DFW area attracting 2 million people by 2030?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

^ Curious, how does DFW's MSA percentage decline by decade compare to that of the Bay Area's MSA?

I'm sure you've done the math.

No I really havent. What does that have to do with this thread?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

No I really havent. What does that have to do with this thread?

Maybe the fact that the thread topic involves the DFW MSA, and you apparently reside in the Bay Area MSA?

What did Los Angeles MSA & CSA population growth between 1980 and 1990 have to do with this thread? And yet, you brought it up?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Maybe the fact that the thread topic involves the DFW MSA, and you apparently reside in the Bay Area MSA?

What did Los Angeles MSA & CSA population growth between 1980 and 1990 have to do with this thread? And yet, you brought it up?

Haha he said: The idea of 2 million people moving to one area in 10 years is just mind boggling.

I responded that not only has it happened before but it was 3 million instead of 2.

Are you the thread police?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Are you the thread police?

No.

Originally Posted by dimondpark

What does that have to do with this thread?

Are you?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Haha he said: The idea of 2 million people moving to one area in 10 years is just mind boggling.

I responded that not only has it happened before but it was 3 million instead of 2.

Are you the thread police?

It made sense to most of us.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not across the board.

we pay 1.7% on our home in chicago.


we pay 3.75% state income tax in illinois (and chicago has no city income tax).

in cali, most middle class families are paying 9.3% state income tax.


but then IL/chicago sales taxes are much higher than cali, so........

a lot of this stuff balances out one way or the other because the governement is gonna get it's money one way or the other.

comparing places by only looking at one type of tax burden is quite simplistic and not terribly informative.

It's not, but california haters sure love to compare state income tax. 😆

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Seriously doubt it. The growth rate is already decreasing.

Dallas-Ft Worth MSA Pop Growth:
1980-1990 +32.09% +974,000
1990-2000 +29.38% +1,187,000
2000-2010 +23.22% +1,205,000
2010-2018 +16.86% +1,078,000

Here's the data for the core Bay Area which is comprised of 9 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and San Francisco):
1980-1990 +16.3% +843,793
1990-2000 +12.6% +760,183
2000-2010 +5.4% +366,979
2010-2018 +8.4% +602,284

It'll be interesting to see the data for the entire decade of 2010-2020. While population growth rate is obviously nowhere near that of the DFW MSA, it's actually doing reasonably well. At least it's not decreasing like some tend to think. The type of people moving in are probably not the same as those moving into the DFW area as well (top talent from other countries/states coming in rather than another state's sloppy seconds). It's also a good thing the growth rate is not as high as DFW's because the region's infrastructure wouldn't be able to support that kind of growth. Even with the 3rd lowest percentage of workers commuting by private vehicle in the nation, traffic is among the worst, and the public transportation network has lots of room for improvement. Thankfully, the region's topography and willingness to preserve open space helps limit sprawl from worsening.

Just as a FYI, the Bay Area's greatest period of population growth occurred from 1940-1970:
1940-1950 +54.6% +947,014
1950-1960 +35.7% +957,617
1960-1970 +27.2% +989,260

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The type of people moving in are probably not the same as those moving into the DFW area as well (top talent from other countries/states coming in rather than another state's sloppy seconds).

Brilliant insight.

This type of drivel - in addition to showcasing your most transparent ignorance and bias - is completely uncalled for, and in no way reflects a positive contribution to the discussion.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Brilliant insight.

This type of drivel - in addition to showcasing your most transparent ignorance and bias - is completely uncalled for, and in no way reflects a positive contribution to the discussion.

Welcome to SSP. You must be new here. This sort of 'stick up the ass' attitude is par for the course for city discussions forum.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LA21st

california haters sure love to compare state income tax. ������

and texas haters sure love to compare property tax.

making comparisons between states based solely on one type of tax burden, in absence of all the others, is a waste of time.

state governments are gonna get their money, they just employ different means to the same end.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I didn't see this mentioned yet. TxDOT gets a chunk of its budget for transportation projects from the State's oil revenue.

Is that part of the reason why Texas is moving along faster on some big projects like I-69?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and texas haters sure love to compare property tax.

making comparisons between states based solely on one type of tax burden, in absence of all the others, is a waste of time.

state governments are gonna get their money, they just employ different means to the same end.

This. When I lived in New Hampshire (no state income tax or no sales tax) that was very evident. That state never met a fee and surcharge it didn't like and the property taxes were astronomical.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and texas haters sure love to compare property tax.

making comparisons between states based solely on one type of tax burden, in absence of all the others, is a waste of time.

state governments are gonna get their money, they just employ different means to the same end.

It seems like its just something people love to say, but doesn't mean much. If no state income tax meant saving you 15-20 grand a year, sure. But that's not true for the majority of people.
And like you said, the states get their money from you anyway.

The people leaving California want to buy a cheaper house, for the most part. So high property taxes do matter.

[subterranean]

Unless you live in Vancouver, WA. Then you pay no state income tax and cross the border to buy things tax-free. Little jerks.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LA21st

So high property taxes do matter.

ALL taxes matter.

anyone who only looks at one type of tax burden to proof some kind of cost of living point is hopelessly myopic.

[DCReid]

It will likely increase between 1 and 2 million, but more likely closer to 1 than 2. It certainly does not seem to have hit its population limit, probably because it is still a cheap and attractive alternative to the coasts, and can serve the middle of the country. We can't presume that you can extraoplate growth trends of the past few years, which seems to be an accelerated growth spurt to the area. The national growth rate is trending down, as is most states including TX. Plus, we will probably have a recession sometime before 2030. It seems that many of the sunbelt cities go through growth spurts for a while, with Phoenix and Las Vegas starting new growth spurts.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and texas haters sure love to compare property tax.

making comparisons between states based solely on one type of tax burden, in absence of all the others, is a waste of time.

state governments are gonna get their money, they just employ different means to the same end.

