One of the themes we cover on this blog is the importance of place in a world where people are becoming increasingly untethered. While I'm a firm believer that great local places have enduring value, this does not mean that technology isn't driving greater fluidity in the way people live, work, play, and optimize their taxes.

Over the last decade, the population of ultra-wealthy Americans (those with a net worth greater than or equal to $30 million) has risen noticeably in two states: Texas and Florida. California, a high-tax state, still dominates; however, Texas has overtaken New York, and Florida has overtaken Illinois. Notably, both Texas and Florida have no state income tax — they also have warmer weather than New York and Illinois.

As we have talked about before, there's a longstanding migration trend in the US toward sun, urban sprawl, and lower taxes. But it's not always as clear-cut as a rich person fully relocating to a lower-tax jurisdiction and completely severing ties. The enduring value of place means that many people still travel back and forth to meet whatever personal or professional obligations they might have.

And today, there are apps, such as TaxBird, that will meticulously track the number of days you spend (or your phone spends) in each jurisdiction to ensure you don't cross any important residency thresholds.

The global standard is the 183-day rule (or roughly half a year). In many or most cases, if you are physically present in a place for more than 50% of the year, you are automatically considered a resident for tax purposes. But it's not always this simple, so check with your tax advisor. Regardless, the untethering of life and work is surely allowing more people to tax-optimize in this way.

None of this is surprising.

As Charlie Munger used to say, "Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome." But now we need to think about the longer-term ramifications for colder, higher-tax jurisdictions as capital and tax revenue continue to be siphoned off, not only to Texas and Florida, but to Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Monaco and other places.

Cover photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash

Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

Yeah, I don't know, this seems like a roundabout way of getting to where you want to go. Why not build and plan for something with a high quality of life right from the start?

Cover photo by Leon Hitchens on Unsplash

Yesterday, Austin City Council voted 10-1 in favor of a building code amendment that will allow single-stair apartment buildings up to five storeys and with 4 homes per floor. This is progress. Austin now joins Seattle, New York, and possibly other US cities in allowing this building type, which is a type that is widespread outside of North America. Paris, for instance, allows single-stair buildings up to 50m.

In all of these newly allowable cases, there's usually a requirement to sprinkler the building and cap the number of homes per floor, among other life safety requirements. What I'm not clear on, though, is how flexible these new codes are in allowing larger apartment buildings.

In my opinion, it's better (and hopefully more accurate) to think about unit maximums on a per stair basis as opposed to a per floor basis. Because that's how you create larger point-access block buildings: you cluster multiple blocks together, each with its own exit stair. Is that allowed in these building codes? I'm not exactly sure, but one would hope.

Regardless of this important detail, I continue to be impressed by Austin's willingness to drive positive change in its housing market. It makes you wonder: What the hell is taking Toronto so long? Single-stair buildings up to 6 storeys should already be permissible. We should be leading.

Cover photo by Clark Van Der Beken on Unsplash

One of the themes we cover on this blog is the importance of place in a world where people are becoming increasingly untethered. While I'm a firm believer that great local places have enduring value, this does not mean that technology isn't driving greater fluidity in the way people live, work, play, and optimize their taxes.

Over the last decade, the population of ultra-wealthy Americans (those with a net worth greater than or equal to $30 million) has risen noticeably in two states: Texas and Florida. California, a high-tax state, still dominates; however, Texas has overtaken New York, and Florida has overtaken Illinois. Notably, both Texas and Florida have no state income tax — they also have warmer weather than New York and Illinois.

As we have talked about before, there's a longstanding migration trend in the US toward sun, urban sprawl, and lower taxes. But it's not always as clear-cut as a rich person fully relocating to a lower-tax jurisdiction and completely severing ties. The enduring value of place means that many people still travel back and forth to meet whatever personal or professional obligations they might have.

And today, there are apps, such as TaxBird, that will meticulously track the number of days you spend (or your phone spends) in each jurisdiction to ensure you don't cross any important residency thresholds.

The global standard is the 183-day rule (or roughly half a year). In many or most cases, if you are physically present in a place for more than 50% of the year, you are automatically considered a resident for tax purposes. But it's not always this simple, so check with your tax advisor. Regardless, the untethering of life and work is surely allowing more people to tax-optimize in this way.

None of this is surprising.

As Charlie Munger used to say, "Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome." But now we need to think about the longer-term ramifications for colder, higher-tax jurisdictions as capital and tax revenue continue to be siphoned off, not only to Texas and Florida, but to Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Monaco and other places.

Cover photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash

Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

Yeah, I don't know, this seems like a roundabout way of getting to where you want to go. Why not build and plan for something with a high quality of life right from the start?

Cover photo by Leon Hitchens on Unsplash

Yesterday, Austin City Council voted 10-1 in favor of a building code amendment that will allow single-stair apartment buildings up to five storeys and with 4 homes per floor. This is progress. Austin now joins Seattle, New York, and possibly other US cities in allowing this building type, which is a type that is widespread outside of North America. Paris, for instance, allows single-stair buildings up to 50m.

In all of these newly allowable cases, there's usually a requirement to sprinkler the building and cap the number of homes per floor, among other life safety requirements. What I'm not clear on, though, is how flexible these new codes are in allowing larger apartment buildings.

In my opinion, it's better (and hopefully more accurate) to think about unit maximums on a per stair basis as opposed to a per floor basis. Because that's how you create larger point-access block buildings: you cluster multiple blocks together, each with its own exit stair. Is that allowed in these building codes? I'm not exactly sure, but one would hope.

Regardless of this important detail, I continue to be impressed by Austin's willingness to drive positive change in its housing market. It makes you wonder: What the hell is taking Toronto so long? Single-stair buildings up to 6 storeys should already be permissible. We should be leading.

Cover photo by Clark Van Der Beken on Unsplash