Is Montana a bad place to live for a liberal? (2015, buying)

[RotseCherut]

Let Montana ditch it's state income tax, create an 8% sales tax and resort/hotel tax (on those dang tourists) and just keep those already high property taxes the same. Seriously, the price of properties in Montana are very high considering the available wages in the area and obviously reflect a combination of outside influence (rich retirees/millionaires with second homes) in addition to a lack of available housing. Not to mention Montana charges a heck of a lot for its annual car registration. This is a measure that would attract businesses to Montana, yet still generate considerable revenue. When you attract businesses to your state who don't lose a giant chunk of their income to exorbitant state taxes, you make them happy. With more businesses come more jobs. And, with more jobs comes more purchasing power and more people will buy homes and buy products.

I would say that I am for as low of taxes as possible and think a lot of our funds get mismanaged at the state and especially the federal level. However, since we need to appease democrats so I think it's feasible to use a sales tax that doesn't take as much of a chunk out of the average worker as a state income tax. High state income taxes are the worst ways to punish small businesses. Very large corporations usually get a tax break by the state and the very low income people generally don't pay any state income tax and even utilize the state income tax for social and other relief programs administered by the state.

The model I talk about is how Washington state handles its taxes and it has been proven successful. However, Washington state has the regressive B&O Tax which they just need to abolish. If MOntana had no State Income Tax and no B&O tax with its infrastructure, I would think many Washington and Idaho businesses would head East, as Montana has a lot to offer.

Wyoming has no state income tax and a low sales tax and I hear there is starting to be a Tech boom in cities like Cheyenne. I'm thinking in 10 years, Wyoming's economy is going to explode, whereas other welfare, high taxed states, such as Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, etc, are going to collapse.

[historyfan]

Wyoming has a lower population and runs it's state on back of energy development taxes. It has no state income tax and low property taxes.

Frankly, I don't believe Montanans desire an influx of businesses & people.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by historyfan

Wyoming has a lower population and runs it's state on back of energy development taxes. It has no state income tax and low property taxes.

Frankly, I don't believe Montanans desire an influx of businesses & people.

I wish I could believe that, but Montana is definitely attractings lot of people. It just is attracting the wrong type of people, wealthy retirees or wealthy elitists who buy their second summer or winter home there and don't even live in the state. What this does is drives up property values for the locals, yet the wages will not match the property prices. And, the result? The wealthy out-of-staters come moving in to cash out, whereas the locals end up having to move to another state where they can feed their families and afford to live.

There is nothing wrong with attracting businesses to a state that can help preserve the incomes of local people. And, I would think Montanans as a whole do want jobs to be brought to their state as nobody likes living in poverty . Whether Montanans want to admit it or not, they live in a beautiful state and they will be attracting people one way or another. They should focus on attracting people who will help the local economy rather than drain it.

Even in Washington, the influx of rich Californians, wealthy retirees and those buying second homes is actually starting to cause property values to skyrocket past the wages, which previously were considered quite high. You will hear more and more people complain that they cannot even make a living as a software developer anymore. This is absolutely true! I should know. ONce upon a time, a $70,000 a year salary meant you were a rich person and you could put money in the bank. However, when the rent of your 1 bedroom apartment in Redmond goes from $800 to $1600 a month, as well as high utilities, you are just barely getting by.

The reason for this is that is that so many wealthy people are moving to Washington state who do not contribute to the economy, but rather just take advantage of cheaper property values.. This includes foreigners and people from other states. Montana will attract these same types, so making it business friendly will only benefit the locals.

In my opinion, the best way to prevent a state from being overrun by outsiders and turning into a resort state is to impose some type of high property tax on outsiders, yet keep the property taxes lower for those who contribute to the economy with businesses, work local jobs or local, long-time residents. The way I look at it is if you haven't been a resident for 4 or 5 years, do not work or run a business in the state or even live in the state most of the year, you should fork out some extra cash to make up for the drain on the economy that you will cause by buying up all the property and pricing out the local people who are stuck living on local wages.

It's sad that so many countries in the world actually enforce this practice, but somehow in the USA we feel that only local businesses and workers should bear the brunt of the taxation not outsiders. Canada is the worse, where wealthy foreigners from places like China and India have practically bought up cities like Vancouver and the locals are now 2nd class citizens in their own country and city. Many of these foreigners don't even live in the city or country, but just own property for investments or summer homes.

There have been several articles about why Vancouver , BC's skyline is so dark. They say Vancouver has all these skyscrapers around the city but very few people actually live in them. Most of them are investment properties for wealthy Asian landowners and most people do not have enough money to actually afford the rents of living or working in these buildings.

