Turns out that living in walkable neighborhoods and relying on public transportation makes things a little more affordable.
Link
Turns out that living in walkable neighborhoods and relying on public transportation makes things a little more affordable.
Link
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Turns out that living in walkable neighborhoods and relying on public transportation makes things a little more affordable.
Link
Affordable? Would you care to compare tax bases for Houston vs. New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago? How about state taxes for Texas vs. New York, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago? There will and have always been differences - I prefer to look at the total picture instead of focusing on one aspect.
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Turns out that living in walkable neighborhoods and relying on public transportation makes things a little more affordable.
Link
Or, a RepubliQ state government that considers itself to exist solely to make fossil fuel companies even richer will and does actively campaign against affordable and efficient public transportation. Get back in your cars, peasants, and stop by the gas station on your way to work!
Portland has many geographical/topographical features that make transportation a challenge. But there was a concerted effort to create a viable bus system, then a really good light rail that among other things, goes directly to the airport. It connects to all of metro Portland. You could give credit to this effort to them steenkin' liberal politics.
Like all of Texas (Austin being an exception), Houston is a horrible place. It's a fetid, buggy swamp. Traffic is a nightmare (due to the aforementioned lack of public transportation and the city's sprawl). There's a reason why it used to be ostensibly cheap. You get what you pay for.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Affordable? Would you care to compare tax bases for Houston vs. New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago? How about state taxes for Texas vs. New York, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago? There will and have always been differences - I prefer to look at the total picture instead of focusing on one aspect.
Cost of living calculations include those aspects.
"The total picture" also includes intangibles such as the time people spend to get to and from work/school/etc. That's why the benefits of good public transportation networks tend to be understated--they're hard to measure, but nonetheless, very real.
There's also the reality that states/cities that impose lower taxes provide fewer public services. Those include features such as schools, parks, roads, etc. Those who don't care about such things naturally gravitate to places where such things are limited and taxes are lower. But there's no free lunch. You pay for less, you get less.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Affordable? Would you care to compare tax bases for Houston vs. New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago? How about state taxes for Texas vs. New York, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago? There will and have always been differences - I prefer to look at the total picture instead of focusing on one aspect.
I'm glad you asked!!!!!!!
If you factor in the effective 9% combined New York City state and city tax rate, it's pretty much a tie. But New York City has some of the best-educated and highest-quality teachers in the country. Their high-quality, non-censored libraries are open on Sundays. New Yorkers have longer lifespans. And people from all over the world choose to visit New York City, but now so much Houston, right?
So with affordability not being an issue, there is an obvious winner here, isn't there?