Tax burden in Minnesota (Duluth, Dakota: house, to buy, good schools)

[roneb]

Originally Posted by nateduluthnative

I think too many people in Minnesota(and elswhere)think that other people ought to subsidize their "quality of life". As a single person with no kids who owns property and drives a vehicle, not to mention has three jobs, don't think I get much at all for what I'm FORCED to pay for in this state! I'm not anti-education, but I think that singles, home/private school parents and retirees should not have to pay for it especially when much of what public schools are "teaching" these days goes against many peoples values. I dont think that as a suburbanite that I should have to pay for mass transit boondoggles that only benefit a few in the inner city, while the highways are crumbling and are only 2 lanes wide in some parts of the metro causing backed up traffic. I don't think that certain businesses should get the "JOBZ" treatment, while others have to pay-why not lower the burden across the board? I am not anti government, I am not an anarchist, I think that governments job is to protect us from force and fraud and not to rob Peter to pay Paul! I would love to get the heck out of here and go to a lower taxed state , but I could never sell my condo, not in this market. I know I get some hateful responses for this post but I believe freedom loving people ought to have a voice on City Data, were not allowed in the Pioneer Press, The Star Tribune or the Duluth News Tribune!!!

Your post is well stated, but I believe misguided. Paying taxes for public education is something that is done for the benefit of a population as a whole. It's been demonstrated time and again that healthy school systems and quality education helps a community to be more vibrant and raises the quality of life for everyone. You also aren't necessarily paying for the education of others, but paying society back for the education you received. Unfortunately, the "What's in it for me?" tone present in your post is becoming more prevalent in our society and is, IMHO, one of the reasons life in these United States is getting worse.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by pepe1

I don't know that there is a clear delineation of which is prefered here, based on high service/low service states. What would be some examples?

Well, we could contrast MN with MO. MN is a higher taxed state, but generally has a high level of services. MO is a lower taxed state, but generally offers lower levels of service-particularly outside of the metro areas.

Another example is the sharp contrast between VT and NH. NH has no sales tax or income tax, but VT has both. Therefore, retirees are going to prefer NH over VT because NH has a lower overall tax burden with a more favorable economy as well.

[pepe1]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Well, we could contrast MN with MO. MN is a higher taxed state, but generally has a high level of services. MO is a lower taxed state, but generally offers lower levels of service-particularly outside of the metro areas.

Another example is the sharp contrast between VT and NH. NH has no sales tax or income tax, but VT has both. Therefore, retirees are going to prefer NH over VT because NH has a lower overall tax burden with a more favorable economy as well.

I would agree that Missouri is a lower taxed state than Minnesota. Yet Missouri has historically had more robust population growth than Minnesota. I guess I fail to see the correlation that was suggested between high tax/service and population groth.

[nateduluthnative]

Originally Posted by roneb

Your post is well stated, but I believe misguided. Paying taxes for public education is something that is done for the benefit of a population as a whole. It's been demonstrated time and again that healthy school systems and quality education helps a community to be more vibrant and raises the quality of life for everyone. You also aren't necessarily paying for the education of others, but paying society back for the education you received. Unfortunately, the "What's in it for me?" tone present in your post is becoming more prevalent in our society and is, IMHO, one of the reasons life in these United States is getting worse.

I strongly disagree. I am asking very little from government, only to be protected from violence, theft and to safeguard my liberty. I want to keep more of what I earn and have the ability to choose what I want to eat, drink, smoke, etc and to steward my own property the way I see fit as long as i am not harming anyone else. That is what the Founding Fathers intended. 90% af all government on the state and federal level is unconstitutional and downright immoral. There are plenty of countries where the government takes care of everyone, but the American Experament is unique and I believe that we should return to limited constitutional government. I also disagree with you on education, the private schools and homeschoolers do a heck of lot better at educating children than public schools do. Again, I am all for education but I support market discipline and choice and even I, Mr. Libertarian, am fully aware that it isn't going to happen overnight. If we are going to have public education, it shoud be locally controlled with little or no federal and state control and shoul push our children to be the best that they can be! Believe me, most of my friends and family disagree with me also and and it isn't easy to take stands like these, but I cherish freedom so much, not just for myself, but for all Minnesotans(and Americans)!

[tazzman]

Ironic that our current econimic woes are the result of deregulation, pretty much the opposite of "too much government." Even inside the Beltway all but the most wild-eyed extremists are agreeing more regulation is needed right now rather than less.

