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.
Yet moving to a lower tax state can be the ONLY thing if you really like where you are.
For most of us moving in retirement, education isn't likely a persuasive issue yet it was addressed several times in the article. We were far more interested in such things as medical services, pollution, safety, weather, etc.
Just read the paragraph. Written obviously by someone who hasn't got a clue. Their premice is that with lower taxes you don't get high quality govt. services. (High quality govt. services.) They go on to assume that because you have lower taxes you have poor quality schools, higher crime and a host of other things. Last time I noticed, some of the highest taxes places also have some of the worst schools and the higher crime rates. (Los Angeles, DC, Chicago.) This author is so clueless they fall into the old trap, if it costs more the quality must be better.
State-wide generalizations are a heap of B.S. anyway!
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie
Just read the paragraph. Written obviously by someone who hasn't got a clue. Their premice is that with lower taxes you don't get high quality govt. services. (High quality govt. services.) They go on to assume that because you have lower taxes you have poor quality schools, higher crime and a host of other things. Last time I noticed, some of the highest taxes places also have some of the worst schools and the higher crime rates. (Los Angeles, DC, Chicago.) This author is so clueless they fall into the old trap, if it costs more the quality must be better.
Excellent point. I want to add an additional thought, sticking with the use of Arkansas as an example. From what I understand, the K-12 education in Arkansas is rather poor in the aggregate. Most of the state is rural and the rural schools are too small to be effective (i.e., too small to offer things like AP chemistry) and the rural people have resisted consolidation. But Little Rock, the capital, is a medium sized city and some, though not all, of its high schools are pretty good.
What is more important to the parents of children, the state-wide ranking of the educational system or the quality of the specific school(s) which their children (will) attend? The answer to my rhetorical question is obvious.
State-wide generalizations are so often a heap of B.S.!
State-wide generalizations are so often a heap of B.S.!
I agree. The article said CA has the worst pollution. LA has the worst pollution in the US. Yes, LA is part of CA, but the greater LA area covers less way less than 1% of the total area of CA.
As a side note, CA is 96% rural/wilderness. I live in CA and I get four to six feet of snow from December to April. Actually CA gets the most snow (depth) in North America. So much for the stereotypical perception of CA.
I agree. The article said CA has the worst pollution. LA has the worst pollution in the US. Yes, LA is part of CA, but the greater LA area covers less way less than 1% of the total area of CA.
As a side note, CA is 96% rural/wilderness. I live in CA and I get four to six feet of snow from December to April. Actually CA gets the most snow (depth) in North America. So much for the stereotypical perception of CA.
Excellent point. And as far as the air pollution in the greater Los Angeles area, it is quite seasonal, i.e., much worse in the summer and much better in the winter because of weather conditions which influence it. So it's not like we suffer year-round from smoggy skies. Before someone jumps in here, I am not claiming we don't have an air pollution problem - we absolutely do. I am just agreeing with Mr5150 that things are most often more nuanced than newspaper and magazine articles would have us believe.
I agree. The article said CA has the worst pollution. LA has the worst pollution in the US. Yes, LA is part of CA, but the greater LA area covers less way less than 1% of the total area of CA.
As a side note, CA is 96% rural/wilderness. I live in CA and I get four to six feet of snow from December to April. Actually CA gets the most snow (depth) in North America. So much for the stereotypical perception of CA.
Just read the paragraph. Written obviously by someone who hasn't got a clue. Their premice is that with lower taxes you don't get high quality govt. services. (High quality govt. services.) They go on to assume that because you have lower taxes you have poor quality schools, higher crime and a host of other things. Last time I noticed, some of the highest taxes places also have some of the worst schools and the higher crime rates. (Los Angeles, DC, Chicago.) This author is so clueless they fall into the old trap, if it costs more the quality must be better.
Quite right. We live in a low cost and certainly not "rich" state yet with good husbandry of resources and a legislative majority and populace not particularly interested in tax-and-spend just because, we continue to be amazed at the quality of services and the care taken from conservation to education, from medical care to infrastructure.
While the poverty rate is relatively high, community support is amazing as citizens and organizations band together to fill-in gaps the state and local governments can't fix on their own.
As usual, I find such articles and lists to be without much merit. I'm of the opinion they only appear on painfully slow news days. One can only hope their authors don't really believe them either.
Funny, that list could be a clone of what I'd produce if someone asked me "Which 10 states would you never want to live in?" LOL
It's ironic that a friend of mine is planning to relocate (early retirement) to Alabama "because it's cheap and beautiful and doesn't get any snow". She has a history of serious health issues, including cancer twice, and seems totally unconcerned with the lack of really good healthcare there. Boggles my mind.
State taxation levels may not be critical to everyone's decision making, but others do plan to stretch their dollar further by moving to an area with lower levels of taxation.
You have high tax states that often deliver a great value for your dollar. MA, MN, CT, ME all have high levels of state taxation, but the schools are generally good, crime is generally, people are generally healthier than in low tax states, etc.
You have high tax states that often chronically underperform. CA used to have schools that were the pride of the nation - today, not so much. Chicagoland's level of taxation, crime, and bad schools are the stuff of legend, and it's a very high tax area that, in many cases, simply doesn't deliver value for the dollar.
I think most people probably consider proximity to family and friends, weather, scenery, and things in the state that fit their interests before state taxation levels when considering a retirement destination.
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.
Moving to a lower tax State isn't everything
