How Quickly will State and Local Income Taxes go up?

[Flopper]

Right now State and local income taxes are a percentage of federal income taxes. By moving to a state with a lower or no income tax it becomes possible to have zero federal income tax and avoid the state income tax from the state they are migrating out of. That will be the trigger for more taxes and more outmigration and this will repeat, if the people getting the good news now migrate out before the end of the year and start the cycle as appears to be happening. How soon will this cause a catastrophic loss of tax base?

I have lived in two states with zero state income tax, Florida and Washington. In Florida the state sales tax is 6% plus an optional local tax of 1% ,which is common in most of the state. Property taxes are reasonable but not low. In Washington the state sales tax is 6.5% but local sales tax can drive that to as high as 10.4%. Property taxes are above the national average.

Keep in mind that states are going to get the funds they need. If they don't get it in income taxes they will get it in sales or property taxes. I have live in a number of states. Now I now this may sound nuts to some but states that have higher taxes are often nicer places to live, better parks and recreation, better roads, better funding for education and law enforcement.

I live in a state with no income tax and no sales tax. The roads are better than in the surrounding (high-tax) states, too!

What people often fail to consider is the cost to maintain roads can be drastically different depending on terrain, weather, and usage. For example, the cost of maintaining mountainous roads can be incredibly high.

near total agreement but by creating additional incentives for interstate migration the SALT bills will have to go up and services will have to go down in the worst positioned states. I suspect actual defaults by states will be 3-6. Only three states CA, IL and NJ that probably would go under even if the tax bill did not exist, two MA and NY are close enough to the edge to be pulled under without intervention by the Fed, the 6th is a fudge factor for state house idiocy and panic. But the collapse will likely happen prior to the 2020. Trump does have sense enough to blame the whole mess on the Democrats which be plausible. That is why I think the lowball of the range is more likely.

I'm confused. As I understand the new tax law, there is a limit of $10,000 on the state and local tax deductions. That being the case, wouldn't that provision raise taxes for states and federal government?

 

[Flopper]

Right now State and local income taxes are a percentage of federal income taxes. By moving to a state with a lower or no income tax it becomes possible to have zero federal income tax and avoid the state income tax from the state they are migrating out of. That will be the trigger for more taxes and more outmigration and this will repeat, if the people getting the good news now migrate out before the end of the year and start the cycle as appears to be happening. How soon will this cause a catastrophic loss of tax base?

I have lived in two states with zero state income tax, Florida and Washington. In Florida the state sales tax is 6% plus an optional local tax of 1% ,which is common in most of the state. Property taxes are reasonable but not low. In Washington the state sales tax is 6.5% but local sales tax can drive that to as high as 10.4%. Property taxes are above the national average.

Keep in mind that states are going to get the funds they need. If they don't get it in income taxes they will get it in sales or property taxes. I have live in a number of states. Now I now this may sound nuts to some but states that have higher taxes are often nicer places to live, better parks and recreation, better roads, better funding for education and law enforcement.

That may be true, but in California education, law enforcement, and the parks must be sucking up all the funds because the roads are total crap.

Don't live in California so I don't know. I do know California is second only to Texas in the number of miles of roads. Considering how heavily traveled those roads are the maintenance bill must be huge.

 

[william the wie]

Right now State and local income taxes are a percentage of federal income taxes. By moving to a state with a lower or no income tax it becomes possible to have zero federal income tax and avoid the state income tax from the state they are migrating out of. That will be the trigger for more taxes and more outmigration and this will repeat, if the people getting the good news now migrate out before the end of the year and start the cycle as appears to be happening. How soon will this cause a catastrophic loss of tax base?

I have lived in two states with zero state income tax, Florida and Washington. In Florida the state sales tax is 6% plus an optional local tax of 1% ,which is common in most of the state. Property taxes are reasonable but not low. In Washington the state sales tax is 6.5% but local sales tax can drive that to as high as 10.4%. Property taxes are above the national average.

Keep in mind that states are going to get the funds they need. If they don't get it in income taxes they will get it in sales or property taxes. I have live in a number of states. Now I now this may sound nuts to some but states that have higher taxes are often nicer places to live, better parks and recreation, better roads, better funding for education and law enforcement.

I live in a state with no income tax and no sales tax. The roads are better than in the surrounding (high-tax) states, too!