Anyway, didn't want to see this thread drift into a debate on taxation in general. Specifics about Minnesota are appreciated.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by pepe1

I would agree that Missouri is a lower taxed state than Minnesota. Yet Missouri has historically had more robust population growth than Minnesota. I guess I fail to see the correlation that was suggested between high tax/service and population groth.

This is getting off-topic but since 2000 Minnesota has had faster population growth compared to Missouri.

[MonkeyButler7000]

States with lower taxes are growing faster than states with high taxes. Some of the fastest growing states are Texas, Nevada, Wyoming are all in the top 10 in terms of population growth and each does not have a state income tax.

On the flipside, states that are losing people the fastest are high-tax and heavily unionized states. The bottom ten states in terms of population growth (according to the U.S. Census Bureau) include New York, Pennslyvania, Ohio, Michigan, and every New England state. (This makes New Hampshire an anomoly since it has no state income tax, but still retains a high cost-of-living.)

All of this shows that, ideaology aside, people are moving to places where they will pay less taxes. They want to keep what they earn.

Also, there hasn't been any discussion of the "high-tax, low-service" areas. Just look at Detroit. It has very high taxes, some of the highest per-pupil spending in its schools and the chilren are illiterate, there is no trash pick-up, and half the city's street lights are broken.

[pepe1]

Originally Posted by MonkeyButler7000

States with lower taxes are growing faster than states with high taxes. Some of the fastest growing states are Texas, Nevada, Wyoming are all in the top 10 in terms of population growth and each does not have a state income tax.

On the flipside, states that are losing people the fastest are high-tax and heavily unionized states. The bottom ten states in terms of population growth (according to the U.S. Census Bureau) include New York, Pennslyvania, Ohio, Michigan, and every New England state. (This makes New Hampshire an anomoly since it has no state income tax, but still retains a high cost-of-living.)

All of this shows that, ideaology aside, people are moving to places where they will pay less taxes. They want to keep what they earn.

Also, there hasn't been any discussion of the "high-tax, low-service" areas. Just look at Detroit. It has very high taxes, some of the highest per-pupil spending in its schools and the chilren are illiterate, there is no trash pick-up, and half the city's street lights are broken.

I would disagree that there is much of a correlation bewteen high tax/service states and population growth. For every high tax/service state with robust population there is another low tax/service state with robust poopulation growth and vice versa. An example within our region; Minnesota has high taxes/ services and enjoys decent population growth - Iowa also has high taxes/services and is basically stagnant in terms of population growth - South Dakota has low taxes/services and is also stagnant in terms of population growth.

There are obviously other factors at work other than tax burden - And those factors obviously trump tax burden. In fact, I'm sure there is a much stronger correlation between climate and population growth than there would be between taxes and population growth.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by pepe1

I would disagree that there is much of a correlation bewteen high tax/service states and population growth. For every high tax/service state with robust population there is another low tax/service state with robust poopulation growth and vice versa. An example within our region; Minnesota has high taxes/ services and enjoys decent population growth - Iowa also has high taxes/services and is basically stagnant in terms of population growth - South Dakota has low taxes/services and is also stagnant in terms of population growth.

There are obviously other factors at work other than tax burden - And those factors obviously trump tax burden. In fact, I'm sure there is a much stronger correlation between climate and population growth than there would be between taxes and population growth.

Good points. I agree that it is more complex than taxes alone.

From a MN perspective, it will be interesting to see how the econmomic downturn effects which factors are most related to growth. I have always felt that the big draw for MN metro is good jobs with reasonable cost of living. I believe those two things allow some to overlook the things they see as negative, such as climate, and higher taxes.

[MonkeyButler7000]

Originally Posted by pepe1

I would disagree that there is much of a correlation bewteen high tax/service states and population growth. For every high tax/service state with robust population there is another low tax/service state with robust poopulation growth and vice versa. An example within our region; Minnesota has high taxes/ services and enjoys decent population growth - Iowa also has high taxes/services and is basically stagnant in terms of population growth - South Dakota has low taxes/services and is also stagnant in terms of population growth.

There are obviously other factors at work other than tax burden - And those factors obviously trump tax burden. In fact, I'm sure there is a much stronger correlation between climate and population growth than there would be between taxes and population growth.

List of U.S. states by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually South Dakota is ranked 15th in population growth, well above the national average. South Dakota also has no income tax.