City-Data Forum I made a point system to find the best state to live (sales, home)
 User Name Remember Me Password [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.

11-03-2019, 12:53 AM
 6 posts, read 2,123 times Reputation: 25

I made a point system where for example having the highest per capita income of the 50 states would give the state 50 points, having the lowest would give only 1 point descending. So 2nd highest=49 points 3rd highest=48 points etc. I used this system for Per capita income, Supplemental poverty rate (supplemental includes cost of living in the rate), Income Inequality, Unemployment Rate (Sep. 2019), and Cost of living. Then I took the state Median property tax, sales tax, and state income tax (since there are brackets, I used the per capita average income for each state to determine the income tax). For these three tax statistics I gave them each 0.5 points descending so they are worth half of the other statistics in my point system. I did this because I didn't want the tax rates to sway how good a state is too much, so total all the taxes would be worth 1.5 points instead of 3 points per place they're in (1-50th).

I did not factor in weather as it's subjective.

State: Per Capita Income + Poverty rate + Income Inequality + unemployment rate + cost of living + median property tax rate + sales tax + State Income tax rate

Wyoming: 33+48+47+18+40+20.5+22+22=250.5

North Dakota: 43+49+35+47+23+5.5+14+21.5=238

Iowa: 30+50+45+49+38+7.5+14.5+2.5=236.5

South Dakota: 23+43+43+37+22+8+15.5+22=213.5

Utah: 10+39+50+44+24+20+10+13=210

New Hampshire: 46+15+48+48+14+1.5+23.5+12=208

Minnesota: 41+47+42+30+20+9.5+9+7=205.5

Virginia: 45+29+22+43+21+17+20.5+6=203.5

Maryland: 47+45+40+19+7+13+19+13.5=203.5

Idaho: 7+38+39+42+32+18.5+18.5+1.5=196.5

Vermont: 31+28+34+50+12+5+18+18.5=196.5

Wisconsin: 29+42+41+28+26+3+21.5+5=195.5

Maine: 28+41+38+41+11+9+21+5.5=194.5

Kansas: 27+40+33+31+43+7.5+4+8=193.5

Missouri: 19+35+27+36+47+12+6.5+4.5=187

Delaware: 37+19+37+23+16+23.5+23.5+6.5=185.5

Hawaii: 34+8+46+45+1+24.5+22.5+1=182

Indiana: 12+18+36+32+39+13.5+12+19=181.5

Oklahoma: 13+27+28+29+48+17+3+12=177

Montana: 18+37+26+27+17+15+23.5+2=165.5

Massachusetts: 48+21+14+40+5+10.5+17.5+8.5=164.5

Pennsylvania: 32+32+24+14+19+6.5+17+19.5=164

Michigan: 21+26+23+10+44+4.5+19+15.5=163

Ohio: 22+30+25+9+36+6+10.5+20=158.5

Washington: 39+36+29+6+13+11.5+2+22=158.5

New Jersey: 49+20+10+34+9+1+15+18=156

Oregon: 26+44+31+11+4+13+23.5+0.5=153

Alabama: 4+25+6+38+41+24+2.5+12=152.5

Tennessee: 11+14+13+26+45+19+0.5+21=149.5

West Virginia: 2+31+21+5+34+23+16+17=149

Connecticut: 50+34+3+21+8+4+16.5+12=148.5

Rhode Island: 38+24+15+20+10+6.5+12+17.5=143

Arkansas: 3+9+19+24+49+22+1+15=142

South Carolina: 8+13+18+39+28+22.5+8.5+4=141

Texas: 24+10+12+25+33+2+6+22=134

Florida: 20+3+5+33+25+11+11.5+22=130.5

Illinois: 35+16+11+17+30+3.5+3.5+13=129

Kentucky: 6+23+9+7+35+18+19+12=129

North Carolina: 17+17+16+12+29+15.5+13+8=127.5

New Mexico: 5+12+17+3+46+21+7.5+14=125.5

Georgia: 14+6+8+22+42+15+9+3.5=119.5

Mississippi: 1+11+7+2+50+22+11+12=116

Arizona: 15+4+20+4+27+18+5.5+20.5=114

Louisiana: 9+5+2+8+31+25+1.5+17=98.5

California: 36+1+4+15+2+17+4.5+17=96.5

New York: 44+7+1+16+3+8.5+5+3=87.5

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_poverty_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ni_coefficient

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...ndex-by-state/

http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...axes-by-state/

http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...axes-by-state/

https://taxfoundation.org/state-sale...-midyear-2019/

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxe...ome-tax-rates/

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#3NgR7YNkCj - to find state rates of median income

11-03-2019, 05:21 AM
 58,711 posts, read 83,307,494 times Reputation: 12904
This would be interesting if it could be done at the metro level, as you would have a wide range within some states.

