The Midwest is the best if... (Los Angeles, Mojave: sale, to rent, condos)

[jmac1]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

Did you not read the section about "in 50 years". If you're hiding some sort of fountain of youth, please share. I doubt anyone except those in their mid-20s AT THE EARLIEST, could afford a $600,000 house. Even if we upped the number to 100 years, California IS STILL more expensive.

Have you heard of leaving the house to your spouse, then kids, then grand kids

Edit: "Here you go son. I am leaving you my paid off house. Now you have to pay 1200 a month property tax, but it is paid, free and clear." Lol!

"Here you go son. The house was more expensive, but I paid it off. Now you have to pay $350 a month property tax, but hey..."

[znlwovuhrjw]

Originally Posted by jmac1

Have you heard of leaving the house to your spouse, then kids, then grand kids

Edit: "Here you go son. I am leaving you my paid off house. Now you have to pay 1200 a month property tax, but it is paid, free and clear." Lol!

"Here you go son. The house was more expensive, but I paid it off. Now you have to pay $350 a month property tax, but hey..."

Yep every new couple of lineage dreams of living in a 70 year old house from grandma and grandpa, that's why you live in their old house right now, right?

Or better yet: They should be glad they won't have to pay the $3 million to buy the same house by the time it is 2070 in Los Angeles, they'd be saving a hell of a lot of money.



Still yet another horrible attempt to prove that within this lifetime California will ever be cheaper.

[jmac1]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

Yep every new couple of lineage dreams of living in a 70 year old house from grandma and grandpa, that's why you live in their old house right now, right?

Or better yet: They should be glad they won't have to pay the $3 million to buy the same house by the time it is 2070 in Los Angeles, they'd be saving a hell of a lot of money.



Still yet another horrible attempt to prove that within this lifetime California will ever be cheaper.

Lol!! You lose...Making up numbers in 2070?!! Are you serious?

I displayed to you the value of taxes become most important after the house is paid off for a number of years. Lol....It is okay for you to do the 50 year thing, but then make the 70 year old house a negative.

News flash.....People live in millions of homes built before 1945.

Newsflash....... Have you not watched any of the redesign shows? Most people prefer the older better built, better craftsmanship homes.

News flash.....The land will exist forever and the dead can't take it with them, so taxes will be paid on it forever.

New Flash...... Houses have been passed on for generations....and land that is also taxed


News Flash..... You proved that you will be ridiculous before you'd admit you were wrong. I proved that property tax is a bigger burden than housing price....


Again...Once I pay off my house it has more value than the house you bought.... Don't know if you know it our not, but the house will still have value after it is paid off.

You pay 200k for your house but a ton in taxes that has no value. I pay 600K for my house that has 600k value....oops in 2070 3 million, that my grand parents paid 600k for

So lets see who has a higher net worth at the end of the day Mr. Smarty pants.

Putting money in my bank (house) or the gov't bank (taxes). Do the math.... Since I am living in such a high appreciation area, my house will out earn the little 400k savings that you have from your cheap house, especially when you factor in the taxes and appreciation..

[znlwovuhrjw]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenter...c_NewCover.pdf

Please refer to Page 20.

Incredibly incorrect, unless you think "9 states" means "many other states". Let's also do a quick check on those additional 9 states above California on other taxes:

(Let's assume a married couple makes about $100,000 a year together, and moves into the urban areas listed below, then we show how much things cost after 30 years assuming taxes all relatively increase at the same rate in the states, thus the taxes do not change for this measurement)


Los Angeles, California: Income Taxes + Sales Tax + "Vehicle Registration Fee (Tax)" + Gas Tax = 9.3% + 10% + 0.5% + 2.25% = 22.5% = $22,500 + Property Tax = $22,500 + $4,227 =

$26,727 + Initial House Price = $26,727 + $339,900 = $366,627 + ($26,727*29) = $366,627 + $775,083 =

$1,141,710 30 year lost money "Privilege", let's also be glad we didn't see what the number would be if it was the bay area version.


Bridgeport, Connecticut: Income Taxes + Sales Tax + Vehicle Excise Tax = 5.5% + 6.35% + (4.11% per vehicle MSRP; assume 2 vehicles) ~2% = 13.85% = $13,850 + Property Tax = $13,850 + $7,972 =

$23,577 + Initial Home Price = $419,400 + ($23,577*29) =

$1,103,133 30 years later.


Newark, New Jersey: Income Taxes + Sales Tax = 5.525% + 9.5% = 15.025% = $15,025 + Property Tax = $15,025 + $7,350 =

$22,375 + Initial Home Price = $22,375 + $387,400 = $409,775 + ($22,375*29) =

$1,058,650 30 years later.


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Income Tax + Sales Tax = 3.07% + 6% = 9.07% = $9,007 + Property Tax = $9,007 + $5,843 =

$14,850 + Initial Home Price = $14,850 + $223,200 = $238,050 + ($14,850*29) =

$668,700 30 years later.


Baltimore, Maryland: Income Tax + Local Income Tax Rate + Sales Tax + Vehicle Excise Tax = 4.75% + 3.2% + 6% + 3.6% = 16.55% = $16,550 + Property Tax = $16,550 + $5,421 =

$21,971 + Initial Home Price = $21,971 + $251,600 = $273,571 + ($21,971*29) =

$910,730 30 years later.


Aurora, Illinois: Income Tax + Sales Tax = 3.75% + 8.25% = 11% = $11,000 + Property Tax = $11,000 + $5,393 =

$16,393 + Initial Home Price = $16,393 + $203,800 = $220,193 + ($16,393*29) = $220,193 + $319,000

$695,590 30 years later.


