Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich (Texas has it right)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I can't imagine people moving to or from a state based on how much taxes they have to pay. People are going to move where there are jobs, adequate housing, and a general quality of life.

Half my coworkers have moved over the Delaware River into the Lehigh Valley region of PA just to escape NJ's high taxes. By doing so, they free up a good chunk of cash and get a higher quality of life.

Also, it's the lower tax states that tend to have more job growth due to the flight of capital to those states. Just a fact, unintended to offend you even if it does.

Do you realize what the huge funding mandates for public sector employee retirement plans has done to states like NJ and California? It's just not sustainable. We've built a model in these states that only works as long as tax revenues are healthy, i.e. the economy is in the boom part of the boom-bust cycle. What kind of model do we think we're creating when it only works during the good half of a standard market cycle?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do you realize what the huge funding mandates for public sector employee retirement plans has done to states like NJ and California? It's just not sustainable. We've built a model in these states that only works as long as tax revenues are healthy, i.e. the economy is in the boom part of the boom-bust cycle. What kind of model do we think we're creating when it only works during the good half of a standard market cycle?

The same thing is happening in Colorado with the public employee pensions. The state is scrounging around for money and the ** governor is catching heat. Poor management and short term thinking are never a desirable qualities in leadership.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Barza Woman

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Do you realize what the huge funding mandates for public sector employee retirement plans has done to states like NJ and California? It's just not sustainable. We've built a model in these states that only works as long as tax revenues are healthy, i.e. the economy is in the boom part of the boom-bust cycle. What kind of model do we think we're creating when it only works during the good half of a standard market cycle?

The same thing is happening in Colorado with the public employee pensions. The state is scrounging around for money and the ** governor is catching heat. Poor management and short term thinking is never a desirable quality in leadership.

Short term thinking is exactly what it is. And I don't know about Colorado but in Jersey both parties have contributed in plenty to the problem. They see huge tax revenues during good years, assume it will be forever, even apply a year over year rate of increase to it, and boom, suddenly pensions payments are x% more. Then the next economic downturn happens, a different party's Governor is in Trenton, blames the other party, defers payments to the pension fund or raids another fund to pay into another, leaves office and the cycle continues.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do you realize what the huge funding mandates for public sector employee retirement plans has done to states like NJ and California? It's just not sustainable. We've built a model in these states that only works as long as tax revenues are healthy, i.e. the economy is in the boom part of the boom-bust cycle. What kind of model do we think we're creating when it only works during the good half of a standard market cycle?

The same thing is happening in Colorado with the public employee pensions. The state is scrounging around for money and the ** governor is catching heat. Poor management and short term thinking is never a desirable quality in leadership.

Short term thinking is exactly what it is. And I don't know about Colorado but in Jersey both parties have contributed in plenty to the problem. They see huge tax revenues during good years, assume it will be forever, even apply a year over year rate of increase to it, and boom, suddenly pensions payments are x% more. Then the next economic downturn happens, a different party's Governor is in Trenton, blames the other party, defers payments to the pension fund or raids another fund to pay into another, leaves office and the cycle continues.

Colorado should know better. This was the home of the first big bank failures in the 1980's. And, so goes energy, so goes CO; up and down.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I can't imagine people moving to or from a state based on how much taxes they have to pay. People are going to move where there are jobs, adequate housing, and a general quality of life.

Part of the point of the OP article is that high taxes have an adverse effect on job growth.

[peejay 327]

I can't imagine people moving to or from a state based on how much taxes they have to pay. People are going to move where there are jobs, adequate housing, and a general quality of life.

Laguna Beach for example - people who own homes there pay an exorbitant amount to live there, but that doesn't stop them from buying a home, nor does it stop them from paying over a 100g's for a car.

A lot of those people claim elsewhere as their legal residence.

This is also somewhat common in the offshore oil industry. We fly out into the Gulf of Mexico from various heliports along the entire Gulf coast to live for extended periods. So we can live anywhere we are comfortable driving to the heliport from since the drive is not daily. I have run across several people that actually live in Louisiana, but claim TX residency and use a relative's or friend's TX address of record to get out of paying LA state income tax.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where does your state rank on taxes?

interactive map

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And for the record on California taxes...

California ranks 12th in the nation in overall taxes PER CAPITA. The Sacramento Bee has a list of the top 12 – number one is Alaska and 2nd is Vermont.

So where does the perception come from that CA has among the highest taxes? The answer comes come from numbers crunching from our UCLA student intern, Manmit Singh. The overwhelming majority of CA’s tax revenues come from state income tax – over half (58%) of our state’s taxes. (the national average is 38%) Sales tax accounts for about one-third of our total taxes, and property tax? A paltry 2% thanks to Prop 13. Since sales tax is considered a “hidden” tax that we usually don’t carefully track or are aware of, California’s reliance on income tax is very visible to the state’s taxpayers and fuels the perception that we have high taxes relative to other states.

What does this mean for those interested in social change? Given CA’s reliance on income and sales tax, low-income residents are the hardest hit. Since they typically don’t own property, they can’t enjoy the benefits of a low property tax, and the other benefits like deducting mortgage payments from their taxes and any equity the home has. So low-income groups bear more of the tax burden without as many benefits. One possible solution to high income taxes? Repeal Prop 13 and raise property taxes. But California is not alone in relying mostly on income and sales tax. 13 states don’t even have property tax and another 17 have their property tax essentially round to zero percent of their total taxes.

http://libertyhill.typepad.com/main/2009/0...nia-a-myth.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Total state and local tax burden is much more meaningful. It includes property taxes, which your cherrypicked analysis does not.

State and local tax burdens, ranked - top 10 (heaviest burden)

1-NJ

2-NY

3-CT

4-MD

5-HI

6-CA

7-OH

8-VT

9-WI

10-RI

State and local tax burdens, ranked - bottom 10 (least burden)

50-AK

49-NV

48-WY

47-FL

46-NH

45-SD

44-TN

43-TX

42-LA

41-AZ

http://www.retirementliving.com/tax_burden_2008.pdf

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Total state and local tax burden is much more meaningful. It includes property taxes, which your cherrypicked analysis does not.

2% percent of California's tax revenue comes from property tax. That's 2%. I'll try to find more data to confirm that number, but that is incredibly small.

[mawilson 2,133]

I can't imagine people moving to or from a state based on how much taxes they have to pay. People are going to move where there are jobs, adequate housing, and a general quality of life.

It's a factor, Steven. Not the only factor, but certainly something many people consider.

[mawilson 2,133]

Total state and local tax burden is much more meaningful. It includes property taxes, which your cherrypicked analysis does not.

2% percent of California's tax revenue comes from property tax. That's 2%. I'll try to find more data to confirm that number, but that is incredibly small.

No, the actual number is close to 25%. 2% is Fascist Left-Wing Propaganda.

Stats for the 2006-2007 fiscal year:

The $170 billion in state and local tax revenue in California came from five major sources:

• personal income taxes of $52 billion (30.5%),
• sales taxes of $45 billion (26.5%),
• property taxes of $42 billion (24.7%),
• corporate income taxes of $11 billion (6.5%),
• $20 billion in other taxes (11.8%)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

mawilson, I know you're right but please state your source before Steven runs into this thread with his APA manual.

[mawilson 2,133]

mawilson, I know you're right but please state your source before Steven runs into this thread with his APA manual.

Here, but the state budget data is from the Legislative Analyst's Office (www.lao.ca.gov). They've done a good job hiding it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ooh, use the opponents force against them. jujutsu!

i hereby anoint mawilson vj's jujutsu warrior!