Mapping America

[ocrenter]

Here’s all of the SD census tracts with over 40% of household making over $200k:

–Carmel Valley (Rancho Pacifica) at 50%
–Carmel Valley (Cantamar/Sonoma) at 50%
–La Jolla 8303 at 46%
–RSF Covenant at 45%
–Scripps (South of Pomerado/Stonebridge) at 41%

Looks like the northern part of Carmel Valley has really pushed itself up into the big league, even eclipsing RSF and La Jolla!

For reference and general interest, Kobe Bryan’s Newport Coast is at 52% over $200k, there are 3 tracts on Palos Verdes Peninsula between 45%-52%, and of course most of Beverly Hills/BH adjacent tracts are within 40-51%.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Very interesting, brian. I will look at the maps when I get more time but it appears they are using income as one of the criteria and not net worth. Many people with high net worth have a low income and vice versa.

Does this “Map of America” take into account the many folks who take regular draws off tax-free and tax-deferred income and pay no taxes on the draws? Is SS and passive income counted as “income” in the Map of America? What about folks getting $2500 and up per month SSDI? (I know several and they are not required to file tax returns.)

Who has more discretionary income, a passive income citizen in a zero tax bracket who is living in a paid-for residence with Prop 13 tax treatment on =<$50K a year w/1 dep or a worker-bee making $175K-$200K per year as W2 income with 3 deps, who pays 40% of their net income on PITI??[/quote] I guess the question is what is considered income here. If it's only looking at wages, then what you say is true. If it's looking at all taxable income (more likely) then it would include pretty much everything except withdrawals from Roth IRAS and interest from Tax sheltered bonds (I bonds). Even most SS can get taxed if there are other forms of income. Traditional IRAs get taxed as the money is withdrawn Interest and dividends on passive investments are taxable. So are capital gains. My dad's tax bills were quite a bit higher than mine after he retired, paid off the house, etc... no deductions, required minimum distributions on his IRAs, pension and SS... he had a lot of "income" after he retired... and the government got it's share.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Very interesting, brian. I will look at the maps when I get more time but it appears they are using income as one of the criteria and not net worth. Many people with high net worth have a low income and vice versa.

Does this “Map of America” take into account the many folks who take regular draws off tax-free and tax-deferred income and pay no taxes on the draws? Is SS and passive income counted as “income” in the Map of America? What about folks getting $2500 and up per month SSDI? (I know several and they are not required to file tax returns.)

Who has more discretionary income, a passive income citizen in a zero tax bracket who is living in a paid-for residence with Prop 13 tax treatment on =<$50K a year w/1 dep or a worker-bee making $175K-$200K per year as W2 income with 3 deps, who pays 40% of their net income on PITI??[/quote] I guess the question is what is considered income here. If it's only looking at wages, then what you say is true. If it's looking at all taxable income (more likely) then it would include pretty much everything except withdrawals from Roth IRAS and interest from Tax sheltered bonds (I bonds). Even most SS can get taxed if there are other forms of income. Traditional IRAs get taxed as the money is withdrawn Interest and dividends on passive investments are taxable. So are capital gains. My dad's tax bills were quite a bit higher than mine after he retired, paid off the house, etc... no deductions, required minimum distributions on his IRAs, pension and SS... he had a lot of "income" after he retired... and the government got it's share.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Very interesting, brian. I will look at the maps when I get more time but it appears they are using income as one of the criteria and not net worth. Many people with high net worth have a low income and vice versa.

Does this “Map of America” take into account the many folks who take regular draws off tax-free and tax-deferred income and pay no taxes on the draws? Is SS and passive income counted as “income” in the Map of America? What about folks getting $2500 and up per month SSDI? (I know several and they are not required to file tax returns.)

Who has more discretionary income, a passive income citizen in a zero tax bracket who is living in a paid-for residence with Prop 13 tax treatment on =<$50K a year w/1 dep or a worker-bee making $175K-$200K per year as W2 income with 3 deps, who pays 40% of their net income on PITI??[/quote] I guess the question is what is considered income here. If it's only looking at wages, then what you say is true. If it's looking at all taxable income (more likely) then it would include pretty much everything except withdrawals from Roth IRAS and interest from Tax sheltered bonds (I bonds). Even most SS can get taxed if there are other forms of income. Traditional IRAs get taxed as the money is withdrawn Interest and dividends on passive investments are taxable. So are capital gains. My dad's tax bills were quite a bit higher than mine after he retired, paid off the house, etc... no deductions, required minimum distributions on his IRAs, pension and SS... he had a lot of "income" after he retired... and the government got it's share.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Very interesting, brian. I will look at the maps when I get more time but it appears they are using income as one of the criteria and not net worth. Many people with high net worth have a low income and vice versa.

