Just for fun...when CA. finally taxes you out, where will you go? Why? (Riverside: rentals, employment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are not disagreeing with me, I did not make up the numbers. You are disagreeing with fact, that is what is so amusing. I am not giving you my opinion, I am giving you fact, easily verifiablefact, you don't want fact, you want beliefs, a MOD CUT
Fact:
We do agree there is a tax difference between California and Washington.
Fact: You insist that difference is not significant.
Fact: I insist that difference is significant.
Significance is subjective.
I will never change your mind and you will never change my mind. It is no big deal.
We (and I do mean both of us) are taking it way too far as the moderator has pointed out. Live and let live my friend.
No. I'm not thinking of "another poster's comment". I didn't say you said it was an apples to apples comparison ... I simply said it is not one. And the reason I wrote that is: you made a comparison of costs between Spokane and Orange County as if they exist on some par value. They don't. You persist in attempts at justifying your anecdotal position in this thread by using fictions and irrelevancies. If you want to be taken seriously, try making comparisons that have some kind of basis in common.
I have owned properties in Washington State continuously since 1970. I have also held six different addresses in California since 1966, including in both states presently. I find your claims of tax savings to be unfounded in any apples-to-apples reality. Anyone can make specious, nonsensical comparisons about anything. Draw some real parallels -- or, conversely, maybe throw in the towel on this one. There are plenty of terrific places in California where I can live very nicely, indeed, for less than many places I can live in Washington, paying far more in real estate taxes on the Washington properties.
The TaxFoundation information Curmudgeon linked covers a very thorough averaging analysis for all states. There are always variations and exceptions for individuals. But the story of this thread isn't individual anecdotal exceptions. The story here is the story of averages and common experience. And the moral of that story is: there aren't but a few percentage points difference in total tax burdens between most states ... and, therefore, choosing where to live based on tax savings is a fairly insane priority -- unless, of course, one's burning passions in life do not extend beyond saving every penny that can be found. In which case a great case can be made for N. Dakota I would imagine.
You must have missed my original post on this thread. The post was #172 if you would like to read it, but the last sentence of my post #172 was: There were other factors that influenced the move, but the OP asked about the taxes and that is where I placed my focus in this post.
I did not move here for the tax difference. I moved here because I was able to get a job with the same income I was making in Ca. I wanted to live on acreage in a cooler location with less people. There were many more personal reasons that I chose to move. I never claimed the only reason I moved was the tax difference. You can also read the previous post above this one if you want to see how I feel about the tax difference. I never chose where I am living based on taxes that is pure conjecture on your part and also verifiable by my original post #172. That is simply a claim I have never and will never make. I agree there are plenty of places I could live in CA with all the qualities I found in Spokane, but the sticking point for me was my job/income.
Any comparison of cost in cities is never going to be a true apples to apples comparison because no two cities are exactly the same. The whole idea of apples to apples comparisons of cities is theoretical from the beginning. If all cities were the same, there would be no need for this forum.
You say you own property in Washington, but are you claiming your permanent residence in Washington? Are you claiming your permanent residence in California? I never claimed to be saving on property taxes in post #172. In fact I said I was paying more property taxes in Washington than California. The post where I compared Orange County property taxes to Spokane property taxes was a direct response to the poster who was moving back to Ca from Texas and his claims about how much house he could get in one city versus the other. I think your claims are anecdotal too, but I still enjoy reading them and will never tell you your claims are unfounded because I respect your perspective and enjoy your input on this thread. I take you seriously and would not say your comparisons have nothing in common.
Hopefully some day I can get you to post a great picture of a truck with a beat up camper in response to one of my posts.
i guess ill move someplace else in the country where i can be in 75 degree weather standing among the palm trees and beaches while admiring the majesty of snow covered peaks in the winter time....
whats that ya say? theres no other place like that? i reckon its worth stickin it out here then.
theres alotta places with low taxes people are just beggin to get out of. trust me, i was in the miltary for 4 years i know.
You must have missed my original post on this thread. The post was #172 if you would like to read it, but the last sentence of my post #172 was: There were other factors that influenced the move, but the OP asked about the taxes and that is where I placed my focus in this post.
I did not move here for the tax difference. I moved here because I was able to get a job with the same income I was making in Ca. I wanted to live on acreage in a cooler location with less people. There were many more personal reasons that I chose to move. I never claimed the only reason I moved was the tax difference. You can also read the previous post above this one if you want to see how I feel about the tax difference. I never chose where I am living based on taxes that is pure conjecture on your part and also verifiable by my original post #172. That is simply a claim I have never and will never make. I agree there are plenty of places I could live in CA with all the qualities I found in Spokane, but the sticking point for me was my job/income.
Any comparison of cost in cities is never going to be a true apples to apples comparison because no two cities are exactly the same. The whole idea of apples to apples comparisons of cities is theoretical from the beginning. If all cities were the same, there would be no need for this forum.
You say you own property in Washington, but are you claiming your permanent residence in Washington? Are you claiming your permanent residence in California? I never claimed to be saving on property taxes in post #172. In fact I said I was paying more property taxes in Washington than California. The post where I compared Orange County property taxes to Spokane property taxes was a direct response to the poster who was moving back to Ca from Texas and his claims about how much house he could get in one city versus the other. I think your claims are anecdotal too, but I still enjoy reading them and will never tell you your claims are unfounded because I respect your perspective and enjoy your input on this thread. I take you seriously and would not say your comparisons have nothing in common.
Hopefully some day I can get you to post a great picture of a truck with a beat up camper in response to one of my posts.
I didn't miss any of your posts, nor misunderstand any of your meanings. Your original post, #172, states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OGTSO
... In my calculations I am still $27,000 ahead of where I would have been tax liability wise in California...