What people often fail to consider is the cost to maintain roads can be drastically different depending on terrain, weather, and usage. For example, the cost of maintaining mountainous roads can be incredibly high.

near total agreement but by creating additional incentives for interstate migration the SALT bills will have to go up and services will have to go down in the worst positioned states. I suspect actual defaults by states will be 3-6. Only three states CA, IL and NJ that probably would go under even if the tax bill did not exist, two MA and NY are close enough to the edge to be pulled under without intervention by the Fed, the 6th is a fudge factor for state house idiocy and panic. But the collapse will likely happen prior to the 2020. Trump does have sense enough to blame the whole mess on the Democrats which be plausible. That is why I think the lowball of the range is more likely.

I'm confused. As I understand the new tax law, there is a limit of $10,000 on the state and local tax deductions. That being the case, wouldn't that provision raise taxes for states and federal government?

The tax increases make the high tax states more costly to live in or have a business in.

That reduces migration in and increases migration out of the higher tax states. In addition this has the exact opposite effect on lower tax states. Adjoining states have even stronger effects on in(de)creasing the tax differential. Since FL and HI mostly rely on taxing tourists as their largest source of revenue they can get by on relatively low taxes but the other 48 states can't

If state A grabs 9% of income and the adjoining state B grabs 8% State B has an 11% initial comparative advantage but it will grow (99/64) 55% faster than A. But most of that comparative growthrate will involve state A losing tax base or in the case of CA not having the money for fire prevention, flood prevention and ERs while AZ gets the Scottsdale campus of Mayo and NV providing medical services not covered by Ocare at lower prices than CA.

 

[Thinker101]

Right now State and local income taxes are a percentage of federal income taxes. By moving to a state with a lower or no income tax it becomes possible to have zero federal income tax and avoid the state income tax from the state they are migrating out of. That will be the trigger for more taxes and more outmigration and this will repeat, if the people getting the good news now migrate out before the end of the year and start the cycle as appears to be happening. How soon will this cause a catastrophic loss of tax base?

I have lived in two states with zero state income tax, Florida and Washington. In Florida the state sales tax is 6% plus an optional local tax of 1% ,which is common in most of the state. Property taxes are reasonable but not low. In Washington the state sales tax is 6.5% but local sales tax can drive that to as high as 10.4%. Property taxes are above the national average.

Keep in mind that states are going to get the funds they need. If they don't get it in income taxes they will get it in sales or property taxes. I have live in a number of states. Now I now this may sound nuts to some but states that have higher taxes are often nicer places to live, better parks and recreation, better roads, better funding for education and law enforcement.

That may be true, but in California education, law enforcement, and the parks must be sucking up all the funds because the roads are total crap.

Don't live in California so I don't know. I do know California is second only to Texas in the number of miles of roads. Considering how heavily traveled those roads are the maintenance bill must be huge.

Well, since they don't maintain the roads, it's fairly small.

 

[Flopper]

I have lived in two states with zero state income tax, Florida and Washington. In Florida the state sales tax is 6% plus an optional local tax of 1% ,which is common in most of the state. Property taxes are reasonable but not low. In Washington the state sales tax is 6.5% but local sales tax can drive that to as high as 10.4%. Property taxes are above the national average.

Keep in mind that states are going to get the funds they need. If they don't get it in income taxes they will get it in sales or property taxes. I have live in a number of states. Now I now this may sound nuts to some but states that have higher taxes are often nicer places to live, better parks and recreation, better roads, better funding for education and law enforcement.

I live in a state with no income tax and no sales tax. The roads are better than in the surrounding (high-tax) states, too!

What people often fail to consider is the cost to maintain roads can be drastically different depending on terrain, weather, and usage. For example, the cost of maintaining mountainous roads can be incredibly high.

near total agreement but by creating additional incentives for interstate migration the SALT bills will have to go up and services will have to go down in the worst positioned states. I suspect actual defaults by states will be 3-6. Only three states CA, IL and NJ that probably would go under even if the tax bill did not exist, two MA and NY are close enough to the edge to be pulled under without intervention by the Fed, the 6th is a fudge factor for state house idiocy and panic. But the collapse will likely happen prior to the 2020. Trump does have sense enough to blame the whole mess on the Democrats which be plausible. That is why I think the lowball of the range is more likely.

I'm confused. As I understand the new tax law, there is a limit of $10,000 on the state and local tax deductions. That being the case, wouldn't that provision raise taxes for states and federal government?

The tax increases make the high tax states more costly to live in or have a business in.

