[Annie Metal]

Originally Posted by MTK1

So you basically want to move here to take advantage of the "good programs"? Who do you think pays for these "good programs"?

Do you have any idea what is going on in the state for the so called "middle class" who are just trying to work and get by here.

You should read up on some of the posts here about what the hardworking "middle class" is going through just to make ends meet.

Please explain how the wealth is shared upon the common good? Im sure half the states residents, who's average wage is 13/hr would love to hear your answer?

We the taxpayers pay for these good programs! Property taxes, income tax, pension tax, sales tax, etc. Believe me, it's bad everywhere. Yes, I want to move there because I will be able to get health care for my family and myself. This is just me though, I am sure it is not most peoples cup of tea. I will be going back to school, and STAY there, and raise my daughter with progressive values, while working towards the greater good for ALL people and animals. I want to live among folks that are progressive. Hell, I would be happy to have a job that pays 13.00 an hour. Much better than what we have going on in OC, California! Even with my degree!

[68vette]

Originally Posted by Sherylcatmom

The taxes part is true. The state's "attraction as a welfare state" is a myth. I have yet to see any data to support that. I've looked and asked. Nothing, just rumors. But I'm still listening in case there's any evidence to be seen.

The Public Policy institute of NY state looked at public welfare spending per capita and NY state was ranked first, Alaska number two, RI number three, Maine number four and Vermont was ranked number five. There was other data collected (I'll have to look for the link) that looked at the number of people collecting welfare per capita and Vermont ranked number 5 as well. I do not look at Vermont as a welfare state, but some of the data points out otherwise. The issue I have is the number of social programs we have, and the population size to support those programs. Now that the state is in financial trouble, we are seeing many of these programs being cut or budget cuts in these programs. We can't expect a small state such as Vermont to offer and maintain as many social programs.

[Sherylcatmom]

Yup. And you're describing another aspect of this issue. The claims I refer to are that people are moving to Vermont to live off the welfare programs. That's what I've seen no evidence of.

Originally Posted by 68vette

We can't expect a small state such as Vermont to offer and maintain as many social programs.

[soreknees]

Regardless of personal political opinion, there are going to be some real hard days ahead for those states...I guess almost all states....that have expanded social welfare systems based on $IOUs. The Feds simply do not have enough money. The whole darn entiltlement system has to be re-worked.

[johnnybc]

People keep mentioning property tax as a problem when they earn 36K, I thought if you earn less than 90K, you property tax was capped at 2% in vermont?? for 36K that would be $720???

[FrugalYankee]

Originally Posted by 68vette

The Public Policy institute of NY state looked at public welfare spending per capita and NY state was ranked first, Alaska number two, RI number three, Maine number four and Vermont was ranked number five. There was other data collected (I'll have to look for the link) that looked at the number of people collecting welfare per capita and Vermont ranked number 5 as well. I do not look at Vermont as a welfare state, but some of the data points out otherwise. The issue I have is the number of social programs we have, and the population size to support those programs. Now that the state is in financial trouble, we are seeing many of these programs being cut or budget cuts in these programs. We can't expect a small state such as Vermont to offer and maintain as many social programs.

Add to that the fact that the state of Vermont has a horrendous business climate that not only drives existing businesses out of state (I can name three in my sector and geographical area that picked up and moved to NH in the past few years - and I'll be out soon as well) but also discourages businesses from places like NJ and CT from relocating up here, soon there won't be many people left earning money to pay taxes to subsidize this "socialist state" and all those wonderful programs for people on the dole. Take a look at the eastern border - NH has been eating VT's lunch and the idiots in Montpelier serve it up on a silver platter.

The VT economy has been going down the toilet for decades and now the electorate put a governor in office who is only to willing and able to pull the flush handle.

If you are independently wealthy, great. Otherwise if you enjoy being cold and poor it's a great place to live.

[aries63]

Originally Posted by FrugalYankee

If you are independently wealthy, great. Otherwise if you enjoy being cold and poor it's a great place to live.

Yet VT ranks at or near the top in so many national rankings, from education to healthcare, it has the highest average life expectancy, and "quality of life" rates very high. So it must be doing something right. I read an article recently in a Portland (Oregon) paper saying that VT is the only state that doesn't tax the poor more than the rich. You go, VT!

Quote from article: "When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data."

Link: 9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

[LisaMc46]

Originally Posted by Sherylcatmom

The taxes part is true. The state's "attraction as a welfare state" is a myth. I have yet to see any data to support that. I've looked and asked. Nothing, just rumors. But I'm still listening in case there's any evidence to be seen.

