooks consolidated all media and destroyed independent creative ventures!”
“Back in my day we could afford a house if we saved 10 years of earnings for a down payment and then took out a loan eventually totaling twice the value of the purchase price. You kids have it easy with your rental sleeping pods and low-monthly rate outdoors park subscriptions. You don’t even contribute to furniture or clothing industries because you don’t own a place to put any!”
Anyone in tech who moved from Cali to Texas was completely misguided… Case in point, ElOn
Nah, makes sense for him. If you make less than 600k, California taxes you less than Texas. After 600k, Texas taxes you less.
If youre rich, Texas makes sure you pay less taxes than poor people.
Joe rogan, Musk, whoever. They move to Texas to not pay taxes.
Source? Texas has no income tax so I’m finding this a weird thing to say
https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/#income-taxes
This report identifies the most regressive state and local tax systems and the policy choices that drive that outcome. Many of the most upside-down tax systems have another trait in common: they are frequently hailed as “low tax” states, often with an emphasis on their lack of an income tax. But this raises the question: “low tax” for whom?
This study finds that very few states achieve low tax rates across the board for all income groups, and those that do usually rely heavily on energy or tourism sectors that cannot realistically be replicated elsewhere. Alaska is the only state that ranks among the bottom 10 lowest-tax states for all seven income groups included in the study. New Hampshire and North Dakota are among the lowest-tax states for six of their seven income groups. Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming have low taxes for five of their income groups.
The absence of an income tax, or low overall tax revenue collections, are often used as shorthand for classifying a state as “low tax.” These two measures are, in fact, reliable indicators that taxes will be low for the highest-income earners, but they tell us next to nothing about the tax level being charged to low-income families.
Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington all forgo broad-based personal income taxation and have low taxes on the rich, yet they are among the highest-tax states in the country for poor families. These states are indicative of a broader pattern. Using the data in this report, we find a modest negative correlation between tax rates charged to the lowest and highest income groups. In other words, if a state has low taxes for its highest-income earners, it is more likely to have high taxes for its lowest-income residents.
Similarly, we find that the overall level of tax revenue collected in a state has almost zero correlation with the tax rate charged to that state’s lowest-income families. Put another way, states that collect comparatively little tax revenue tend to levy tax rates on poor families that are roughly on par with those charged in other states. And, as a group, states collecting higher amounts of revenue do not do so with above-average tax rates on the poor.
For high-income families, on the other hand, overall revenues are highly correlated with their own personal tax bills. This suggests that high-income families receive a financial windfall when a state chooses to collect a low level of tax revenue overall, though that windfall comes at the cost of fewer or lower-quality public services.
I agree with all this. Not sure it’s relevant.
CA charges almost no tax on its poorest, and the poorest make $0 , so they see no benefit. Same in TX.
So you’re just going to be willingly obtuse. Got it.
What mosaicmango and itep are trying to say is that with everything that’s taken into consideration, income, property, sales, excise, other taxes and bullshit fees like car registration, that California are better for middle class and lower class because you pay overall less tax there because you don’t see that benefit in Texas unless you’re in the 1% already rich asshole territory.
So those “fleeing” not seeing actually less money taken out of their yearly salary.
Not being willingly obtuse, this is a good faith discussion. It feels very obtuse on the other end tbh, and I’m genuinely trying to have an intelligent discussion.
“Other taxes and bullshit” I agree 100% that I’m not taking into account. Thats where I’m looking for some sources of specific info. Not just unsourced opinions.
You are being willingly obtuse when I have provided the study abstract that contains the methodology, the data behind it, and 30+ citations and sources.
Don’t come talking about ‘good faith discussion’ and asking for sources when you clearly didn’t even bother to read the information provided.
the poorest rely the most on services and on things like clean water. they can’t just jet off to a better area.
This isn’t comparing taxes. It’s comparing what section of the population shares more of the total burden.This isn’t saying the people in Texas pay more, just that the distribution is different across income groups. Which makes sense because there is no income tax. Overall, the vast majority (and all non-landowners) in Texas is paying less than they would in Cali.It’s a misleading graph, possibly on purpose to make people think what you did.Edit: brain fart. further discussion below.
You realize that the percentage of your income that is taxed is a fixed number regardless of state, right? That 1% of 60k in California is the same as 1% of 60k in Texas?
It very directly shows that poorer people in Texas pay more than poorer people in California over the wide range of taxes in each state. They fully take into account land ownership or not, which you can confirm by reading the linked article in the comment:
The graphic reportedly contains 2018 data from the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), which compiled statistics regarding IRS income tax, sales tax, property tax, and information from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey from sources including the U.S. Census Bureau
Ugh I’m sorry. I started trying to make sense of it and then somehow confused myself into thinking it was a % share of total - as if each side added to 100%. Nevermind, I was wrong.