That reduces migration in and increases migration out of the higher tax states. In addition this has the exact opposite effect on lower tax states. Adjoining states have even stronger effects on in(de)creasing the tax differential. Since FL and HI mostly rely on taxing tourists as their largest source of revenue they can get by on relatively low taxes but the other 48 states can't

If state A grabs 9% of income and the adjoining state B grabs 8% State B has an 11% initial comparative advantage but it will grow (99/64) 55% faster than A. But most of that comparative growthrate will involve state A losing tax base or in the case of CA not having the money for fire prevention, flood prevention and ERs while AZ gets the Scottsdale campus of Mayo and NV providing medical services not covered by Ocare at lower prices than CA.

I think you need to keep in mind that a state will collect the amount of taxes it needs to run the state independently of federal income taxes; that is the state will adjust it's tax revenue based on it's needs. So if the federal government changes the tax laws so the states will collect more state income taxes from it's citizens as will be the case for most states, then states governments will be pressured to either lower state taxes or delivery more services.

For most taxes payers the difference in taxes paid by the individuals in high tax states and low tax states resulting from the new tax law will be close to what it is now and that difference will not show up in state taxes but rather federal taxes. I certainly would not expect any mass migration between states based on the new tax law.

The biggest factor in determine your state and local taxes is not necessary the state but where you live in that state. Both property taxes and sales taxes can vary tremendously.

 

[Flopper]

The fact is very few people make decisions of where to live based on taxes. In reality it is livability. This of course includes taxes but also includes employment opportunity and salaries, the cost of living, safety of the chosen neighborhood, quality of schools in that area, closeness of friends relatives, medical care, and of course the amenities, such parks and recreation, shopping, restaurants, sporting events, summer and winter sports, museums, the mountains, the beaches, cultural actives, transportation, diversity or homogeneity, and thousand of other things. If people choose to live in places primary based on taxes, Fargo N. D. would be a huge metropolis and San Francisco would be a small village.

 

[BluesLegend]

Right now State and local income taxes are a percentage of federal income taxes. By moving to a state with a lower or no income tax it becomes possible to have zero federal income tax and avoid the state income tax from the state they are migrating out of. That will be the trigger for more taxes and more outmigration and this will repeat, if the people getting the good news now migrate out before the end of the year and start the cycle as appears to be happening. How soon will this cause a catastrophic loss of tax base?

Leaving a state before the end of the year doesn't eliminate taxes owed to the original state.

No but leaving a state mid year before you hit their higher tax brackets and moving to a state with no state income tax...lets just say that's some funny shit right there.

 

[william the wie]

I live in a state with no income tax and no sales tax. The roads are better than in the surrounding (high-tax) states, too!

What people often fail to consider is the cost to maintain roads can be drastically different depending on terrain, weather, and usage. For example, the cost of maintaining mountainous roads can be incredibly high.

near total agreement but by creating additional incentives for interstate migration the SALT bills will have to go up and services will have to go down in the worst positioned states. I suspect actual defaults by states will be 3-6. Only three states CA, IL and NJ that probably would go under even if the tax bill did not exist, two MA and NY are close enough to the edge to be pulled under without intervention by the Fed, the 6th is a fudge factor for state house idiocy and panic. But the collapse will likely happen prior to the 2020. Trump does have sense enough to blame the whole mess on the Democrats which be plausible. That is why I think the lowball of the range is more likely.

I'm confused. As I understand the new tax law, there is a limit of $10,000 on the state and local tax deductions. That being the case, wouldn't that provision raise taxes for states and federal government?

The tax increases make the high tax states more costly to live in or have a business in.

That reduces migration in and increases migration out of the higher tax states. In addition this has the exact opposite effect on lower tax states. Adjoining states have even stronger effects on in(de)creasing the tax differential. Since FL and HI mostly rely on taxing tourists as their largest source of revenue they can get by on relatively low taxes but the other 48 states can't

If state A grabs 9% of income and the adjoining state B grabs 8% State B has an 11% initial comparative advantage but it will grow (99/64) 55% faster than A. But most of that comparative growthrate will involve state A losing tax base or in the case of CA not having the money for fire prevention, flood prevention and ERs while AZ gets the Scottsdale campus of Mayo and NV providing medical services not covered by Ocare at lower prices than CA.

I think you need to keep in mind that a state will collect the amount of taxes it needs to run the state independently of federal income taxes; that is the state will adjust it's tax revenue based on it's needs. So if the federal government changes the tax laws so the states will collect more state income taxes from it's citizens as will be the case for most states, then states governments will be pressured to either lower state taxes or delivery more services.

For most taxes payers the difference in taxes paid by the individuals in high tax states and low tax states resulting from the new tax law will be close to what it is now and that difference will not show up in state taxes but rather federal taxes. I certainly would not expect any mass migration between states based on the new tax law.

