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.
This certainly doesn't show either Washington or NC being cheaper on average to live in than Ohio. Certainly individual circumstances are going to be different, but on average, Ohio is simply NOT an expensive state to live in.
Also, to the arguments that taxes are inherently bad, I direct attention to the state of Kansas. Conservative leadership did massive tax cuts in the belief that it would attract all sorts of business and people. It has not. Instead, Kansas has had awful job creation (job creation stagnated and has actually declined since the tax breaks went into affect- before the tax breaks, job creation was fairly strong) and its budget holes are so large that locations across the state are struggling to provide even basic services. No doubt this confounds many Republicans.
Why are property taxes in Ohio so high? States like North Carolina tax vehicles but there property taxes are much lower than Ohio? Even if one adds the tax on vehicles the tax overall is much lower.
They are NOT high. Places like the Pocono region of PA have taxes of $8-10K per year on a 2800-3200 sq. ft house. On Long Island NY? The same house would have taxes that run from $9000 - 18,000.
We had a 4300 sq. ft house with an inground swimming pool. Our taxes were 20grand a year and moving up.
The Realtor who showed us the house apologized for the high taxes, attributing it to the family room that was added on in the 1970s.
We asked how much the taxes were and she replied "$1500". We said "per month?" She looked shocked and said "Oh no! Of course not! Per year!"
Ohio taxes are LOW TAXES.
Try NY,NJ, PA, or most southern states where everyone moves for the weather and the cost of living. Then double my taxes and make the house sit on a postage stamp piece of property.
Ohio is property tax nirvana.
We have good schools, they pickup our trash and repair our roads, they clean the streets when it snows. Frankly I do not want to drive my own garbage to the dump or pave my own streets. Also, I do not want to have to send my children to private school.
This certainly doesn't show either Washington or NC being cheaper on average to live in than Ohio. Certainly individual circumstances are going to be different, but on average, Ohio is simply NOT an expensive state to live in.
Also, to the arguments that taxes are inherently bad, I direct attention to the state of Kansas. Conservative leadership did massive tax cuts in the belief that it would attract all sorts of business and people. It has not. Instead, Kansas has had awful job creation (job creation stagnated and has actually declined since the tax breaks went into affect- before the tax breaks, job creation was fairly strong) and its budget holes are so large that locations across the state are struggling to provide even basic services. No doubt this confounds many Republicans.
They are NOT high. Places like the Pocono region of PA have taxes of $8-10K per year on a 2800-3200 sq. ft house. On Long Island NY? The same house would have taxes that run from $9000 - 18,000.
We had a 4300 sq. ft house with an inground swimming pool. Our taxes were 20grand a year and moving up.
I've saved a ton of money by moving to WA from OH. Property tax is half the rate I was paying there. Cost of housing is roughly similar. There is no state or local income tax. Sales tax is slightly higher...but I can shop across the river in OR with no sales tax. Southern WA is a real tax haven. Yet schools and gov't services are better.
Ohio doesn't have the highest rates for any individual type of tax. But it has high levels of each type of tax leading to a high cumulative total. Definitely a reason why Ohio is one of the top states people are moving out of.
Tax burden depends greatly on an individual's particular situation. My taxes are overwhelmingly income/dividends, with property-tax a very distant second, and consumption taxes (cars and household purchases and so forth) an even more distant third. Not to be facetiously shrill, but I'll take a 100% sales-tax on all purchases, in exchange for zero tax on income and dividends.
Having lived on both coasts, as well as in Ohio, I find Ohio's property taxes to be moderate in terms of total dollar amount, but large relative to the price of housing. That is, if a hypothetical house costs $500K in the Northern Virginia suburbs, but say $150K in my part of Ohio, then the VA tax bill will be slightly higher – but only slightly… whereas the house itself costs >3X more.
Ohio's top tax rate has declined substantially in recent years – thank you, Governor Kasich! It's considerably lower than the top marginal rate in California or the Northeast. But of course it's still higher than say Washington (state) or Texas.
Tax burden depends greatly on an individual's particular situation. My taxes are overwhelmingly income/dividends, with property-tax a very distant second, and consumption taxes (cars and household purchases and so forth) an even more distant third. Not to be facetiously shrill, but I'll take a 100% sales-tax on all purchases, in exchange for zero tax on income and dividends.
Having lived on both coasts, as well as in Ohio, I find Ohio's property taxes to be moderate in terms of total dollar amount, but large relative to the price of housing. That is, if a hypothetical house costs $500K in the Northern Virginia suburbs, but say $150K in my part of Ohio, then the VA tax bill will be slightly higher – but only slightly… whereas the house itself costs >3X more.
Ohio's top tax rate has declined substantially in recent years – thank you, Governor Kasich! It's considerably lower than the top marginal rate in California or the Northeast. But of course it's still higher than say Washington (state) or Texas.
There is zero income tax in WA. Nothing to file. And no silly city income taxes either like Ohio. Results in my take home pay being an extra $400+/month(took my existing job and pay with me).
We're renting this first year so property tax impact as it is reflected in rent is tough to compare. But the rate is double and new construction house prices are right on par with what we were looking at in Dayton.
