Slashdot Mirror
In Costly Bay Area, Even Six-Figure Salaries Are Considered 'Low Income' (mercurynews.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article: In the high-priced Bay Area, even some households that bring in six figures a year can now be considered "low income." That's according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which recently released its 2017 income limits -- a threshold that determines who can qualify for affordable and subsidized housing programs such as Section 8 vouchers. San Francisco and San Mateo counties have the highest limits in the Bay Area -- and among the highest such numbers in the country. A family of four with an income of $105,350 per year is considered "low income." A $65,800 annual income is considered "very low" for a family the same size, and $39,500 is "extremely low." The median income for those areas is $115,300. Other Bay Area counties are not far behind. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, $80,400 for a family of four is considered low income, while in Santa Clara County, $84,750 is the low-income threshold for a family of four.
move
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
When I was out of work for two years (2009-2010) and underemployed for six months (working 20 hours per month) in Silicon Valley, I couldn't qualify for food stamps because I made too much money (20 x $16 = $320) as a single adult. After I filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011, I still didn't qualify for food stamps. You have to work 20 hours per month at minimum wage (~$160) to qualify for food stamps. I ate a lot of rice and beans during that time.
I'm quite comfortably making it in the Bay in the low six, but I have a unique deal on rent and live out in the burbs. Rents in the city are going for absurd amounts - a two bed apartment in the city rents for almost 4k/mo. Raising a family in the bay area is nearly unaffordable - the huge costs in rent and property trickle through to everything else. Childcare costs are colossal - there are few child care centers in the bay and all are hugely expensive because the people who work in the centers are themselves paying obscene rent.
If I were to buy a home here, I'd probably put about 65% of my take home income towards it each month. I could afford it and pay for all my other expenses, but there'd be nothing left to put into savings, so the only 'saving' I'm doing is building home equity. That's not 'poor' but not normally a financial situation associated with people making six digit salaries.
Oh, you want to live in some of the most desirable real estate in the country, but you want to do it on a non-billionaire income? Sorry. You don't get to. Why on earth should the federal taxes of someone making $80k in Tennessee subsidize the housing of someone making $80k in SF? The first one doesn't get to live there; the second does. They're free to move any time they like if the housing situation is suboptimal.
$100,000/yr = $8333/mo. Lets say your rent is up there at $5500/mo, that still leaves you with $2833/mo to feed yourself, your spouse and your 2 children. The remainder of what you have to spend nearly $34,000 for the year to pay your bills, buy food and buy whatever other crap you need. A helleva lot of people don't even make that much and support a family of 4 on a single income and their salary hasn't yet even covered their housing expenses. The lower amounts they mention, I can agree with, considering current rent prices in SF. But $100,000+ per year? National prices aren't SF prices. Your money goes a helleva lot further on the internet than nearly everyone living outside of places like SF.
Here's an idea. Tell the NIMBYs to go suck a fat one and start building appropriate housing for the demand. Or people could wise up and stop giving a shit about living anywhere near SF.
Do you really need to turn this into a rant about a 'liberal wasteland...'. San Francisco is expensive because people want to live there. Period. Democratic controlled governments have nothing to do with it other than either
1. contributing to the desirability of the places - whether you care to believe that or not.
or
2. being elected by the people who chose to live there for some other reason - which is more or less the same thing.
Now it's quite possible that the residents of San Francisco and New York are deluded about how desirable those cities are. And maybe they'd all be happier in the sun belt - though I doubt it.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
yeah, it really sucks the way people want to live in the places where their employment options are the greatest. What a bunch of entitled assholes
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
which will drive more people out and will make the housing market more affordable
Yes. Exactly this. Supermarket worker wages will go up until someone is willing to work for the price or the wealthy won't get their groceries. If the wealthy want to pack together in one big city then let them pay the costs of it. Not someone from Tennessee.
The actual number is of little consequence most.
In most bay area locales, Section 8 housing is basically unavailable for new applicants. Wait lists are estimated to be greater than 8-10 years or simply closed to new applicants until further notice because of essentially unbounded wait times and basically zero new section 8 housing inventory.