Does this “Map of America” take into account the many folks who take regular draws off tax-free and tax-deferred income and pay no taxes on the draws? Is SS and passive income counted as “income” in the Map of America? What about folks getting $2500 and up per month SSDI? (I know several and they are not required to file tax returns.)

Who has more discretionary income, a passive income citizen in a zero tax bracket who is living in a paid-for residence with Prop 13 tax treatment on =<$50K a year w/1 dep or a worker-bee making $175K-$200K per year as W2 income with 3 deps, who pays 40% of their net income on PITI??[/quote] I guess the question is what is considered income here. If it's only looking at wages, then what you say is true. If it's looking at all taxable income (more likely) then it would include pretty much everything except withdrawals from Roth IRAS and interest from Tax sheltered bonds (I bonds). Even most SS can get taxed if there are other forms of income. Traditional IRAs get taxed as the money is withdrawn Interest and dividends on passive investments are taxable. So are capital gains. My dad's tax bills were quite a bit higher than mine after he retired, paid off the house, etc... no deductions, required minimum distributions on his IRAs, pension and SS... he had a lot of "income" after he retired... and the government got it's share.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Very interesting, brian. I will look at the maps when I get more time but it appears they are using income as one of the criteria and not net worth. Many people with high net worth have a low income and vice versa.

Does this “Map of America” take into account the many folks who take regular draws off tax-free and tax-deferred income and pay no taxes on the draws? Is SS and passive income counted as “income” in the Map of America? What about folks getting $2500 and up per month SSDI? (I know several and they are not required to file tax returns.)

Who has more discretionary income, a passive income citizen in a zero tax bracket who is living in a paid-for residence with Prop 13 tax treatment on =<$50K a year w/1 dep or a worker-bee making $175K-$200K per year as W2 income with 3 deps, who pays 40% of their net income on PITI??[/quote] I guess the question is what is considered income here. If it's only looking at wages, then what you say is true. If it's looking at all taxable income (more likely) then it would include pretty much everything except withdrawals from Roth IRAS and interest from Tax sheltered bonds (I bonds). Even most SS can get taxed if there are other forms of income. Traditional IRAs get taxed as the money is withdrawn Interest and dividends on passive investments are taxable. So are capital gains. My dad's tax bills were quite a bit higher than mine after he retired, paid off the house, etc... no deductions, required minimum distributions on his IRAs, pension and SS... he had a lot of "income" after he retired... and the government got it's share.

[ocrenter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.[/quote]

certainly. I think that’s the real reason why the couple of CV tracts actually surpassed RSF Covenant as well as Fairbank Ranch.

It may be safe to use this info to figure out where “new money” is as opposed to “old money.” This also helps figure out which “newer” neighborhoods will have a better chance of becoming established well-to-do high end neighborhoods.

I saw this with Newport Beach as well, the older parts of Newport has less of the “over 200k” folks compared to the newer Newport Coast.

[ocrenter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.[/quote]

certainly. I think that’s the real reason why the couple of CV tracts actually surpassed RSF Covenant as well as Fairbank Ranch.

It may be safe to use this info to figure out where “new money” is as opposed to “old money.” This also helps figure out which “newer” neighborhoods will have a better chance of becoming established well-to-do high end neighborhoods.

I saw this with Newport Beach as well, the older parts of Newport has less of the “over 200k” folks compared to the newer Newport Coast.

[ocrenter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.[/quote]

certainly. I think that’s the real reason why the couple of CV tracts actually surpassed RSF Covenant as well as Fairbank Ranch.

It may be safe to use this info to figure out where “new money” is as opposed to “old money.” This also helps figure out which “newer” neighborhoods will have a better chance of becoming established well-to-do high end neighborhoods.

I saw this with Newport Beach as well, the older parts of Newport has less of the “over 200k” folks compared to the newer Newport Coast.

[ocrenter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Of course the above is only looking at income. There could be few more tracts with high net wealth but smaller current income.

However, as far as I can think high income and high wealth are usually well correlated, so I wouldn’t expect a lot of them.[/quote]

certainly. I think that’s the real reason why the couple of CV tracts actually surpassed RSF Covenant as well as Fairbank Ranch.

It may be safe to use this info to figure out where “new money” is as opposed to “old money.” This also helps figure out which “newer” neighborhoods will have a better chance of becoming established well-to-do high end neighborhoods.

I saw this with Newport Beach as well, the older parts of Newport has less of the “over 200k” folks compared to the newer Newport Coast.

[Author]

Posts