Hi Grace, RE: "If it was simply people needing a place to live they'd be renting because it's a far better bargain "
You're incorrectly assuming talent will rent rather than depart. And you're incorrectly assuming that's okay if they do. It may be with you on an individual basis, but I don't think it is good on an aggregate for the Nasdaq, the GDP, nor for this country. While we may disagree on that point, I believe you and I agree that it certainly shouldn't be propped up with an artificial tax prop by quasi-investors (not to be confused with elderly nor builders), right?
No, talent shouldn't leave due to an artificial prop (which doesn't invalidate market conditions that have kept prices high, but I don't have issue with market conditions, I have issue with artificial props that have a negative impact.) The poster that said it would take him about 3/5 (or 4/5?) of his income to pay just the property tax, is a testimony to what new hires are faced with here (and the poster didn't appear to be an NCG either) but unlike you (where you appear to be conveying that only interest rates are at fault), I have a suspicion the market imbalances here are due to more than just the interest rate but also impacted by quasi-prop 13 investors that hold more than one home.
And I'll stress that I don't think talent should move out for artificial tax reasons that contribute to the issue. Having a central innovation hubpoint, accelerates innovation. How much VC capital is in your 20 mile area? How many startups with IPO potential? Consider this when assuming that prop 13 should be an artificial prop and shouldn't be removed for quasi investors that hold multiple homes here who artificially reduce supply (not to be confused with elderly, builders).
The artificial prop should be removed (for quasi-investors, not to be confused with elderly, builders) and supply of homes needs to improve.
Regards,
Amy J |