There is a difference though. In Florida (South Florida especially) a relatively large % of properties are owned by out of town residents. We tax the ba-jesus out of them. You can get a homestead exemption on your primary residence allowing you to pay way less taxes than some out of town property owner pays on their vacation homes. Then on top of that we have crazy hotel bed taxes to tax tourists. Our government is funded on the idea that everyone but us should pay for our stuff. The downside is that tourism and 2nd home purchases are fickle and recession dependent leading to huge funding shortfalls when the visitors stop coming.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and texas haters sure love to compare property tax.

making comparisons between states based solely on one type of tax burden, in absence of all the others, is a waste of time.

state governments are gonna get their money, they just employ different means to the same end.

That's true of course - total tax burden is more meaningful. Also, the distribution of taxes between income groups can vary, even where two states' total tax burden is similar. For example, a state getting most of its money from Income tax is going to have a more equitable burden distribution than one getting its money from sales tax.


In any event, here's some 2019 numbers from Wallet Hub on total tax burden, from worst (highest taxes) to first (lowest taxes

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...-burden/20494/

Overall Tax Burden by State
1 New York
2 Hawaii
3 Maine
4 Vermont
5 Minnesota
6 Rhode Island
7 New Jersey
8 Connecticut
9 Illinois
10 Iowa
11 California
12 Ohio
13 Maryland
14 Nebraska
15 West Virginia
16 Wisconsin
17 Arkansas
18 Mississippi
19 Massachusetts
20 Kansas
20 Kentucky
22 New Mexico
23 Pennsylvania
24 Louisiana
25 Michigan
26 North Carolina
27 Arizona
27 Utah
29 Nevada
30 Oregon
31 Indiana
32 Washington
33 Texas
34 Colorado
35 Georgia
36 Missouri
37 North Dakota
38 Virginia
39 Idaho
40 South Carolina
41 Wyoming
42 Alabama
42 South Dakota
44 Montana
45 Oklahoma
46 New Hampshire
47 Florida
48 Tennessee
49 Delaware
50 Alaska


Any surprises?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

That's true of course - total tax burden is more meaningful. Also, the distribution of taxes between income groups can vary, even where two states' total tax burden is similar. For example, a state getting most of its money from Income tax is going to have a more equitable burden distribution than one getting its money from sales tax.


In any event, here's some 2019 numbers from Wallet Hub on total tax burden, from worst (highest taxes) to first (lowest taxes

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...-burden/20494/

Overall Tax Burden by State
1 New York
2 Hawaii
3 Maine
4 Vermont
5 Minnesota
6 Rhode Island
7 New Jersey
8 Connecticut
9 Illinois
10 Iowa
11 California
12 Ohio
13 Maryland
14 Nebraska
15 West Virginia
16 Wisconsin
17 Arkansas
18 Mississippi
19 Massachusetts
20 Kansas
20 Kentucky
22 New Mexico
23 Pennsylvania
24 Louisiana
25 Michigan
26 North Carolina
27 Arizona
27 Utah
29 Nevada
30 Oregon
31 Indiana
32 Washington
33 Texas
34 Colorado
35 Georgia
36 Missouri
37 North Dakota
38 Virginia
39 Idaho
40 South Carolina
41 Wyoming
42 Alabama
42 South Dakota
44 Montana
45 Oklahoma
46 New Hampshire
47 Florida
48 Tennessee
49 Delaware
50 Alaska


Any surprises?

Several within the top 15.

Maine
Vermont
Rhode Island
Iowa
Nebraska
West Virginia

If I'm getting taxed out the a**, I'm definitely not living in places I most likely wouldn't ever consider living in to begin with.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

That's true of course - total tax burden is more meaningful. Also, the distribution of taxes between income groups can vary, even where two states' total tax burden is similar. For example, a state getting most of its money from Income tax is going to have a more equitable burden distribution than one getting its money from sales tax.


In any event, here's some 2019 numbers from Wallet Hub on total tax burden, from worst (highest taxes) to first (lowest taxes

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...-burden/20494/

Overall Tax Burden by State
1 New York
2 Hawaii
3 Maine
4 Vermont
5 Minnesota
6 Rhode Island
7 New Jersey
8 Connecticut
9 Illinois
10 Iowa
11 California
12 Ohio
13 Maryland
14 Nebraska
15 West Virginia
16 Wisconsin
17 Arkansas
18 Mississippi
19 Massachusetts
20 Kansas
20 Kentucky
22 New Mexico
23 Pennsylvania
24 Louisiana
25 Michigan
26 North Carolina
27 Arizona
27 Utah
29 Nevada
30 Oregon
31 Indiana
32 Washington
33 Texas
34 Colorado
35 Georgia
36 Missouri
37 North Dakota
38 Virginia
39 Idaho
40 South Carolina
41 Wyoming
42 Alabama
42 South Dakota
44 Montana
45 Oklahoma
46 New Hampshire
47 Florida
48 Tennessee
49 Delaware
50 Alaska


Any surprises?

Really depends on your personal financial situation. For example, a retiree with a lot of income and no plans to work that is renting would consider the no tax states as low tax burden, including maybe even Illinois which does not tax retirement income as the high property taxes won't matter as much although high sales taxes would. Delaware has no sale taxes and very low property taxes, but does tax income from retirement and working. Maryland has state and local taxes, which can add up to 9% total. Plus, if you buy a house/condo, you (the buyer) have to pay a 4% transfer tax. But Delaware is still a very good place for retirees from the northeast that want four seasons. It seems that states with taxes get you one way or another...