The Blue-State Suicide Pact - an interesting take on taxes

[bankside]

Flin Flon . . . .

It's intriguing that a house, even in the sticks, can cost less than my neighbor's new truck.

Here's one for only $21 900, but you'd have to live in Climax. (In the straw, not the sticks…)
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...ey=-1660994486


It is possible to go even cheaper, but it seems to be trailers on rental land instead of freehold, and rent is not factored in to the cost. Or places where they made a typo and forgot a zero.

Anyway my parents lived in a little old house about that size when they first married, which is probably worth $350 000 or $400 000 today, because it's in Winnipeg. Still a relative bargain by nationwide standards and certainly by international standards. Again, I'm not sure what the people of Climax are getting away with.

Especially applicable to the US. I assume that not only can you deduct mortgage interest (must be nice), but that there is no cap. Which means in the "expensive" city you'd be getting the benefit of mortgage interest deductions on 350 000 to 400 000, while in the sticks you'd only get interest deductions on 21 000 to 38 000. That is, if you didn't just buy the whole damn thing on a credit card for the air miles and skip the mortgage.

[TX-Beau]

Wait a minute, you have to buy a rental trailer on someone else's land up there in the Great White North?

See - Socialism.

[bankside]

Wait a minute, you have to buy a rental trailer on someone else's land up there in the Great White North?

See - Socialism.

No, no…no, you can own a trailer and the land it sits on, but most people who can only afford a trailer are not in a position to also buy land, so they end up renting the land, which probably stops them from saving enough for an upgrade. It does happen in some markets, especially in the north, where new-build construction may be very expensive but having a house trucked in is more reasonable.

[Kulindahr]

A buddy in Indiana was looking to buy a five-bedroom house a hundred years old, in good shape, for $32k.

His uncle had just bought a new truck for $58k, and paid cash.

If he'd bought one used, it would have cost half as much -- and could have helped his nephew with a down-payment of half the value of the house, and still had cash left over.

To me this is just bizarre.


Of course the weirdness is compounded by the fact that another relative came to visit, driving an RV worth more than the new truck and house combined -- by a factor of two.

[maxpowr9]

Here's one for only $21 900, but you'd have to live in Climax. (In the straw, not the sticks…)
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...ey=-1660994486


It is possible to go even cheaper, but it seems to be trailers on rental land instead of freehold, and rent is not factored in to the cost. Or places where they made a typo and forgot a zero.

Anyway my parents lived in a little old house about that size when they first married, which is probably worth $350 000 or $400 000 today, because it's in Winnipeg. Still a relative bargain by nationwide standards and certainly by international standards. Again, I'm not sure what the people of Climax are getting away with.

Especially applicable to the US. I assume that not only can you deduct mortgage interest (must be nice), but that there is no cap. Which means in the "expensive" city you'd be getting the benefit of mortgage interest deductions on 350 000 to 400 000, while in the sticks you'd only get interest deductions on 21 000 to 38 000. That is, if you didn't just buy the whole damn thing on a credit card for the air miles and skip the mortgage.

There isn't a cap but there is a floor of 2% of AGI. So if you make $100k/year, the first $2k of the mortgage interest is not deductable. It is also only on the payments made that year. You get a 1098 in the mail at the beginning of each year from the lender to show how much interest you paid the previous year (you can still claim the tax credit of course if you bought the house that year). If it's less than 2%, you get whacked for the full amount.

[xbuzzerx]

person A makes 250k in nyc
person B makes 250k in des moines

How many people move to, or choose to be in, NYC because there are so many more 250k jobs there than in Des Moines?

I would imagine MANY.

[frankfrank]

However, that job in NYC which makes $250K probably provides a quality of living similar to one-half that much in Des Moines.

At this point, though, I'd prefer to be around the variety, worldliness, culture, and energy of a place like NYC.

Furthermore I generally get along well with New Yorkers, which is certainly varies from its reputation. When I go there, I go there to have fun - and I'm never disappointed.

[xbuzzerx]

However, that job in NYC which makes $250K probably provides a quality of living similar to one-half that much in Des Moines.

And at exactly the same time, you are probably paid more for doing exactly the same job in NYC than in Des Moines. Generally speaking.

[kayman23]

Not the principal, just the interest.

By the way, one bedroom apartments in my neighborhood can sell for over $1 million. An expensive home here doesn't mean it's a mansion.

Exactly, that is why I don't fuck with NYC. It is embarrassing to know you would pay that much and basically live in nothing. Hell, I'm all for urbanity and density, but NYC is outrageous and unrealistic.

I had an ex that wanted me to move from Atlanta to NYC because of its availability of 24/7 public transit and as he dubbed it "more intelligent people". However, if you take away all those nominal benefits, the costs still outweigh them substantially. Chicago, which also have 24/7 public transit and plenty of "more intelligent people", isn't that outrageous in cost of living.

[Rolyo85]

Nope. In fact, coming from a small college town in Indiana, I found Chicago to be quite manageable, even as a freelance musician. NYC is ridiculous, but I imagine that's what you get when you have one of the top 3 greatest cities in the world...

[JayHawk]

Is the point of this thread that high taxes on places like NYC with huge blue bases will be the downfall of strength in the democratic party?

I remember an article talking about how NYC has pretty much always had a massive migration away from the city due to high cost of living and low quality of life.

According to the study, below, in the last decade New York gained 895,150 immigrants from abroad. But at the same time 1.5 million people were fleeing the Empire State for greener states (or at least their lower taxes?). Overall the net population decline statewide due to migration since 2000 was 675,000. As for New York City, well, we had more foreign immigrants arrive to live here than any other part of the state (690,000) but we also had the highest loss of population to domestic migration (1.1 million people).
So, the lesson for all you crazy kids itching to get the heck out of town? Go for it. You won't be the first to leave and you won't be the last. And, to paraphrase the Sondheim song, there are another hundred people on the train behind you.

The same artillery points out that the numbers stay relatively the same because the under 30 crowd is so desperate to move to the city along with immigrants to the US as a whole keeping the numbers of the city steady.

So if you take the taxes as the prime mover and then consider the numbers in NYC aren't changing then you can easily understand what is really happening is blue states are causing more liberal folks to branch out into red areas. Mostly maintaining that blue identity as is evidenced in North Carolina and Virginia becoming true purple type swing states.

Now most people in large cities understand the very large need to have group actions for public safety, public transit, and general public interest program like health care and education. SO they wont become red by any means even if they decide they make a lot of money in their career and would like to move to where they can enjoy that money more so.