AFAIKT, the increases of these income threshold numbers only serve to keep a small amount of existing people (the vanishingly small fraction of the 17,000 total served by section 8 with reasonable jobs near the limit) from being kicked out of Section 8 housing simply by getting cost of living raises at work and forced to fend on their own...
Basically, section 8 is totally broken in the bay area and is a non-factor in housing. This adjustment doesn't really do anything either way to change this...
For the same reason as the SanFranciscans on high wages are subsidizing Tennessee's shitty economy. Remember - CA is a net contributor to the US economy, it takes out less from the tax pool than it puts in.
I know many of you think the year of remote work will coincide with the year of the Linux desktop, but I am getting the sense that companies are tired of paying for office space. When remote really does go mainstream what will happen to jobs and real estate in these areas?
love is just extroverted narcissism
It's not as much a condescending statement as it is concruisealtitude statement.
Ezekiel 23:20
California is one of those states that send more money to the Feds then they get back SOOOOO Tennessee dollars aren't going to California to subsidize those California people getting section 8 vouchers other Californians are doing the subsidizing.
San Francisco is expensive because a lot of tech companies decided to move there. I doubt they moved there because of California's governance but because it hit a critical mass of tech industry businesses and talent decades ago. For some reason every software company thinks it needs an office in that area.
Look, 100k/4 = 25k = low salary. Not unusual at all. Similarly if you have 10 children, but only make 200k, your freakin' POOR.
The basic problem is our culture tries to measures wealth by income rather than net worth.
You can not compare the salary of a young, healthy, single orphan with a married couples supporting two sets of sick parents and multiple kids.
We need to reset our definition of wealth to be based on cash, stocks, mutual funds and real estate in the bank. This means the IRS should ignore your salary and base your taxes on what you own. Ignore the stuff in your IRA and give a set amount to ignore (just as we don't take the first 10k of income for a single person). Start it at 1% and gradually raise it to a max of 5% if you have more than a couple million in the bank.
If we did this, we could get rid of most of the complexity of the tax code, because it is all based on not overcharging the poor, which this system does automatically.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
As someone else, I don't give a fuck whether or not you give a fuck.
Sure you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't have wasted a fuck by commenting. ;)
Liberal or Conservative doesn't matter, many places put up barriers to more affordable housing, high rises and the like. The affluent like their views and large estates and will put up regulatory barriers to prevent the hoi pollio from moving into "their" neighborhoods. See Cape Cod residents fighting off shore wind generation because it will mess with their precious view or Gated Communities etc.
The Hamptons make it almost impossible for new construction due to minimum lot sizes and other methods to keep out affordable housing.
you realize Tennessee takes in way more federal money than it pays out, and that California does exactly the opposite right? Like it or not these economic centers are the engine that keeps this country running. The tax dollars they pay go to supporting the people of Tennessee and other states.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
This gentrification map shows the underlying cause to rising prices:
http://www.urbandisplacement.o...
I live in the purple strip between San Jose/Sunnyvale. In the last 5 years, house prices (in that area) have gone up 30-50%. In my own neighborhood, 4 houses were demolished to the ground and completely new homes were built in their place (in the last 12 months). Most of these 'modest' homes sold for 1.5 million+. My guess is they would sell for 200-300k in less-demand-areas.
Why on earth should the federal taxes of someone making $80k in Tennessee subsidize the housing of someone making $80k in SF?
They shouldn't. The net flow of funding is from CA to TN, not the other way around. Nit picking the details is political, not economic.
Learn to love Alaska
If there is an offer to purchase the complex, then perhaps they are aiming to empty it out to some threshold (50%?) in order to evict the remaining tenants and renovate or demolish the building. You might be able to make an inquiry to see if anything has passed through planning, you might be looking at yet another mixed use upscale apartment-retail center like Santana Row, Rivermark, Homewood, Meridian at Midtown, etc.
I suspect a lot are condos being snatched up by foreign investors, yet are unoccupied. Which does smell of a bubble. My hope is that it's foreign investors that get soaked this time and not Bay Area locals.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So in your misguided worldview, people who scrimp and save, research, and invest their earnings wisely should have to pay more taxes and be excluded from government assistance. While someone who earned exactly as much money but blew their income on parties, concerts, eating out, hookers, and blow should have to pay lower taxes and qualify more easily for government aid?