[historyfan]

This is not an issue in Montana.

I've been trying to channel "Elk" to close this thread.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by historyfan

This is not an issue in Montana.

I've been trying to channel "Elk" to close this thread.

Wealthy outsiders coming buying up property and causing a massive spike in property values that cannot match the local wages is not a problem in Montana?!! Wow, I think some may disagree with you here, including myself.


You will have to use some supernatural means of channeling Elk, as our respectful moderator has passed away.. I also think Elk would probably agree with me on this if he were around. I've discussed this same issue with him before in threads and think he and I saw eye to eye on that point.

[redguard57]

In my experience, unless you're going to a bible belt area, the region's politics don't affect you. This is especially true for the mountain west where church in general isn't quite so "in your face" as it is in that stretch from east Texas to the Appalachians. In the west the conservatism that exists is more libertarian in nature.

The liberalism is different too. You'll find the liberals in a place like Montana are a lot more "crunchy" - the kind of liberals that want to get in tune with nature, environmental activists, etc... instead of Bernie Sanders types raise the minimum wage and implement universal health care types, etc... I was a flaming liberal by Texas standards but when I moved to the west coast I found that puts me in kind of the middle. The liberals out west care more about issues that I just don't, particularly environmental issues. What made me a liberal by Texas standards was that I was very supportive of public schools, teachers and to a lesser extent, government workers more broadly. I didn't like it when they got cut for no good reason. That made me pretty flaming over there.

Unless showing your colors as part of red team or blue team is important to you, it won't matter. Generally speaking most state and national political issues don't affect you on a day-to-day basis, it's more emotional and tribal. The only difference for me having lived in very liberal and very conservative areas is my comfort level putting bumper stickers on my car, yard signs up etc... In conservative areas I just don't do it, not worth the trouble to show my colors and possibly alienate the neighbors unnecessarily.

The biggest difference between moving from a "liberal" area to a "conservative" one tends to be more salient lifestyle issues based on population density. Except for Vermont, western Massachusetts, the border region of Texas and a few other areas like maybe parts of Michigan and Minnesota or Indian reservations - those are the only places that are rural and blue.

Generally speaking more dense = more liberal and less dense = more conservative. So whatever issues a liberal is likely to have in a place like Montana are probably going to be due to the general issues of living in low population density state.

Ie: for me it was not conservatism that made me annoyed about conservative places, it was that there was no way in hell I could satisfy my craving for Chinese at 1:00am and in general everything closes down by 6pm or 9pm at the latest. SO annoying!

[Senah]

Redguard that used to be true, however in MT cities such as Bozeman that is definitely not the case now. Even in other cities, if you look up city building codes, and scan HOA regulations (which are modified and then codified by the majority influx of part-time then full-time residents from liberal areas on the coasts), they are urban liberals. There is a huge push now that affects taxation, building codes and regulations, policing, and even where you can discharge firearms (through HOA regulations).

It used to be that way, but now for example in the Gallatin Valley (e.g. if you live within 35 minutes of the outskirts of Bozeman) and on less than 80 acres (which runs you a minimum of $3,000,000 here), you will certainly notice the liberal politics which have taken hold.

Go to a more rural place like Harlowton or Havre, and if you are more liberal it is still a different vein of liberalism. Even Billings I would say (or Helena) liberalism is much more traditional, though in the bigger cities that is changing. I think you have to live here and experience it to say.

[historyfan]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

Wealthy outsiders coming buying up property and causing a massive spike in property values that cannot match the local wages is not a problem in Montana?!! Wow, I think some may disagree with you here, including myself.


You will have to use some supernatural means of channeling Elk, as our respectful moderator has passed away.. I also think Elk would probably agree with me on this if he were around. I've discussed this same issue with him before in threads and think he and I saw eye to eye on that point.

I am aware and mourn Elk's untimely passing.

Wealthy outsiders have owned a good portion of Montana since before statehood.

My point about it being "better" is that large swaths of land owned by said wealthy person is likely to remain intact. I prefer large tracts to be left intact. I am not addressing single family dwellings in towns. I do not believe those are subject of wealthy purchase.

Recreational places (like Flathead) have always had second home owners--- which has driven up sale prices since the 1960s.

[77maui77]

Montana is mostly republican. If your moving for the beauty and quietness than move here. If your moving and concerned about politics than probably should reconsider. Politics is not a reason to move unless its to Washington DC.

[PyroTekRob]

Move to Commifornia, Itll better fit you. You can have my house, I am leaving to a FREE state, you can live here in prison and see what you views have done.