U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-27-2010, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,443,051 times
Reputation: 1440

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
What about other possible taxes that NY might not have or at as high of a rate? What about the cost of housing and other costs outside of taxes too? Taxes are just an aspect of costs and there are other things to consider as well.
Regulations are important too, many small-business owners leave states with exaggerated regulations as in California or New York.And people follow them to the other states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2010, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,950,107 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
What about other possible taxes that NY might not have or at as high of a rate? What about the cost of housing and other costs outside of taxes too? Taxes are just an aspect of costs and there are other things to consider as well.
like what? texas has lower taxes overall.

as long as the state stays pro business, i don't think they're going to have a problem regardless of real estate prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,443,051 times
Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
like what? texas has lower taxes overall.

as long as the state stays pro business, i don't think they're going to have a problem regardless of real estate prices.
Yeah, Texas created 192,000 jobs in 2010 (January 2010 to November 2010), and more is expected in 2011 because it's a new eldorado for business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,356,272 times
Reputation: 36094
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
i you also have people who'd like to pay no state income tax. new york state income tax is what, almost 7%? texas has no state income tax. .
Then they are very stupid. They're picking out one of many rainbows, and chasing the end of it. Income tax is only one form of revenue, and some states depend more on that than others. Washington has no state income tax, but residents of Washington pay a higher part of their income in state and local taxes than in Illinois, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. A worker who moves from Scranton to Tacoma will be in for a very big surprise indeed, if he thinks his taxes will be less.

States with low personal state and local taxes have to make up the difference somehow. How? With higher corporate taxes and other fees and costs associated with doing business in that state. So a state with lower personal taxes would actually tend to be a state with higher revenue extracted from corporate entities, and vice versa. If you look beneath the tinseled surface of the shills on Fox News, you'll find a truth that cuts both ways.

Look at that list of cities faced with bankruptcy. Yes, people are fleeing from them. If you had to pay no taxes at all, how many of those cities would you choose to live in. Right. You'd leave, but not because the taxes are high, but because they're mostly crapholes. Taxes have nothing to do with people fleeing those places. And why are they facing bankruptcy? Because taxes are too high? No, because taxes are too low to keep them solvent.

Last edited by jtur88; 12-27-2010 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 10:07 AM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 23,401,364 times
Reputation: 4519
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
I wonder how many of these people are unemployed, are getting benefits, just use Texas in terms of an address alone and other factors involved that weren't mentioned in this very short article?
The NYPost is owned by the same Company that owns Fox News so its not a credible news service. They often get called out for twisting stories around here , the OP should find a more credible News service. No one is fleeing the Northern states , were still growing. Actually the slow growth is a good thing , were overloaded....as is. This has also been happening since the 1940s...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 6,366,892 times
Reputation: 2356
First of all, I think at the very base of it, its good that the US population is moving to more places instead of making one or two areas of the country strong. Making sure that every region becomes self sufficient in terms of economic subsistence at the end of the day will benefit the strength of the United States as a whole. I'm glad to see that the frontier still hasn't closed in many places around the West (basically, every Western state NOT California) and the South regaining some of its former glory after being beat up by its past history. Most notably, states like FL and TX are reshaping the conceptualization of the South away from the Jim Crow and antebellum period, and into a twin force for the future (TX being the largest Republican state, and FL being the ultimate purple state). GA and NC are following suit, with VA not too far behind. I don't see how it benefits the US as a whole, in the long run, just to have the Northeast, Midwest, and California with all the cards. It will help us become more even, and in case of one area hits on hard times, the others can pick up the slack and still keep America working.

Second, and more important to this topic, I hate to beat a dead horse here but again: if you don't want to have raised taxes, stop voting for spending platforms on things without providing a way to pay on it There are so many Americans who believe that its the government's (both federal and state) responsibility to provide all these services for free, such as roads, schools, police, and other services we seem to take for granted nowadays. Things in this life don't come for free. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have services. It's that simple. This isn't a Republican or Democrat problem; its really a voter problem. At every step, STOP voting for tax cuts while voting for large scale projects.

As for my home state, there really hasn't been an infrastructure upgrade since the late 1970s. If you ever drive from Nevada into California, you can definitely tell the difference between the state that has some of the best roads in the US and one that has some of the worst as SOON as you cross that invisible line. CAHSR is a start toward updating our infrastructure, but realistically speaking, there needs to be a more holistic and realistic approach to this. Hell, back in the 1970s when those things were built, it was already built to capacity with just 19 million people. Now, in 2010, there are twice as many people with just as many roads, railways, and airport infrastructure. Does that make any sense? As Bill Lockyer (CA state treasurer) said in an LA times op-ed piece:

California's demise is greatly exaggerated - latimes.com
Quote:
Fiscally, we have to get smarter, think longer and stop hoping for a miracle. Californians have to assume more responsibility for deciding what they want government to do and how much they're willing to pay for public services. We have to design a saner system for financing public schools.
In other words: Stop voting for spending and tax cuts at the same time. Don't vote for things without providing a way to pay for them. Otherwise, don't complain about the results later down the road.