Net worth (wealth) is just the integral of income minus expenses (or if you prefer, income minus expenses is the first derivative of wealth). Income is the correct basis for determining taxation and qualification for government aid. How much wealth you accumulate depends not just on how much income you make, but also how much money you spend. As a result, any form of taxation based on wealth unfairly penalizes people who save their money instead of spending it unnecessarily. OTOH, taxation based on income treats everyone the same regardless of whether they spend their money wisely or foolishly.
Also, since wealth is the integral of income minus expenses, wealth is the accumulation of past income. So any attempt to tax wealth is an attempt to retroactively tax past income. Ex post facto laws are illegal under our Constitution.
If you want to tax rich people more, increase the tax rates on higher income. It's as simple as that.
Or you know, people were born and raised and schooled and have all their family and friends and careers in a place and just would like to not be forced out of it. Like the 30 million or so people, 10% of Americans, who were born in California where the average income may be 20% higher but the average home price is 200% higher. Those tens of millions of people should all just move so far away it may as well be another country -- just like all the poor in the UK should all move to Russia where they can afford to live, right? Population sizes, areas, and distances there are all comparable to California vs midwest.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
For instance the coast guard isn't protecting Tennessee
I'm usually polite on Facebook, but this comment is inane.
If CA were a separate country and had to support their own Coast Guard, there would just be another national border along the California border with the US, and you'd be patrolling that instead. It is indeed in Tennessee's best interests to help pay for the cost of patrolling national borders.
But the main reason this comment is so stupid is that Tennessee also depends on the Coast Guard, as they operate on the Mississippi River and other large bodies of water. Even if they did not, all that shipping up the Mississippi comes from somewhere, and the bulk of it isn't from elsewhere in Tennessee.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
For the same reason as the SanFranciscans on high wages are subsidizing Tennessee's shitty economy. Remember - CA is a net contributor to the US economy, it takes out less from the tax pool than it puts in.
Consider how totally jacked up government is when you take that statement and combine it with California's state and local governments being heavily in debt.
CA is in debt up to it's eyeballs, beyond it's ability to tax enough to stay solvent. It may be a big economic engine, but the state and local governments are running on fumes. Eventually bankruptcy will happen, and a whole bunch of folks in Cali will be left paying the price by loosing their retirements, government services and welfare programs they depend on..
I've seen the tax rates... I know why companies are leaving the state in droves, many heading to places like Texas (where I live). t may take awhile, but eventually the robbing Peter to pay Paul will have to end, and the already oppressive tax rates will have to go up, driving more folks away. The cycle is already in motion... I see the results here in Dallas.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Remember - CA is a net contributor to the US economy, it takes out less from the tax pool than it puts in.
A nit but "the economy" is not the same as "the federal government."
(Yet.)
Every state contributes to the economy. I'm pretty sure it's mathematically impossible for every state to receive more federal outlays than they contribute, even using Political Fuzzy Math.
If that were true, then the coastal states would be conservative and lobby for lower federal taxes and spending while fly over country would be liberal and lobby for higher federal taxes and spending. But it isn't true, which is also why you see the opposite ideological distribution.
You're welcome to try to scare up some data to support that ridiculous statement. But it is true that there are a significant number of federal jobs in Western states and the people who live there would like to get rid of them.
That's because smart retirees move to places with low cost of living and mainly live mainly off social security and leave their savings untouched. It's certainly what I'm planning on doing. That is hardly an indictment of those states.
For the same reason as the SanFranciscans on high wages are subsidizing Tennessee's shitty economy. Remember - CA is a net contributor to the US economy, it takes out less from the tax pool than it puts in.
Why treat all people in CA as a single unit? Every state has some rich people paying lots of tax, and many more poor people taking more in services than they pay in tax. CA is a magnet for rich people, and its high costs kick out the poor.
If the fact that a group of people pays more in taxes makes them better, then rich people are the best group of people and poor people are the worst. Is that really an argument you wish to make?