Not Enough Babies?

[Torvy]

We've had this discussion before the son's house has a higher value. Like they say. Location, location, location.

The more popular the location, the more valuable the property and house. I cannot compare my rural house to one in the city. That is why you look at overall tax burden and not anecdotal evidence. Property taxes are a combination of levy and valuation. Valuation is tricky because some is based on market value and some is based on manipulation of taxpayers.

Notice my earlier attachment. Among the 10 lowest tax burdened states are 5 of the 8 no-income tax states. Among the highest 10 states, zero of the 8 are there.

Iirc, I debunked the truck thing before, too. Sales tax on vehicles is indeed higher. The annual registration is pretty close to the same between NM and TX.

 

[jyoutz]

Anecdotal information like this is notoriously difficult to square up. So many factors can influence the numbers. As simple as "is his vehicle newer and more valuable than yours?" Which would explain at least some difference in registration cost.

The County you are in has perhaps the lowest property tax rate in the entire nation-- .56 percent of value. Good for you! National average is about 1 percent. So pretty much anywhere else, your son's property tax would be about double, but not six times as much.

"6 times" higher property tax, all other things being equal, would be a property tax rate of over 3%. I've never heard of that. So- is your home purchase from long ago with a lower valuation compared to your son's more recently purchased home with a higher value? Does his property taxes included bonds, special assessments, HOA fees, or anything similar whereas yours does not? If any of those things exist it's not really a fair comparison.

After you equalize things out, the differences will likely shrink, maybe by a lot. Then you have to factor in the amount of income tax savings your son enjoys not having to pay-- presuming he is employed and being paid.

I moved from a high tax State (CA) to a no income tax State (NV) more than 10 years ago. Our DMV fees are roughly the same, also property tax rates roughly the same, maybe slightly higher in NV due to Prop 13 in CA. But the savings of income taxes not paid far overwhelms all the other numbers, making it less costly here.

Your state is able to have no income tax because of the taxable receipts from the casino and tourism industry. Not all states are in that situation. As for my son’s savings from no income tax, the differences between property taxes are more than I pay in state income taxes. I don’t want to continue this as a discussion. I was just pointing out that states have a baseline of citizen services and have to fund them in some fashion. Some states use a combination of income taxes, sales, and other taxes, and some use higher sales taxes, mining royalties and other fees instead of income taxes. And each state has different options based on population and the economic drivers. Comparison to CA and NY is different because those are two of the highest tax states in the country.

 

[jyoutz]

We've had this discussion before the son's house has a higher value. Like they say. Location, location, location.

The more popular the location, the more valuable the property and house. I cannot compare my rural house to one in the city. That is why you look at overall tax burden and not anecdotal evidence. Property taxes are a combination of levy and valuation. Valuation is tricky because some is based on market value and some is based on manipulation of taxpayers.

Notice my earlier attachment. Among the 10 lowest tax burdened states are 5 of the 8 no-income tax states. Among the highest 10 states, zero of the 8 are there.

Iirc, I debunked the truck thing before, too. Sales tax on vehicles is indeed higher. The annual registration is pretty close to the same between NM and TX.

Actually my house has a much higher valuation than the house my son is buying. About a 55% higher valuation. Since he is buying, we know the appraisal. They also have toll roads where he lives. Texas will always be able to run with no income taxes because of the huge royalties received from petroleum and the large population/sales tax base. More sparsely populated states without mining royalties may not have that revenue base. Just pointing out that there is a baseline of state services and states fund them somehow. Texas provides a lot of state services, so they are being funded by the citizens in some fashion.

 

[jyoutz]

Gubmit workers rely on confiscation of peoples incomes to pay their salaries, so the aforementioned actually like taxes. Higher taxes mean higher salaries, more benefits, higher pension multipliers, and more gubmit workers that also vote the same way.

“No joke”.

The discussion isn’t focused on your corrupt rust belt area.

 

[plowhog]

Actually my house has a much higher valuation than the house my son is buying. About a 55% higher valuation.