The biggest factor in determine your state and local taxes is not necessary the state but where you live in that state. Both property taxes and sales taxes can vary tremendously.

True but PA and NH have been growing relative to their higher tax neighbors for decades and that despite the fact that the center of the US population has been heading south predominantly since 1930. There has been less growth on both oceanic coasts since 1930 than extrapolation from 1800 to 1920 would predict.

 

[Flopper]

What people often fail to consider is the cost to maintain roads can be drastically different depending on terrain, weather, and usage. For example, the cost of maintaining mountainous roads can be incredibly high.

near total agreement but by creating additional incentives for interstate migration the SALT bills will have to go up and services will have to go down in the worst positioned states. I suspect actual defaults by states will be 3-6. Only three states CA, IL and NJ that probably would go under even if the tax bill did not exist, two MA and NY are close enough to the edge to be pulled under without intervention by the Fed, the 6th is a fudge factor for state house idiocy and panic. But the collapse will likely happen prior to the 2020. Trump does have sense enough to blame the whole mess on the Democrats which be plausible. That is why I think the lowball of the range is more likely.

I'm confused. As I understand the new tax law, there is a limit of $10,000 on the state and local tax deductions. That being the case, wouldn't that provision raise taxes for states and federal government?

The tax increases make the high tax states more costly to live in or have a business in.

That reduces migration in and increases migration out of the higher tax states. In addition this has the exact opposite effect on lower tax states. Adjoining states have even stronger effects on in(de)creasing the tax differential. Since FL and HI mostly rely on taxing tourists as their largest source of revenue they can get by on relatively low taxes but the other 48 states can't

If state A grabs 9% of income and the adjoining state B grabs 8% State B has an 11% initial comparative advantage but it will grow (99/64) 55% faster than A. But most of that comparative growthrate will involve state A losing tax base or in the case of CA not having the money for fire prevention, flood prevention and ERs while AZ gets the Scottsdale campus of Mayo and NV providing medical services not covered by Ocare at lower prices than CA.

I think you need to keep in mind that a state will collect the amount of taxes it needs to run the state independently of federal income taxes; that is the state will adjust it's tax revenue based on it's needs. So if the federal government changes the tax laws so the states will collect more state income taxes from it's citizens as will be the case for most states, then states governments will be pressured to either lower state taxes or delivery more services.

For most taxes payers the difference in taxes paid by the individuals in high tax states and low tax states resulting from the new tax law will be close to what it is now and that difference will not show up in state taxes but rather federal taxes. I certainly would not expect any mass migration between states based on the new tax law.

The biggest factor in determine your state and local taxes is not necessary the state but where you live in that state. Both property taxes and sales taxes can vary tremendously.

True but PA and NH have been growing relative to their higher tax neighbors for decades and that despite the fact that the center of the US population has been heading south predominantly since 1930. There has been less growth on both oceanic coasts since 1930 than extrapolation from 1800 to 1920 would predict.

There's so many different reasons for states to have high or low taxes it is hard to make generations. Florida citizens see a relatively low overall tax burden because the influx of tourist takes much of the tax burden off citizens. However, Hawaii which is one of the most popular tourist destination in the world puts the 2nd largest tax burden in the US on it's citizens. When you look at the state, it's easy to see why. The 1.4 million citizens are scattered over 8 major islands which creates major problems in delivering services and supporting infrastructure and the costs are about 70% higher than Florida due to the high cost of living.

Most of the difference in cost of living between different parts of the country is not the taxes. It is the overall cost of living of which taxes only a part. Consider this. The Cost of Living in New York city is 90%, higher than Cheyenne Wyoming, much more in Manhattan. The tax burden in Cheyenne is approximately 7% while the tax burden in New York City is 13.3%. So only about 6% or 7% of the 80% difference in living cost is taxes. You can see the same thing across the country. If you look at the total cost of living differences between area, you will see the difference in tax burden is a relativity small part.

In short, taxes are not the primary reason for picking a place to live. If two areas seem about equal. Taxes could be a tie breaker, but in general there are many things much more important in the selection a place to live.

 

[william the wie]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Plenty of people LIKE the climate in NH...just look at the people who flood in all winter to ski!

 

[Flopper]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

 

[william the wie]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

You missed the big one: government services. That is what declines first with bad state finances. The walking dead like CA and IL have crappy public services when it comes to emergency health care, disaster relief, police protection and schools. Working in NY, NJ and MD and living in PA leads to better higher after tax income and better public services. What's not to like?