11-03-2019, 05:43 AM
 Location: Cebu, Philippines 5,507 posts, read 2,099,857 times Reputation: 9914
You have eight different variables, all weighted the same. 3/8 of your total is tax rates, which if weighted fairly, would be self-cancelling, because every state needs revenue from somewhere.

11-03-2019, 05:50 AM
 21,586 posts, read 31,261,392 times Reputation: 20352
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ckhthankgod This would be interesting if it could be done at the metro level, as you would have a wide range within some states.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cebuan You have eight different variables, all weighted the same. 3/8 of your total is tax rates, which if weighted fairly, would be self-cancelling, because every state needs revenue from somewhere.
I agree a state ranking is far too generalized and in a state like NC for example (ranked 41st) you have many affordable city options with lower unemployment rates. The tax focus is heavy-handed as well and while a focus for some not to that degree. Absolutely ignored from the criteria are elements such as cultural amenities, quality of public education, transportation infrastructure and accessibility of better health care options which in most searches are equally weighted (or close).

11-03-2019, 06:26 AM
 2,223 posts, read 729,236 times Reputation: 1882
Coming up with numerical ranking systems is good and all, especially if you're trying to get clicks on a listicle, but the best measure of state attractiveness is migration rates.

11-03-2019, 07:20 AM
 21,586 posts, read 31,261,392 times Reputation: 20352
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Avondalist Coming up with numerical ranking systems is good and all, especially if you're trying to get clicks on a listicle, but the best measure of state attractiveness is migration rates.
Not really if considering the typical person attracted to those states, the tax allergic and those unable to tolerate a couple of bad winter months.

11-03-2019, 08:43 AM
 15,133 posts, read 8,129,803 times Reputation: 27393
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cebuan You have eight different variables, all weighted the same. 3/8 of your total is tax rates, which if weighted fairly, would be self-cancelling, because every state needs revenue from somewhere.

Not really. An awful lot of blue states spend more than 50% of the state budget propping up the bottom 10% to 20% between Medicaid, cash transfers to failed school systems in poor cities, and the rest of the safety net programs. If you're in a rural state with no real cities that need the cash infusion for all the poor people, or you're in a red state with a "F the poor" public policy, the tax burden is very different.

We all have the metrics that are important to us. Mine look nothing at all like what the OP uses. Tax burden in a particular state or town within a state varies wildly depending on your income, your income sources, home ownership choices, and general spending pattern. You can live in the bluest of blue states and have a low tax burden. You really have to do an apples vs apples comparison based on income, housing, and spending pattern.

11-03-2019, 08:55 AM
 4,053 posts, read 1,764,220 times Reputation: 3398
I've ranked metros, retirement areas, and small towns since 1985. This isn't a bad method. I've given weight to different categories based on research and a fairly controlled national survey of a good cross section of people in 2012. The majority of respondents listed (not necessarily in that order) economy, buying power, and recreational assets were their top 3 things they looked for in a high quality of life. So I have a QOL category (out of a total of 10 categories) that gives more numerical weight to those aspects. It looks like you're giving too much weight to the unemployment rate. It's just one peice of data of several that gives a true picture of the health of an economy. Too, "income inequity" is more of a political concept than anything else. It gives an incredibly skewed view. There's a huge amount of income "inequity" between Bill Gates and me, but I still live a very good life financially. Statistical medians are much more accurate.

Again, not a bad job. Most rankings do have a layer of subjectiveness to it. Everyone has different things that constitutes a quality of life for them. I just try to look at what categories and aspects the average family/person is drawn to and come up with the best data/stats/methods of calculation that I possibly can. I also look at multiple publications and rankings to see what areas consistently come up a lot. Thanks for posting. It was a nice read.

11-03-2019, 04:22 PM
 6 posts, read 2,123 times Reputation: 25
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cebuan You have eight different variables, all weighted the same. 3/8 of your total is tax rates, which if weighted fairly, would be self-cancelling, because every state needs revenue from somewhere.
You didn't even read what I said in my post... those 3/8 are weighted half a point while the other 5 are rated a full point. Combined the tax totals are only 1.5 per place

11-03-2019, 06:31 PM
 Location: NNV 1,852 posts, read 1,178,227 times Reputation: 3753
Thank you. We don't need more people in Nevada...
 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.