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.
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
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...
According to http://taxformcalculator.com/tax/100000.html someone making $100,000 a year in California has a take home pay of $67,818.01.
If their rent was $5500 they'd have $151 left over each month for expenses.
They'd better move, because they can't afford that place.
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.
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.
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.
I know I've seen the idea of taxing wealth commonly derided in the past seemingly with mountains of evidence of why it's worse than taxing income. That said I'm not an economist and can't remember much about why so I'll just point out what I can think of off the cuff.
1. Taxing wealth directly makes it much harder for people to actually build wealth over time as eventually significant portions of your income will be eaten up by it if you're trying to build enough wealth for retirement.
2. Such a policy might encourage people to save even less than they do now and instead fritter away income on intangibles resulting in more rapid accumulation of wealth in the pockets of fewer individuals who can afford to buy their way around the wealth taxes and or have the income to support just paying it.
We do actually already have some wealth taxes implemented, property and estate taxes come to mind. I'd rather see the tax code simplified by just eliminating the special treatment for edge cases, and treat all income as income regardless of its source. Rebalance the tax brackets accordingly and move on. The income tax code that most people actually deal with isn't that bad. I file an itemized return every year and it only takes about two hours to sort out when I actually sit down to do it. I'd prefer a system that just presents me with the pre-filled forms and asks for me to file an objection or sign off on it, but what we've got is tolerable for individuals.
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."