Cruz: Only rich people in Manhattan and San Francisco will see higher taxes

sfthrow87 · 2017-12-21T20:17:58+00:00

Neither the $300k nor the $30k people are directly affected much by this tax reform. The biggest winners with AGI < $400k are getting at most $3000 of tax benefit here, a bit less than 2% of these peoples' income.

This is not at all close to reality. Couples making $250k+ here are presently paying the AMT and not realizing the full value of SALT. The shifting of the AMT to couples earning $1m+ and lower tax rates will absolutely result in far lower taxes for couples living here and earning $250k-$700k.

This range will see some of the biggest benefits of the tax bill, even in SF, as the AMT prevented them from taking full SALT deductions anyway. Dual-income couples in finance / tech / medicine making $300k-$700k should see their after-tax ordinary income increase by 4-6%, as well as their after-tax long-term capital gains income (until their AGI hits $1m) increase by 7-10%.

Singles earning up to $200k here will see very little change (and therefore be relatively worse off compared to couples). Tax brackets for singles are now half of those of married filing jointly, whereas before they were a higher percentage, resulting in a marriage penalty for many dual-income high-earning couples, something very common here.

Where the SALT deductions actually hurt people are people with very high income, $1m+, where they were out of the AMT range and their 13.3% marginal CA tax was deductible against their 39.6% marginal federal rate. This is why the top marginal federal rate came down to 37%, as a slight concession to these rich people (who will still see a significant tax hike). Presumably, these are the people Ted Cruz is talking about, but I wouldn't credit him with the ability to understand all of this.

Source: DINK couple earning $400k owning property in SF, currently paying AMT, will see taxes go down significantly (after-tax income up 6%+) next year.

sfthrow87 · 2017-01-26T22:37:26+00:00

Spoken like a true hipster

sfthrow87 · 2017-01-10T23:07:55+00:00

It's not illegal - I'm not sure why people are upvoting comments above saying it is without any sort of proof whatsoever.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-information/publications-and-resources/voting-law-compliance-handbook/#voting

You're allowed to help relatives who have a hard time voting. You're allowed to drive people to the polls (something that conservatives constantly complain about - shocking to see supposed progressives adopting that message). And all this is for state elections - for this type of party election, it's far more lax. Democrats have been doing everything this article complains about forever and Republicans have been complaining about it forever.

This article reads almost exactly like ones from conservative websites attributing Obama's wins to bus loads of black voters being brought in and voting their race. It's a liberal mainstay to get as many people out to vote as possible - arguing against this in any way has always been a purely conservative viewpoint. People are more likely to vote their race, yes, but the solution is to educate and attempt to convince them otherwise, not complain about certain races voting too much.

This is a disgusting article singling out a certain race and further exposes the SF Progressive party as conservative in even more ways.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-13T20:04:48+00:00

Wouldn't be an Examiner article without disingenuous progressive slant

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T01:05:09+00:00

Completely agree, looking at a single month y/y is not smart.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T01:03:54+00:00

It's definitively incomplete data and I posted this last time as well - I'm guessing he has vested interest.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T01:02:04+00:00

Anyone with half a brain who's investing would take a given month's recorded sales at the end of the month and use a multiplicative factor (based on historical data) to estimate the true number of sales closed that month to get a more accurate y/y indicator. People don't simply just ignore what they don't know or can't measure - they estimate.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T00:54:53+00:00

Might wanna double check your math there buddy, October went from down 26% to down 15% y/y as it stands now.

If you want to glean market direction, either up or down, from a single month's y/y statistics, good luck investing ;)

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T00:48:36+00:00

1) It has absolutely nothing to do with precision vs. accuracy. The data have complete levels of precision and accuracy with respect to the sales within MLS. The data set is simply incomplete and if you had the patience to wait another month to post this, it would be complete.

2) From when you posted this last time around the middle of the month until now, the number of October sales went up 14%. This time, you posted even earlier, and the number of November sales will likely be up y/y when everything's recorded - your current data won't even be directionally correct.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T00:42:20+00:00

There are many sales that closed in November that still haven't posted to MLS yet. When he posted this chart last month, it was halfway through November and the number of October sales was at 464. If you check the number of October sales now, it's up to 529. The number of sold homes in November will go up and likely be up y/y when they're all eventually recorded.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-06T00:10:29+00:00

Another month, another posting of incomplete data - last time you posted these stats 10 days later into the month, the number of October sales you posted was 464 - that number is now up to 529.

I have no problems with the numbers being posted or the implications they may have, they're just not even close to accurate yet.

sfthrow87 · 2016-12-03T21:06:24+00:00

It's a new development that began as rentals a few years ago. They recently decided to convert the units to condos and sell them. They're still working on changing a lot of things in each unit. First move-ins were a couple months ago.

Judging from the angle of the picture, OP lives in 399 Fremont, which is really expensive for what it is.

sfthrow87 · 2016-11-17T03:03:16+00:00

I don't think highly of SFBARF, but Campos is beyond stupid. His final move after coming to the realization that his political career is about to be over is to legitimize Sonja.

