[greensd]

I’m on a month-to-month lease in South Park, and my rent hasn’t gone up since I moved in 16 months ago. That’s the longest I’ve gone without a rent increase since I moved to San Diego in 2002.

[greensd]

I’m on a month-to-month lease in South Park, and my rent hasn’t gone up since I moved in 16 months ago. That’s the longest I’ve gone without a rent increase since I moved to San Diego in 2002.

[greensd]

I’m on a month-to-month lease in South Park, and my rent hasn’t gone up since I moved in 16 months ago. That’s the longest I’ve gone without a rent increase since I moved to San Diego in 2002.

[greensd]

I’m on a month-to-month lease in South Park, and my rent hasn’t gone up since I moved in 16 months ago. That’s the longest I’ve gone without a rent increase since I moved to San Diego in 2002.

[greensd]

I’m on a month-to-month lease in South Park, and my rent hasn’t gone up since I moved in 16 months ago. That’s the longest I’ve gone without a rent increase since I moved to San Diego in 2002.

[greensd]

My rule is that your monthly housing cost should be no more than 1/5th of your after tax monthly income.

You’re joking, right?

[greensd]

My rule is that your monthly housing cost should be no more than 1/5th of your after tax monthly income.

You’re joking, right?

[greensd]

My rule is that your monthly housing cost should be no more than 1/5th of your after tax monthly income.

You’re joking, right?

[greensd]

My rule is that your monthly housing cost should be no more than 1/5th of your after tax monthly income.

You’re joking, right?

[greensd]

My rule is that your monthly housing cost should be no more than 1/5th of your after tax monthly income.

You’re joking, right?

[greensd]

And remember, the percentages will be a lot smaller on the way down. The lower tier went up 200%, but would only have to go down 66% to get back where it started, ignoring inflation. If you take inflation into account, we’re even closer to 2001 prices.

Just tracking the segment boundaries could be interesting. When the bottom of the middle third hits $400,000, maybe I’ll start looking around.

[greensd]

And remember, the percentages will be a lot smaller on the way down. The lower tier went up 200%, but would only have to go down 66% to get back where it started, ignoring inflation. If you take inflation into account, we’re even closer to 2001 prices.

Just tracking the segment boundaries could be interesting. When the bottom of the middle third hits $400,000, maybe I’ll start looking around.

[greensd]

And remember, the percentages will be a lot smaller on the way down. The lower tier went up 200%, but would only have to go down 66% to get back where it started, ignoring inflation. If you take inflation into account, we’re even closer to 2001 prices.

Just tracking the segment boundaries could be interesting. When the bottom of the middle third hits $400,000, maybe I’ll start looking around.

[greensd]

And remember, the percentages will be a lot smaller on the way down. The lower tier went up 200%, but would only have to go down 66% to get back where it started, ignoring inflation. If you take inflation into account, we’re even closer to 2001 prices.

Just tracking the segment boundaries could be interesting. When the bottom of the middle third hits $400,000, maybe I’ll start looking around.

[greensd]

Since when are singles earning over $100,000/yr considered “high income” in Southern California?

By what definition isn’t it high income? Especially since in this context high income means “high enough that you can afford to pay a slightly higher tax rate”, not “high enough that you can afford to start your own country”. It’s more than 90-some percent of *household* incomes in the area, and it’s enough to support a much-more-than-comfortable lifestyle for a single person. How is it not high income?

(Note that I haven’t even read the article you link to… this isn’t a comment about that particular AMT proposal.)

[Author]

Posts