Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
My only point being that the moving van companies are not providing any useful information.
Those customers of the van lines are likely those that can afford the higher cost of hiring someone to do the work instead of performing the task themselves, either higher-paid employees taking advantage of company perks which pay for the service, or those higher wealth retirees or workers who are leaving for greener pastures. While the legislature and the governor keep looking for ways to increase the taxes and bureaucratic burdens on those that pay into the system, they are simultaneously replacing them with those that are a drain on it, an unsustainable trend.
2. State and local tax burdens have been a key, even if less understood, driver of internal migration for the last 50, 60 years.
3. If you'd take a little time you'd see, maybe, that what you make vs. what you pay is quite nicely implied in the numbers on a state by state basis.
4. Anyone living life with financial goals in mind should understand various state and local tax burdens.
5. Heavens forbid when someone introduces a high confidence set of econometric data on a forum at least tacitly about economics.
No it’s not a joke. I don’t care about total taxes paid vs a net output. It’s entirely irrelevant to my situation just as stated inflation rates don’t matter to me, my inflation rate does
#3 What I make vs what I pay is a personal calculation so a wide swath of averages don’t help me at all
#4 they should mind what their burden is, not a ratio of the state vs state net productivity.
#5 heaven forbid you understand state totals don’t equate to an individual’s circumstances
South Dakota, Wyoming, Missouri, and Delaware are also low. Why aren't they booming?
If you make a lot of money, you want a low income tax state. If your tax bill fluctuates by thousands based on state, income is clearly significant enough to notice and you're in the top 5% or better. I've never made so much it makes a difference to me. It's a few hundred here or there.
If you make average money, you want a state with medium to low property tax.
If you're poor, you probably want a high tax high service state.
If your money comes from capital gains or otherwise pre-exists, it's more up to preference. The states' policies probably don't matter much to you.
That assumes taxes are all you move for.
Again, the attraction is LOW COST - that is NOT just low taxes - did you even bother to read? I had 3 paragraphs about low costs (and lack of restrictive regulations) - I really only mentioned taxes as one of the costs. You essentially ignored what I said. What I said;
"The bottom line is that liberal policies and the costs associated are driving people to those states that are less restrictive and less costly."
"People are moving to Texas because of low costs and good jobs and from CA because of high costs and liberal policies."
"According to USA Today - moving to San Antonio TX from San Diego CA, will cut their rent by over half - saving the average person almost $1500/mo in rent - let alone savings in taxes or other costs. A move from San Mateo to Dallas will save a person over $1M in housing costs."
About 90 percent of my post was about low COSTS - not taxes, taxes are just one cost factor. Low tax with high cost is just shifting the problem. While weather is also a factor, the moves from CA shows that high taxes, high costs and restrictive regulations trump good weather for many. The other issue is regulations, it seems like you want to ignore that also.
Alaska is a highest cost state with close to the worst weather - except for taxes, it is not a great place to move to. Missouri is not really a low tax state - they are one of the few that taxes SS and it only takes $8424 in taxable income to hit the top tax rate of 5.3%.
But the big issue is that you said "That assumes taxes are all you move for" when that is obviously not the topic of my post Low cost is NOT the same thing as low tax - talk about twisting the discussion. Why bother to respond if you are just going to ignore what was said.
COL might more sense for many movers, because that takes into account local prices, housing and taxes at the same time. Even more important might be standard of living, which also could include politics.
I moved from Chicago to rural AZ in 1980 because of lifestyle choices. Fishing and clean air. Politics and COL had nothing to do with it.
COL might more sense for many movers, because that takes into account local prices, housing and taxes at the same time. Even more important might be standard of living, which also could include politics.
I moved from Chicago to rural AZ in 1980 because of lifestyle choices. Fishing and clean air. Politics and COL had nothing to do with it.
Those are certainly very good reasons to move.
We lived in Chicago for about 10 years - moved out in the 90s - it was a lifestyle choice that was at least partially determined by the politics and COL.
Again, the attraction is LOW COST - that is NOT just low taxes - did you even bother to read? I had 3 paragraphs about low costs (and lack of restrictive regulations) - I really only mentioned taxes as one of the costs. You essentially ignored what I said. What I said;
"The bottom line is that liberal policies and the costs associated are driving people to those states that are less restrictive and less costly."