I'm always interested in real estate topics, so I did some math trying to plug in your numbers. Best I can tell:

The "income tax" state home has value about $520k, $2,900 prop tax

The "no income tax" state home has value about $335k, $11,000 prop tax

I'm going to presume this is the lowest property tax rate in the country compared to the highest possible property tax rate. (Before now I never knew there was a .056 tax rate anywhere.)

I cannot imagine buying a home where the prop tax is $11k on a home value a little above $300k. That is quite a financial drag.

I congratulate you again on your amazing property tax rate-- sure wish that was what I am paying! Enjoy!

 

[2manyrocks]

As for the original topic of declining birthrates, it's pretty obvious that people having children and buying houses have historically been linked in the US. With housing prices having doubled since 2019, and wages not keeping pace with real shelter inflation, that will negatively impact young people's decisions to have children.

Animal shelters in the USA have already seen a large increase in intakes and fewer adoptions because of inflation eating into people's discretionary income to have pets.

Buy a house, start a family, get a dog.....that's all been upended by inflation caused by excessive government spending for political purposes funded by printing money.

 

[jyoutz]

I'm always interested in real estate topics, so I did some math trying to plug in your numbers. Best I can tell:

The "income tax" state home has value about $520k, $2,900 prop tax

The "no income tax" state home has value about $335k, $11,000 prop tax

I'm going to presume this is the lowest property tax rate in the country compared to the highest possible property tax rate. (Before now I never knew there was a .056 tax rate anywhere.)

I cannot imagine buying a home where the prop tax is $11k on a home value a little above $300k. That is quite a financial drag.

I congratulate you again on your amazing property tax rate-- sure wish that was what I am paying! Enjoy!

Your valuation numbers are about $100K low on the first and $15k too high on the second. But thanks for doing this comparison. And to be fair, our place in the country is county land, not in an incorporated town, my son’s house is in a large metropolitan area. The services we receive are very different. We are lucky to get the roads graded and plowed occasionally and see the sheriffs weekly. My son’s property has all of the typical city services.

 

[ultrarunner]

It’s a trade off when services are comeasurate with higher taxes.

The rub comes when the lower tax county has better than the higher cost city…

 

[BravoXray]

We need to stop having so many babies, or it's going to get ugly in a few decades.
Like George Carlin once said, " the Earth is doing just fine, but we're effed."
Interesting report by The World Population Report.
How Many People Can the Earth Support 2024

 

[paulsharvey]

We need to stop having so many babies, or it's going to get ugly in a few decades.
Like George Carlin once said, " the Earth is doing just fine, but we're effed."
Interesting report by The World Population Report.
How Many People Can the Earth Support 2024

No, everything I've seen shows the entire developed world having well less than replacement number of births; the 2nd world is pretty close to even, or slow gains for now; and even the 3rd world has sharply decreasing birthrate, while still high. When you say how many people can the world support; not sure what you mean? We can easily produce 150% to 200% the food; and we don't have anyone in the world starving from a lack of food (from a lack of money, yes, or even a lack of infrastructure, but not a lack of food). Water? Maybe, but I don't see the being near a critical stage except in Egypt, or maybe Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan. To some degree the mega cities in Africa (Kinshasa) and generally Bangladesh, Lagos, maybe a lack of treated drinking water, but not a lack of fresh water. Lack of room for people? Not really, sure Bangladesh, Netherlands, Java, but thats not a world wide problem. Japan was able at peak to support 150M in an area of roughly the 13 original US states.

 

[Torvy]

Net world population growth recently fell below replacement rate.

Too few children will cause as many problems as too many.

 

[kenmbz]

We are up to over 8 billion people.

In 1970 we had half of that.

This doubling has caused untold starvation and damage to water supplies and led to deforestation for farming in Asia and South America.

We are already getting closer to Soylent green.

While net change is lower this year, it's only since 2019 that net change is below 1%. So only a few years of downward change, which includes the Pandemic years.

World Population by Year - Worldometer

Population growth through history from 5000 BC to the current year (2024) for the entire population of the world

www.worldometers.info

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

Maybe the MRNA vaccines will help to reduce the population to a more acceptable level.