... and that is not in question by anything I wrote. I didn't accuse you of having moved for tax-savings. Read my posts carefully. I simply raised a challenge to your position presented as if your comparisons had any real semblance of parity. They don't. The thread is about tax comparisons. Your individual claim of savings has not been analyzed to any degree comparative to the Tax Foundation's work.
I think it's very nice that you have made a move that you feel has worked out well for you. Congratulations. And the more people that leave California for places like Spokane the better, as far as I am concerned. As for me, though I actually live on the road and sea in a box-van and a sailboat, I also maintain four physical residences, some with multiple units that I rent out, in three states: Washington, California, and Hawaii ... that is: not P.O. boxes. I do not have to claim any one of them as a primary residence as my incomes are exempt from taxations in those states. However, Washington has been my longest and most recent claimed primary residence in the past. At times I have claimed each of those three states as residence, as well as six other states and countries.
I didn't miss any of your posts, nor misunderstand any of your meanings. Your original post, #172, states:
... and that is not in question by anything I wrote. I didn't accuse you of having moved for tax-savings. Read my posts carefully. I simply raised a challenge to your position presented as if your comparisons had any real semblance of parity. They don't. The thread is about tax comparisons. Your individual claim of savings has not been analyzed to any degree comparative to the Tax Foundation's work.
I think it's very nice that you have made a move that you feel has worked out well for you. Congratulations. And the more people that leave California for places like Spokane the better, as far as I am concerned. As for me, though I actually live on the road and sea in a box-van and a sailboat, I also maintain four physical residences, some with multiple units that I rent out, in three states: Washington, California, and Hawaii ... that is: not P.O. boxes. I do not have to claim any one of them as a primary residence as my incomes are exempt from taxations in those states. However, Washington has been my longest and most recent claimed primary residence in the past. At times I have claimed each of those three states as residence, as well as six other states and countries.
I didn't miss any of your posts, nor misunderstand any of your meanings. Your original post, #172, states:
... and that is not in question by anything I wrote. I didn't accuse you of having moved for tax-savings. Read my posts carefully. I simply raised a challenge to your position presented as if your comparisons had any real semblance of parity. They don't. The thread is about tax comparisons. Your individual claim of savings has not been analyzed to any degree comparative to the Tax Foundation's work.
I think it's very nice that you have made a move that you feel has worked out well for you. Congratulations. And the more people that leave California for places like Spokane the better, as far as I am concerned. As for me, though I actually live on the road and sea in a box-van and a sailboat, I also maintain four physical residences, some with multiple units that I rent out, in three states: Washington, California, and Hawaii ... that is: not P.O. boxes. I do not have to claim any one of them as a primary residence as my incomes are exempt from taxations in those states. However, Washington has been my longest and most recent claimed primary residence in the past. At times I have claimed each of those three states as residence, as well as six other states and countries.
Here's your truck picture:
Specious non-sensical comparisons? Like: "I have owned properties in Washington State continuously since 1970. I have also held six different addresses in California since 1966, including in both states presently. I find your claims of tax savings to be unfounded in any apples-to-apples reality."
Also, I have read your posts carefully and I was responding to this stamement:"therefore, choosing where to live based on tax savings is a fairly insane priority" Excuse me but you did," accuse you of having moved for tax-savings." I guess you can make this claim since you claim "my incomes are exempt from taxation" to any state including Ca, Wa, and HI.
Here is the other claim in your post I adressed: "you made a comparison of costs between Spokane and Orange County as if they exist on some par value." Comparison between any city has to exist on some par value, otherwise why have this forum?
You say," The thread is about tax comparisons. Your individual claim of savings has not been analyzed to any degree comparative to the Tax Foundation's work." What about post #221 where ExpatCA points out the Taxfoundation.org's own claim of a 10% difference between Ca and WA?
Specious non-sensical comparisons? Like: "I have owned properties in Washington State continuously since 1970. I have also held six different addresses in California since 1966, including in both states presently. I find your claims of tax savings to be unfounded in any apples-to-apples reality."
Also, I have read your posts carefully and I was responding to this stamement:"therefore, choosing where to live based on tax savings is a fairly insane priority" Excuse me but you did," accuse you of having moved for tax-savings." I guess you can make this claim since you claim "my incomes are exempt from taxation" to any state including Ca, Wa, and HI.
Here is the other claim in your post I adressed: "you made a comparison of costs between Spokane and Orange County as if they exist on some par value." Comparison between any city has to exist on some par value, otherwise why have this forum?
You say," The thread is about tax comparisons. Your individual claim of savings has not been analyzed to any degree comparative to the Tax Foundation's work." What about post #221 where ExpatCA points out the Taxfoundation.org's own claim of a 10% difference between Ca and WA?
Well sir, this post of yours is pretty much impossible to follow ... if you think you have something to clarify or a point to make, you'll have to explain yourself in intelligible language ... your posts reads like something you pulled out of a garbage disposal. Try again. Or not.
I have thought about TN for many years now because of the cost of living. My uncle(retired) whom moved to Nashville from Westminster said his utilties were much less in CA and the over all COL doesn't seem much different to him. Other then homes being much cheaper in TN. So you just never know. Oh and the tax on food(groceries) in TN! So we are trying to decide if it really would be cheaper for us to move there!
Well sir, this post of yours is pretty much impossible to follow ... if you think you have something to clarify or a point to make, you'll have to explain yourself in intelligible language ... your posts reads like something you pulled out of a garbage disposal. Try again. Or not.
It is fairly simple. You said I did not read your posts carefully. The bold type is anything you posted toward me. The regular type is anything I have to say about your posts(bold type). Question marks at the end of a sentence usually indicate a question. Sorry if you do not understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We (and I do mean both of us) are taking it way too far as the moderator has pointed out. Live and let live my friend.
Ca to tn