As Americans, we need to quit victimizing ourselves and begin to make more adult and mature decisions about our future. Whining about something like "tax rate" when they all into pretty much the same range isn't going to help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,443,051 times
Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
First of all, I think at the very base of it, its good that the US population is moving to more places instead of making one or two areas of the country strong. Making sure that every region becomes self sufficient in terms of economic subsistence at the end of the day will benefit the strength of the United States as a whole. I'm glad to see that the frontier still hasn't closed in many places around the West (basically, every Western state NOT California) and the South regaining some of its former glory after being beat up by its past history. Most notably, states like FL and TX are reshaping the conceptualization of the South away from the Jim Crow and antebellum period, and into a twin force for the future (TX being the largest Republican state, and FL being the ultimate purple state). GA and NC are following suit, with VA not too far behind. I don't see how it benefits the US as a whole, in the long run, just to have the Northeast, Midwest, and California with all the cards. It will help us become more even, and in case of one area hits on hard times, the others can pick up the slack and still keep America working.
I'm agree about that.
Unfortunately some areas are too poor again, like Missouri, Mississipi or Alabama, the US would be stronger if these states have strong economies.
But you can be optimism : look at Oklahoma (Oklahoma City), Nebraska (Omaha), South Dakota (Sioux Falls) and North Dakota : these states were poor too, but now they have a really strong economic growth, they gain population again (and faster) and they diversify their economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 12:08 PM
 
56,755 posts, read 81,102,256 times
Reputation: 12552
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Then they are very stupid. They're picking out one of many rainbows, and chasing the end of it. Income tax is only one form of revenue, and some states depend more on that than others. Washington has no state income tax, but residents of Washington pay a higher part of their income in state and local taxes than in Illinois, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. A worker who moves from Scranton to Tacoma will be in for a very big surprise indeed, if he thinks his taxes will be less.

States with low personal state and local taxes have to make up the difference somehow. How? With higher corporate taxes and other fees and costs associated with doing business in that state. So a state with lower personal taxes would actually tend to be a state with higher revenue extracted from corporate entities, and vice versa. If you look beneath the tinseled surface of the shills on Fox News, you'll find a truth that cuts both ways.

Look at that list of cities faced with bankruptcy. Yes, people are fleeing from them. If you had to pay no taxes at all, how many of those cities would you choose to live in. Right. You'd leave, but not because the taxes are high, but because they're mostly crapholes. Taxes have nothing to do with people fleeing those places. And why are they facing bankruptcy? Because taxes are too high? No, because taxes are too low to keep them solvent.
Good points about the tradeoffs, as the government is going to get their money one way or another. That was my point about people having higher or lower costs in different areas as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,821,471 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
The NYPost is owned by the same Company that owns Fox News so its not a credible news service. They often get called out for twisting stories around here , the OP should find a more credible News service. No one is fleeing the Northern states , were still growing. Actually the slow growth is a good thing , were overloaded....as is. This has also been happening since the 1940s...
I disagree with you.

You are infact seeing a negative migration in New York/New Jersey. You're losing more of your inhabitants than gaining due to migration. The only thing keeping New York State afloat is immigration & births (minus the deaths).

States like Texas are increasing in immigration, gaining massive numbers in births (minus deaths), and getting migrants from states like New York. That is why their populations are blowing up while New York is stagnantly increasing to the next census.

When outward migration happens, New York State's wealth is affected, it moves to places like Georgia, Texas, and others. That is also why Texas's economy size (GDP) is starting to pull away from New York State's. Stable gains like you said has many benefits, but that's only for established and already been in the game type of places.

Booms happen in newer areas, it establishes their presence. Los Angeles boomer for the last 70 years until the 2000 census, and look at how massive of a threat its become for the once more powerful cities than Los Angeles (Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, among others).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 03:30 PM
 
Location: CA
6 posts, read 3,354 times
Reputation: 11
ALL of these places people are "fleeing" to are DUMPS. Nevada? Phoenix? San Antonio? Atlanta? Raleigh? Houston? Tampa? Dallas? *barf*

Is this supposed to offend us here in "high tax states"? Flee away, more SoCal sunshine for me, more room on the beaches of Malibu, less traffic going to Santa Barbara for me. Less traffic in Beverly Hills! Less traffic going up to ski!! Overpopulation is the one thing that greatly diminished the quality of life in California and I hope the state starts to depopulate. Somehow I doubt people living in NYC or Boston give a crap either. Some may flee, the rest will continue paying high taxes, because high tax places are the most desirable in the country.

Face it, "low tax states", I live where you wished you live but I guess someplace horrendous and ugly like Houston is good for someone who can't afford it here.

Flee away!! I actually encourage the fleeing! Way too many people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top