And again, that is a separate issue from income tax (zoning, property taxes, school choice, school management, etc). It makes no sense to say that a family in the top 15 percent of income isn't middle class because they live in an area with mediocre schools. Just like a commuter student from a family making 40K and going to a magnet school doesn't magically make them upper middle class.You are really lumping in parks with hospitals and quality schools? I guess I’ve seen it all…
I’m absolutely correct in that every middle (class and up) family in the world that earned their money would consider access to strong public schools a sign and prerequisite of a middle class life. Hence the third data point on Zillow is the school ratings in the area.
Sure there are bad schools adjacent to even rich areas but the rich send their kids to private schools. If you are truly middle class one of the primary drivers of where you seek to live is quality schools, if you plan on procreating and continuing the human species.
If you don't consider being in about the top 1 percent of income for Californians to be rich, you are comically out of touch.You can define rich in several ways. I don’t consider $500K rich in Ca. $500K can put you living in decent suburbs and having a decent $2.5M (not at current rates, but at 2018 rates), not extravagant in other states.
Yeah, that's what happens when you have high demand for housing combined with NIMBYs restricting the supply of it. That's a different ball of wax from taxation. Although I'll point out that Prop 13 and its fallout did also reduce housing supply.A $2.5M home in south Orange County (inland) would be $700K in nice parts of Texas
Sure, and I'm all for increasing housing supply drastically. Which is separate issue from a taxpayer making 100K paying an extra $500 due to this tax increase.Housing is far and away the number one expense, 47 states have no idea what it is like to own a home in CA…