Manchester, New Hampshre: Income Tax + Sales Tax + Vehicle Excise Tax = 0% + 0% + ~0.005% = ~0.005% = $500 + Property Tax = $500 + $5,020 =

$5,520 + Initial Home Price = $5,520 + $241,000 = $246,520 + ($5,520*29) =

$406,600 30 years later.


Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Income Tax + Sales Tax = 6.27% + 5.6% = 11.87% = $11,870 + Property Tax = $11,870 + $4,659 =

$16,529 + Initial Home Price = $16,529 + $200,200 = $216,729 + ($16,529*29) =

$696,070 30 years later.


Burlington, Vermont: Income Tax + Sales Tax = 6.8% + 7% = 13.8% = $13,800 + Property Tax =
$13,800 + $4,544 =

$18,344 + Initial Home Price = $18,344 + $259,600 = $277,944 + ($18,344*29) =

$809,920 30 years later.


Anchorage, Alaska: Income Tax + Sales Tax = 0% + 0% = 0% = $0 + Property Tax =

$4,283 + Initial Home Price = $4,283 + $321,100 = $325,383 + ($4,283*29) =

$449,590 30 years later.

Even with the cost of heating for 3-5 months a year where wood stoves and heating oil furnaces are legal/necessary, none of those states will ever be more expensive than urban California. Math is a good thing to know!

Let's do a recap, because you still can't do math properly. Let's hope you can read too, I've given you a price sheet above this.

By the time you sell the house, you will have lost more than it is worth from additional taxes. Here's let's setup the costs and sales for the 70 year mark!

Los Angeles, CA:

$1,141,710 + ($26,727*40) = $2,210,790 lost money from existing vs $339,900 original price!

Sold for $3,000,000 - $2,210,790 = $789,210 Made!

$2,210,790 - $789,210 = $1,421,580 lost.
Assuming that the same ratio of price difference is maintained, let's see what happens below!

For reference, since you can't do math: (Aurora, IL initial home price/Los Angeles, CA initial home price) $220,193/$339,900 = 0.65 Multiplier

$3,000,000 x 0.65 = $1,950,000 (Aurora, IL)

Aurora, IL:

$695,590 + ($16,393*40) = $1,351,310 lost money from existing vs $203,800 original price!

$1,950,000 - $1,351,310 = $598,690 Made!

$1,351,310 - $598,690 = $752,620 lost.

Loss difference: $1,421,580 - $752,620 = $668,960

I think I would rather keep my additional $668,960 by continuing to exist in Aurora, Illinois.

Come back when you finish Algebra.

[Cardiff Kook]

^^Do you live in Aurora or Modesto?

[znlwovuhrjw]

Originally Posted by Cardiff Kook

^^Do you live in Aurora or Modesto?

Let's just put "No" to both and I'll just go ahead and say that as a future CPA myself, I would never even consider a money pit state. Why did you not pick Freedom, New Hampshire, but rather San Diego? You know taxes, at least I would hope so.

[jmac1]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

Let's do a recap, because you still can't do math properly. Let's hope you can read too, I've given you a price sheet above this.

By the time you sell the house, you will have lost more than it is worth from additional taxes. Here's let's setup the costs and sales for the 70 year mark!

Los Angeles, CA:

$1,141,710 + ($26,727*40) = $2,210,790 lost money from existing vs $339,900 original price!

Sold for $3,000,000 - $2,210,790 = $789,210 Made!

$2,210,790 - $789,210 = $1,421,580 lost.
Assuming that the same ratio of price difference is maintained, let's see what happens below!

For reference, since you can't do math: (Aurora, IL initial home price/Los Angeles, CA initial home price) $220,193/$339,900 = 0.65 Multiplier

$3,000,000 x 0.65 = $1,950,000 (Aurora, IL)

Aurora, IL:

$695,590 + ($16,393*40) = $1,351,310 lost money from existing vs $203,800 original price!

$1,950,000 - $1,351,310 = $598,690 Made!

$1,351,310 - $598,690 = $752,620 lost.

Loss difference: $1,421,580 - $752,620 = $668,960

I think I would rather keep my additional $668,960 by continuing to exist in Aurora, Illinois.

Come back when you finish Algebra.

Stats don't lie, statisticians do......

[znlwovuhrjw]

Originally Posted by jmac1

Stats don't lie, statisticians do......

Then I guess that means we can't quote and source any research, and perform estimated calculations.

[jmac1]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

Then I guess that means we can't quote and source any research, and perform estimated calculations.

No, it means you pick arbitrary numbers to try to fit your position. You use 70 years or 50 years...c'mon.

Paying extreme property taxes is worse than paying a higher price for a home once it is paid off. Unless you make the cost difference betwen the two homes ridiculous like you did and mask it as "comparable" homes

Lets use similar priced homes. You are using different prices saying that they are "comparable" because of size. Let me tell you something, a 3000 sq ft house in the middle of nowhere is not similar to a 800 sq ft house in Santa Monica.

Here is the math:

600k house in Aurora 14k property taxes
600k house in Burbank 6k property taxes..............no matter how you slice it, higher taxes is worse. And its ridiculous!!

Pick a high priced house in California and a low cost house in Illinois...it is to laugh.



Size doesn't give home a value..............location, location, location, does

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by jmac1

Pick a high priced house in California and a low cost house in Illinois...it is to laugh. Size doesn't give home a value..............location, location, location, does.

Well said.