Anyhow, back to the chart - it simply makes no sense in that case. I would need to take a look at the underlying to tell me how the bottom 20% pay 13% of income to taxes in a state with 0% income and 6.25% sales tax. Only thing left is property tax (according to chart it’s those 3).
Yes I realize small local sales taxes may apply, but is a max of 2%.
How much property does this bottom 20% own?!
The bottom 20% of earners aren’t likely to make the same amount in CA vs TX.
California’s minimum wage is $16. Working 40 hours (hard on a minimum wage job for reasons) brings $640 a week. 10.5% of that is $67
Texas’s is $7.25. 40 hours of that job is $290. 13% of that is $38.
In this bad example, a minimum wage earner in California pays almost double the tax than a minimum wage worker in Texas. It’s a bad example for many reasons, including us not taking into account the extra spending power the California worker has after taxes.
Youre talking about the total dollar amount of taxes paid, which is irrelevant because of regional differences. What you can compare is percentage of income, which is a metric that works regardless of total dollar wages.
Someone paying $100 to the tax man when they only make $5000 is more of their money then someone paying $200 to the tax man when they make $15000. The first person is paying higher taxes. The total dollar amount is irrelevant compared to the percentage of income paid.
The data is very clear. Almost all Texans pay more of their income to state taxes than almost all Californians. The fact that California provides a more than doubled minimum wage than Texas while taxing people less is a feather directly in their cap.
It literally isn’t though, the graph is labeled and the article explains it in further detail, this is a graph of the percent of income each income group pays in taxes. You explination doesn’t even make sense, the numbers of all the groups don’t add up to 100%.
I already corrected my brain fart in another comment. Agreed makes no sense. Agreed there too. Will edit.
It’s an odd argument, but I think it comes down to sales tax and property tax. Property tax is high in texas, and sales tax is 7% (not the highest in the nation, but high, and local sales tax can also run 1-2%). I think the theory is that you only pay so much sales tax in goods for one person, so it balances out california’s higher property taxes.
That makes zero sense.
Cali sales tax is 7.25, Texas is 6.25
Poor people likely don’t own property, but yeah it’s about double in Texas.
Income tax in Cali ramps from 1% up slowly to 9% at just 68k/yr. But even lowest income pays 1%. Texas is 0%.
The argument has no merit. None. California appears to have objectively higher tax on most people, and certainly on all those who don’t own property.
What am I missing?
Landlords pass on higher property taxes to their tenants in the firm of higher rents. You don’t need to own property to be affected by high property taxes.
Ok, then we are getting into estimated tax derivatives. Yeah I can’t just make guesses there.
That’s not direct tax.
But I agree there could be something there. It would be minimal I’d assume but I truly don’t know.
Texas has a base sales tax of 6.25, which can be raised by local taxes up to 2%. So it is effectively 8.25% everywhere.
Ok? But that income tax is huge…
I hadn’t considered the fact that some people make money under the table and/or illegally. And this pay not income tax in either state, but a ton of sales tax.
I highly doubt a large amount of that in a 2% local sales tax county is what causes this. If so, that’s crazy.
I feel part of the confusion may be thinking california has a flat tax? It has tax brackets, which increase the percent as you make more.
Income taxes get all the attention but they aren’t the only taxes.
I don’t know about the 600k figure specifically though.
They aren’t. There is sales tax too, which is higher in Cali. And property taxes seem moot if we’re talking about poor people, no?
“Thanks for the tax breaks, but now we are off to the next tax breaks”
I don’t think he knows about second tax breaks.
To the surprise of very few with functional brains.
Because nothing is worth enduring Texas.
Only if you have a uterus. Or have melanin. Or want to vote for a non-republican.
Bait n switch thrills nobody
Good. Fuck Texas.
Gottem.
austin is super expensive now, and tech companies have left. it’s hot, humid, and you or your wife might die if her a pregnancy is non viable. or if the power grid goes out. i have family who moved there but i sure wouldn’t.
Texas never attracted techies, it attracted a few Republican tech CEOs with disproportionate shares of power. I’ve always turned down recruiters trying to get me to move there regardless of how good the job is on paper. If I’ve got options, I’m choosing to live on one of the coasts. There’s nothing for me in Texas. I mean I’ve been to Bucees once, it’s worth visiting. But I’m gonna guess the novelty is probably over by the second visit.
As a Texan, bucees never is over
Is it normal to close an article when given two options: consent to sharing your data with 99999 companies or “choose options” and manually disable 999 subsets of said companies?
I did that once just bein curious of when the list ends, but I’m not repeating thatOpen it in a browser that’s not your main browser and clear your cookies afterwards. Or have a browser that automatically removes all cookies on exit.
I hate those types of cookie consent forms because they feel like a dark pattern wanting to make it as excruciating as possible just so you give in and click accept all.
Because that’s exactly what it is.
It’s no real solution, but makes this mess a bit more sufferable when you still really want to visit that site: https://consentomatic.au.dk/
They still have huge ports and oil refineries going for them. Until the Permian Basin is drained.