I'm not sure if people are moving here for the benefits at this point. Most studies show that the people who are moving here tend to be older and middle or upper-middle class.

Most people I know who collect benefits are native Vermonters. I know people who collect their WIC and 3 Squares even though they have middle class jobs earning similar incomes to what my household makes. Yet somehow they have enough money for I Phones, flat-screen TVs and fancy annual family vacations.

They think I'm nuts for not applying because I probably would be eligible for certain programs. My attitude is, 'Why apply if I can get by without it? Doesn't that leave more money/services for seniors and people who are really poor?'

It's not that I have a problem with helping the working poor, the disabled and retired seniors. I just think these programs will become bankrupt if the middle-class moochers don't get kicked off the bandwagon soon.

As far as the health care bill is concerned, I would expect a lot of desperate people to move here if we offer universal healthcare to everyone, regardless of whether they're paying into the system. People could even temporarily move here to have surgeries or cancer care and then move home. Not sure if the bill has any clause to prevent this.

[FrugalYankee]

Originally Posted by aries63

Yet VT ranks at or near the top in so many national rankings, from education to healthcare, it has the highest average life expectancy, and "quality of life" rates very high. So it must be doing something right. I read an article recently in a Portland (Oregon) paper saying that VT is the only state that doesn't tax the poor more than the rich. You go, VT!

Quote from article: "When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data."

Link: 9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

Right, VT ranks near the top in state and local tax rate. I don't think that's something to be proud of (8th place).
The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > Vermont

And VT didn't make the top ten of the worst states for business in 2011, but only missed it by two slots (12 from the bottom).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp60.pdf (broken link)

VT also missed out on being in the top ten for percentage of state money spent on welfare (14th place)
http://jlarc.state.va.us/states/t24.pdf

There was already a thread about Vermont ranking #1 on the "Moocher" index on this forum so I won't repeat it here.

And while ALEC rated Vermont #1 in K-12 performance, somehow this didn't translate into SAT scores - VT ranked 30th. But when it comes to spending, Vermont is #1.
Best and Worst States: Does Spending More on Education Work? State Rankings of Education Spending.

Yes Vermont is doing something "right." It is maintaining an aura of attractiveness to wealthy out-of-staters who are looking for the Vermont they see in Currier and Ives paintings and ski resorts and herding them into fantasy communities like Manchester (for the NYers) or Woodstock (for Mass transplants). At the same time these out-of-staters are not interested in business or industry (unless it's something along the lines of knitting organic teddy bears), and we are seeing more and more businesses pack up and leave the state, taking the good jobs with them. That's great if indeed "Retirement in Vermont" is supposed to be atractive. Unfortunately it doesn't leave room for middle class working 'chucks.

[xz2y]

Originally Posted by LisaMc46

As far as the health care bill is concerned, I would expect a lot of desperate people to move here if we offer universal healthcare to everyone, regardless of whether they're paying into the system. People could even temporarily move here to have surgeries or cancer care and then move home. Not sure if the bill has any clause to prevent this.

What health bill are you referring to? I'm not familiar with VT's new health care options, but if it's like Massachusetts, if it's universal, then you still have to pay the monthly premiums, which in MA are steep. Michigan has a "no questions asked" individual plan through BCBS, which is very expensive and not that comprehensive. Any resident can get it, but again, you still have to pay the premiums to be covered. So anyone wanting to "use" the health care in one of these states has to pay in. It isn't free.

I suppose it's conceivable that someone could move to one of these states for expensive care and then leave, but in Michigan, if you cancel your policy, there is a 6 month waiting period before you can sign up again. I don't know about the MA plan, but I think the current VT plan requires that you do not have health ins for 12 mo prior to applying, or that you have a very high deductible policy in order to be eligible.

I don't know about the new health care bill in VT, and if it would eliminate the 12 month rule or the high deductible rule, both of which keep people from simply moving to VT, paying premiums, having surgery or treatment, and then leaving. Quite honestly, having to go without health ins for 12 months or having to carry a very high deductible plan in order to be eligible is pretty grim, IMO, so I hope those are eliminated in the new plan.

In any case, the health care system in the US is broken, premiums are skyrocketing, and if someone needs care and can't get it where they live, then moving is an extreme solution, but it's better than dying or going bankrupt with unaffordable medical bills. I recently read that there are about 45,000 unnecessary deaths each year in the US due to people not having adequate health ins. That's abominable for a civilized society.

Unfortunately with all the discussion about health ins on the national level, little of it focused on how to stop the spiraling premiums (price fixing is alive and well in the health ins industry) and the AMA and other big lobbying orgs certainly don't want to change the lucrative system for doctors that rewards doing more and more tests and procedures.