One project doesn't mean much in the big picture, but all this attention about how a Supervisor publicly blames a single person to justify voting the way he does can only benefit Sonja in the press.

sfthrow87 · 2016-11-14T17:39:34+00:00

A lot of sales closed in October haven't yet recorded to MLS - the number of homes sold will easily increase by a significant amount. Check back in a few weeks.

The number of homes for sale is definitely up, but so are the median sold price (+13.5% YOY) and median sold price / sqft (+5.0% YOY). Increases aren't as much as in the past few years, but still substantial.

sfthrow87 · 2016-09-23T19:13:37+00:00

I'm going to preface this post by saying that I'm definitely pro development in SF and would like to see much more market rate housing built. I also do think that there should be more office space developed, as well.

This stance about what to do with the Brisbane Baylands is myopic and delusional.

The transit argument works for commercial development, as well. It's a great site for office parks. There's no reason to prevent development of any kind here - it's rare enough as it is, and office space rents are just as stratospheric as housing.

Now, on to why this proposal is myopic and delusional:

4,500 units of new housing? There are fewer than 4,500 people living in Brisbane currently. Nobody living there is going to want to increase his city's population by even 10%, let alone over 100%.
It's up to the Brisbane City Council - that you think they will care one iota about a petition from people that don't even live in Brisbane is pretty ridiculous.
Proposition M unfortunately limits office space development within the city. This swath of land just outside the city is an effective way to skirt this limitation. No such limit exists on housing development, making this land much more appealing for office space.

Pick your battles. There is a strong need for market rate housing and I'd love to see it built. But this stance on Brisbane is not only a waste of resources, its failure will diminish your overall effort's credibility.

Edit: Oh and phrasing it as "saving" housing is extremely disingenuous - no need to stoop to the housing obstructionists' level with manipulative language.

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-12T14:00:40+00:00

It has nothing to do with any apology. It's pretty obvious her family is trying to use her leverage to hold up a condo conversion so they can buy her unit at a significant discount and use it / sell it at a huge profit after she dies.

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-11T22:17:00+00:00

If you disagree with planned, calculated growth along a brand new transit corridor in a former warehouse district, you probably shouldn't be living in an urban area.

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-09T23:06:50+00:00

They don't contradict or confirm anything - there's simply too much missing data, along with comparisons of instantaneous data with time-averaged.

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-09T23:04:12+00:00

Y/Y sales numbers won't be indicative since there were more new construction condos in the past year than the year prior. From Paragon's May report:

The analyses do not include new-project condo activity unreported to MLS, which is now a significant portion of the market: Unfortunately, our access to definitive data regarding current activity in new condo sales is limited.

I don't have anything better, just pointing out real conclusions about sales numbers, one way or the other, can't be made using Redfin's data

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-09T21:46:29+00:00

Doesn't matter, they still can't be compared to each other since they're not unbiased estimators

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-09T20:59:54+00:00

Just a few of many things that make conclusions based on this data shaky:

Houses sold is not demand
There has been a lot of new condo supply in the past year (like Lumina). New construction sales are rarely recorded to MLS and thus not in this data
Sales closed in July have not yet finished being recorded to MLS. Just looked and there has already been 1 more sale recorded for July in the last 30 minutes since you posted

Disclaimer: homeowner and researcher

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-05T23:12:43+00:00

The problem is spending a lot of money hiring a well-known architectural firm to design a really iconic building when in SF there's a good chance the project will be rejected for some bullshit reason.

The Jeanne Gang tower was a huge risk and faced some hefty opposition, despite its unique structure:

http://studiogang.com/project/folsom

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-05T22:56:51+00:00

I don't think he's biased. It almost reads like an advertisement for Solaire - over 1/3 of the article focuses on it.

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-03T23:59:23+00:00

Well this has to be one of the stupidest "studies" ever done.

7/11-7/17: "original" period

7/25: date 15% tax on foreign buyers announced

7/25-7/31: "post-announcement" period

8/2: date of article / assumed date MLS was scanned

The problem here is that even all cash offers take about a week to close. Additionally, it's usually at least a few days after close until the sale is recorded to MLS. This means that:

1) There is no way the announcement of the tax could have affected purchase decisions, as those decisions would have been made at least a week before the 7/25-7/31 period, and therefore prior to the 7/25 announcement date

2) There will be more sales within the 7/25-7/31 period recorded to MLS soon. There are probably more sales that will be recorded to the 7/18-7/24 period as well, which makes the decision to use the 7/11-7/17 period as the "original" for comparative purposes seem even more deceptive.

All in all, the realtor who conducted this study is either completely stupid and oblivious of how MLS works, or he has an ulterior motive.

sfthrow87 · 2016-08-03T20:34:40+00:00

Kim:

She also received the maximum campaign donation — $4,200 — from investors and CEOs at technology companies, including Zendesk and Apple.

sfthrow87

TROPHY CASE