The sales tax is WA's principal tax source. 8.4% here. But that is entirely bypassed by shopping 15 mins away across the bridge in Oregon. Those big state comparisons don't take that into account...because you're supposed to file the use tax and of course everyone does that.
Cost of living is lower for groceries, higher for medical and housing, and a wash for everything else compared to Dayton, OH. But the extra take home pay for not paying state or local income taxes more than makes up for the difference.
This certainly doesn't show either Washington or NC being cheaper on average to live in than Ohio. Certainly individual circumstances are going to be different, but on average, Ohio is simply NOT an expensive state to live in.
Also, to the arguments that taxes are inherently bad, I direct attention to the state of Kansas. Conservative leadership did massive tax cuts in the belief that it would attract all sorts of business and people. It has not. Instead, Kansas has had awful job creation (job creation stagnated and has actually declined since the tax breaks went into affect- before the tax breaks, job creation was fairly strong) and its budget holes are so large that locations across the state are struggling to provide even basic services. No doubt this confounds many Republicans.
It's hard to create jobs when states make it virtually illegal to do so. So yeah, cutting taxes doesn't really help create jobs if occupational licenses are still mandated to be a hair dresser, just as ONE of likely thousands of examples. That would be true, cutting taxes without reducing idiotic regulations only really helps the people that get to keep their money (which is not bad, by the way- it's their money, after all- assuming it was attained honestly and without using eminent domain or something), though I see your point about the whole state in general. My point is, the Kansas example is not the necessary outcome of a tax cut- it's specific to this state and the other dumb decisions they make. Just because you make one decent choice in life, doesn't mean all your choices have always been good. Choosing to quit smoking after 40 years is a good choice, but that doesn't mean you won't still have lung cancer from your 40 years of smoking.
Even if you don't like the nuanced regulation angle, you'd have to explain how some other low tax states, like Texas, are doing much better than high tax states, like California. If some taxes are good, then a lot must be better, right?
It's hard to create jobs when states make it virtually illegal to do so. So yeah, cutting taxes doesn't really help create jobs if occupational licenses are still mandated to be a hair dresser, just as ONE of likely thousands of examples. That would be true, cutting taxes without reducing idiotic regulations only really helps the people that get to keep their money (which is not bad, by the way- it's their money, after all- assuming it was attained honestly and without using eminent domain or something), though I see your point about the whole state in general. My point is, the Kansas example is not the necessary outcome of a tax cut- it's specific to this state and the other dumb decisions they make. Just because you make one decent choice in life, doesn't mean all your choices have always been good. Choosing to quit smoking after 40 years is a good choice, but that doesn't mean you won't still have lung cancer from your 40 years of smoking.
Even if you don't like the nuanced regulation angle, you'd have to explain how some other low tax states, like Texas, are doing much better than high tax states, like California. If some taxes are good, then a lot must be better, right?
But Kansas had relatively strong job growth BEFORE the tax breaks went into affect, so did the difficulties in job creation you're referencing only start at the same time? If the strict regulations existed before and after, the logical conclusion is that the one change (the massive tax cut) is the problem.
I would argue that California is the far more desirable state to live in for many reasons, and I like neither state all that much. California has superior quality of life metrics, the larger economy, more people, etc. Texas will get a lot more expensive over time when all that new infrastructure begins to age and legacy costs come pouring in.
Now, I am not saying all taxes are good all the time, because that is obviously untrue. I am just saying that if people have a certain expectation of quality of life in America, they need to accept that taxes are part of the price. Maligning taxes as a government evil is silly. I would rather people argue for better oversight of spending than simply attacking taxes themselves.
But Kansas had relatively strong job growth BEFORE the tax breaks went into affect, so did the difficulties in job creation you're referencing only start at the same time? If the strict regulations existed before and after, the logical conclusion is that the one change (the massive tax cut) is the problem.
I would argue that California is the far more desirable state to live in for many reasons, and I like neither state all that much. California has superior quality of life metrics, the larger economy, more people, etc. Texas will get a lot more expensive over time when all that new infrastructure begins to age and legacy costs come pouring in.
Now, I am not saying all taxes are good all the time, because that is obviously untrue. I am just saying that if people have a certain expectation of quality of life in America, they need to accept that taxes are part of the price. Maligning taxes as a government evil is silly. I would rather people argue for better oversight of spending than simply attacking taxes themselves.
I mean, the obvious point to respond with is, how much of the prior job growth was tax funded or government protected via some kind of regulations possibly? Regulations always benefit someone.
I don't know man. A lot of silly taxes out there. A lot could be done way better without then.
I mean, the obvious point to respond with is, how much of the prior job growth was tax funded or government protected via some kind of regulations possibly? Regulations always benefit someone.
I don't know man. A lot of silly taxes out there. A lot could be done way better without then.
A huge number of jobs are created through taxes in some way or another, whether through direct tax subsidies, credits or abatements. It seems wrongheaded to me to say that we should just do away with all that and rely on hope and the goodness of companies to create jobs. I'm not a "free market solves everything" believer in terms of privatization of public services. I just don't think it is a good idea to make everything about profits. I think you also have it opposite when it comes to regulation. Regulations tend to benefit consumers and employees. Deregulation tends to benefit business interests alone, which may or may not be passed along in some form down the line.
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.