"People are moving to Texas because of low costs and good jobs and from CA because of high costs and liberal policies."
"According to USA Today - moving to San Antonio TX from San Diego CA, will cut their rent by over half - saving the average person almost $1500/mo in rent - let alone savings in taxes or other costs. A move from San Mateo to Dallas will save a person over $1M in housing costs."
About 90 percent of my post was about low COSTS - not taxes, taxes are just one cost factor. Low tax with high cost is just shifting the problem. While weather is also a factor, the moves from CA shows that high taxes, high costs and restrictive regulations trump good weather for many. The other issue is regulations, it seems like you want to ignore that also.
Alaska is a highest cost state with close to the worst weather - except for taxes, it is not a great place to move to. Missouri is not really a low tax state - they are one of the few that taxes SS and it only takes $8424 in taxable income to hit the top tax rate of 5.3%.
But the big issue is that you said "That assumes taxes are all you move for" when that is obviously not the topic of my post Low cost is NOT the same thing as low tax - talk about twisting the discussion. Why bother to respond if you are just going to ignore what was said.
If there was some magic recipe of policies that guaranteed a state would grow, why don't they all do it?
I agree that both costs and taxes are a factor in where to live, but there are other factors at work too that are much more salient. Jobs, where your family is, etc...
If there was some magic recipe of policies that guaranteed a state would grow, why don't they all do it?
I agree that both costs and taxes are a factor in where to live, but there are other factors at work too that are much more salient. Jobs, where your family is, etc...
If there is a "magic" recipe to kill growth, some states have found it. Some states and cities seem to not be able to stop the toxic policies they have put in place that kill jobs and result in high costs. Others states are attractive because they encourage jobs by low costs and a healthy business environment.
It is kind of sad if you are stuck in a place with high costs and no ability to move because of your job - why make people feel stuck. What is also sometimes forgotten is that some of these policies and taxes are driving out those that create the jobs - CA lost several of the job creators recently because tax the rich only lasts so long.
Of course there are other factors but you missed the point - high costs, high taxes and high regulations are the key to get many to look elsewhere. When you need double the salary to be at the same level, many will think twice about relocating, even if a good job is offered. And it is especially easy for retirees to move out / look elsewhere since they are no longer tied to a job and family may no longer be there.
I’m a real Texan and wouldn’t consider moving via pickup truck and uhaul. Then again I’m skilled enough that my company pays for it or I earn enough so I don’t have to do it myself. Stupid Texas pride nonsense
Darn, I should have placed a smiley face to ensure what most obviously is sarcasm.
Darn, I should have placed a smiley face to ensure what most obviously is sarcasm.
There would be no reason to expect someone to assume your post was sarcasm especially with your opening sentence. Stupidity and sarcasm are often conflated
If there is a "magic" recipe to kill growth, some states have found it. Some states and cities seem to not be able to stop the toxic policies they have put in place that kill jobs and result in high costs. Others states are attractive because they encourage jobs by low costs and a healthy business environment.
It is kind of sad if you are stuck in a place with high costs and no ability to move because of your job - why make people feel stuck. What is also sometimes forgotten is that some of these policies and taxes are driving out those that create the jobs - CA lost several of the job creators recently because tax the rich only lasts so long.
Of course there are other factors but you missed the point - high costs, high taxes and high regulations are the key to get many to look elsewhere. When you need double the salary to be at the same level, many will think twice about relocating, even if a good job is offered. And it is especially easy for retirees to move out / look elsewhere since they are no longer tied to a job and family may no longer be there.
Well, supply/demand drives a lot of housing. Look at Florida. I considered very briefly tbe Miami area when someone told me about an opening and had put in a word for me. Oh no. No no no. Miami is NOT cheap! In fact many of Florida's metros are not. And they don't pay enough to make up for it. All the tax savings in the world wouldn't make up for what it cost to live there.
I bet if California suddenly adopted the politics of Mississippi, it would still be very expensive. Maybe slightly cheaper around the edges.
Fashion drives a lot of this. The southern states have ALWAYS been low tax-low service-low regulation. They've become more popular destinations, however, only relatively recently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