 

[masscity]

I thought the anti vaxxers did a good job of lowering the population.

 

[tractortroof]

I guess the wife and I lived in the golden ages. Kids were more valuable than gold, and we never even thought of how much they might "cost" .
We made a deal to our family that one of us would stay home and care for the young ones.

It worked, but I'm a miser, and my wife is frugal.

The kids did not go wanting...

;-)

Same here only I go through it now. We just had our 11th and I don’t understand the people who talk about can’t afford them, especially when they talk about faith in the same sentence. Wife obviously had to stay at home she has a job there that is huge. God will provide. Population too much? No there are vast areas of land unpopulated even in India.

We are done having them naturally but I could see adopting maybe 9 more if we are stable enough.

 

[Hay Dude]

Same here only I go through it now. We just had our 11th and I don’t understand the people who talk about can’t afford them, especially when they talk about faith in the same sentence. Wife obviously had to stay at home she has a job there that is huge. God will provide. Population too much? No there are vast areas of land unpopulated even in India.

We are done having them naturally but I could see adopting maybe 9 more if we are stable enough.

Thats a beautiful thing you got going tractortroof.
“God will provide” if we just believe and have faith.
IMO, it is the strong faith and families, particularly from the south and midwest that will pull this country through and lead us through this mess.
Strong families of Faith will be an example for the lost, Godless America haters and they will eventually turn back to God.
That is my prayer.

 

[drssg]

This guy is doing his part.

The Sperminator welcomes 165th child just before Father’s Day — and makes shocking announcement

The six-foot-two prolific Kingsborough Community College math professor is celebrating his latest baby, who was birthed by a woman in Connecticut.

nypost.com

 

[Norm W]

As a math teacher, he is definitely good at multiplying.

 

[dstig1]

I hadn't read through this until now. Plenty of thread drift of course but the original topic is getting more attention, these days. The scare mongers like the Population Bomb are just that. Not reality. Projections now are showing the world population peaking and then starting to decline by around 2050 or so (I forget the exact timing but it was still this century, not terribly far away). I saw some projections that had the future population lower than it is today. Technology keeps increasing so we get better and better at being able to feed and fuel the growth we have seen which is why we didn't all starve in the 70's after the Pop Bomb book came out and told us we were "all gunna die!!!"

The fundamental is that as a country gets richer, fertility rates drop. Many of the more advanced countries now are below (some, WELL below) the replacement rate of about 2.1 babies per child-bearing age woman. When that happens, your population is going to decrease. The only other lever that can change that is immigration and many countries are not very immigrant friendly (Japan, S Korea are 2 places in this pickle currently and neither is very immigrant friendly, for example). Immigration (legal or not) is the only thing keeping the US pop growing at this point.

Even though China is a mix of third world and first world now, they have already shot themselves in the foot with their one baby policy that ended up creating an imbalance between the sexes as there is a cultural preference for boys so selective abortion reduced the normal percent of females born. Now there are too few females and they don't seem to want to settle down and have kids. Absent a major cultural shift, they are hosed and will see a massive imbalance of too many old people and very few young ones that is going to cause major societal issues.

The current US problem is of course the boomers being old and fewer young workers to cover for them. What will be interesting to me is once the boomers expire, then the demographic spread will be much more evened out, I believe, and this could have a good impact on the sustainability of our society.

Time will tell how good these projections are...

 

[deserteagle71]

Projections now are showing the world population peaking and then starting to decline by around 2050 or so (I forget the exact timing but it was still this century, not terribly far away). I saw some projections that had the future population lower than it is today.

I think whoever did those "projections" needs to look at what is happening in the 3rd world countries because obviously they didn't take them into account. That is where all the population growth is happening. Again, in the past 50 years the population of planet earth has DOUBLED. I don't think earth will survive another doubling. Global warming? All these added people will be contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, and using up resources that are getting scarcer. Here's a graph of world population for the last 1000 years...look at what happened in the last 100 years!