 

[AntonToo]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

You missed the big one: government services. That is what declines first with bad state finances. The walking dead like CA and IL have crappy public services when it comes to emergency health care, disaster relief, police protection and schools. Working in NY, NJ and MD and living in PA leads to better higher after tax income and better public services. What's not to like?

Umm the commute?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Right now State and local income taxes are a percentage of federal income taxes. By moving to a state with a lower or no income tax it becomes possible to have zero federal income tax and avoid the state income tax from the state they are migrating out of. That will be the trigger for more taxes and more outmigration and this will repeat, if the people getting the good news now migrate out before the end of the year and start the cycle as appears to be happening. How soon will this cause a catastrophic loss of tax base?

Not in any state I have ever lived in!

 

[francoHFW]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

You missed the big one: government services. That is what declines first with bad state finances. The walking dead like CA and IL have crappy public services when it comes to emergency health care, disaster relief, police protection and schools. Working in NY, NJ and MD and living in PA leads to better higher after tax income and better public services. What's not to like?

Umm the commute?

The more the GOP scumbags cut taxes on the rich, the more states and localities raise taxes and that kill the non rich. I love the driver responsibility assessment in New York that doubles any fine that is already huge after surcharge- ridiculous.
The one tax graph you really need to know - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › wonk

Sep 19, 2012 · For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. ... And the federal income ...

You visited this page on 7/19/17.

 

[francoHFW]

The one tax graph you really need to know - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › wonk

Sep 19, 2012 · For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. ... And the federal income ...

Now we have basically a flat tax, pure Boon for the rich and the non rich continue 2 go to hell. Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

God dammit

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income
LOL... And mainly the rich are getting away with murder while the country Falls apart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

You missed the big one: government services. That is what declines first with bad state finances. The walking dead like CA and IL have crappy public services when it comes to emergency health care, disaster relief, police protection and schools. Working in NY, NJ and MD and living in PA leads to better higher after tax income and better public services. What's not to like?

Umm the commute?

The more the GOP scumbags cut taxes on the rich, the more states and localities raise taxes and that kill the non rich. I love the driver responsibility assessment in New York that doubles any fine that is already huge after surcharge- ridiculous.
The one tax graph you really need to know - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › wonk
View attachment 186057
Sep 19, 2012 · For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. ... And the federal income ...

You visited this page on 7/19/17.

The more the GOP scumbags cut taxes on the rich, the more states and localities raise taxes and that kill the non rich.

The GOP cut of Federal taxes has no impact on local and state tax collections. Moron.

 

[AntonToo]

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

I gave PA and NH as examples for the following reasons

They have bucked the general migration trend of the last 88 years.

PA in particular has a very long history of industrial disasters. NH's climate is certainly a contender for worst in CONUS although SD may be the Champ.

Other than Pittsburgh being a major nano-tech hotspot PA has little to offer culturally and yet it grows. NH has little to offer in state but Amazon has been particularly good to the state. Quebec is 200 miles from the state line and while Boston is somewhat less than 100 miles away Boston is still a city that was largely laid out in the 17th century and parts of the city are still just barely 18th century in layout.

But the big reason for picking these two states is that the last time either state had serious problems with state finances was 1837. That is not true of most of the nearby blue states. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that the north east has serious problems ahead but that would be a different thread.

People don't pick a place to live because of government finances. The reason for people moving falls in 3 broad categories, employment, family, and housing related issues. Secondary issues are climate, and availability of entertainment, cultural, educational, sporting, and outdoor activities. Issues of taxes and cost of living are factored into salaries.

You missed the big one: government services. That is what declines first with bad state finances. The walking dead like CA and IL have crappy public services when it comes to emergency health care, disaster relief, police protection and schools. Working in NY, NJ and MD and living in PA leads to better higher after tax income and better public services. What's not to like?

Umm the commute?

The more the GOP scumbags cut taxes on the rich, the more states and localities raise taxes and that kill the non rich. I love the driver responsibility assessment in New York that doubles any fine that is already huge after surcharge- ridiculous.
The one tax graph you really need to know - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › wonk
View attachment 186057
Sep 19, 2012 · For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. ... And the federal income ...

You visited this page on 7/19/17.

The more the GOP scumbags cut taxes on the rich, the more states and localities raise taxes and that kill the non rich.

The GOP cut of Federal taxes has no impact on local and state tax collections. Moron.

There are secondary effects. Immediate effect is that Fed revenues are down and deficits are up, but down the line Federal spending on grants, education, healthcare and social safety nets will get cut and states will have to pick up the tab....and the WAY states pick up their revenue is usually through much more regressive taxation that puts more burden on mid-to-low income households