U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-04-2014, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
8,399 posts, read 9,145,702 times
Reputation: 13036

Advertisements

Yes, yet another "10 Worst" list.

Interesting to see that retiring to a state like Arkansas to save money on taxes may not be 100% smart. One should consider the whole picture.

10 states where taxpayers get the worst bang for their buck- MSN Money
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2014, 10:21 AM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,487,261 times
Reputation: 29071
Default Moving to a lower tax State isn't everything

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,787 posts, read 7,707,284 times
Reputation: 15080
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,740,386 times
Reputation: 32304
Default State-wide generalizations are a heap of B.S. anyway!

Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
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.!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
8,399 posts, read 9,145,702 times
Reputation: 13036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post

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.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/26393095-post1.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,740,386 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
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.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/26393095-post1.html
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 08:16 PM
 
14,260 posts, read 23,995,588 times
Reputation: 20072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
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.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/26393095-post1.html

First, there are a lot of retirees who are not relying on extensive government services.

Second, in each of those states, you have cities and areas where you have access to excellent health care and the like.

Each one of these lists gets more and more lame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2014, 08:12 AM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,487,261 times
Reputation: 29071
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2014, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Glenbogle
730 posts, read 1,027,552 times
Reputation: 1046
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2014, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,581 posts, read 17,574,904 times
Reputation: 27672
I also find these lists to be a bit silly.

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top