| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2003/1/15-16 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:27108 Activity:insanely high |
1/15 Anybody lived and worked in Nevada (or another state that has no
income tax?) I'm wondering if it's just a gimmick and they get
your money in some other way. E.g., higher property tax or payroll
tax, etc. Does one really come out ahead compared to CA? I'm
thinking of moving to another state to escape the perpetual fiscal
nightmare CA experiences. Thanks.
\_ I worked in Alaska. There are no taxes of any kind except
\_ In terms of overall tax burden, CA is about average. If you want
to be taxed move to Massachusetts. --dim
\_ California is unique because of Prop 13. Long time property owners
see their tax burdens drop over time in real dollars. So it is
a relatively expensive state to be young or new in, but much less
not some kind of ascam. there just aren't many people and
expensive (tax-wise) to grow old in.
\_ URL?
\_ http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal01.html
\_ This isn't believable. Oregon has no sales tax yet this
claims the state/local tax burden is over 9%.
\_ Yes, genius. There are other state/local taxes, like
taxes on gasoline and property tax. --dim
\_ Ok then this *isnt* the total tax burden and does
*not* answer the OP question about other gotchas and
hidden fees/taxes/whatevers which California is just
chock full of. This isn't a middle of the road tax
state. It's a high tax state and your little chart
hides the fact. --Genius
\_ Yes, it is the total tax burden. Oregon also
has an income tax. Please go away. --dim
\_ CA has both a sales and an income tax. Oregon
does not. Your link is just wrong. --Genius
\_ Please refer to the URLs below. You need
to use your brain to combine a few
different sources of data here. I know
you can do it. Think. Sales tax is 8%,
but what percent of your income is spent
on sales tax? --dim
\_ Hmmm, let's see... I pay out over 40% of
my income in taxes, I put another 20%
away and the rest is spent. So ~1/12th
of 60% is roughly 5% of my income. And
what value does this have to this topic?
\_ You can't even do simple math, moron.
\_ Uhm, ok, whatever you say.
\_ How much is 100 - 40 - 20? Hint:
it's not 60.
\_ Hint: I pay taxes on the 20%
put into savings. I don't
put it under my pillow.
\_ you don't pay taxes on
that 20%, already inc in 40%
and wouldn't be sales tax.
None on rent or food too.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/sltxlvls/index.htm
http://www.vermontgop.org/tax_burden.shtml
http://www.daveross.com/taxburden.html
\_ I worked in Alaska. There are no state taxes of any kind except
I think Anchorage may have some city taxes.
In fact, if you live in Alaska, you get a check every year,
as a sort of negative tax. on the other hand, the cost of
living is above average in alaska. and no, the tax thing is
not some kind of a scam. there just aren't many people and
oil pays for alot.
\_ I think Nevada is a special case because of the massive
revenue influx due to gambling.
\_ Yep, gambling & mining. When I lived there most other
taxes (sales, etc.) were lower than California.
\_ Still, New Hampshire apparently has the lowest overall
tax burden. Maybe they include taxes on corporations?
\_ Most states get tax income from business tax, property tax, sales
tax, income tax, and a whole bevy of fees. CA's big problem is
property tax. It's figured by the local city or county assessor.
Thanks to Proprosition 13, that assessment is only done when a
building is built and when the property changes ownership. The push
was to save LOLs living in the same place for 30+ years from being
forced out (ie. fixed income). It also means that companies in the
same location don't pay higher prop taxes. Poof. Less tax for the
state. Note: You can always ask to have your property reassessed if
you think it was listed too high a price, so you can pay less tax.
\_ I was here when prop 13 passed. It wasn't just LOLs that were
losing their homes. Roughly 40% of my middle class neighborhood
was getting killed and was forced to sell. Kill Prop 13 and
you'll kill the state for good. There's a damned good reason
for Prop 13 to exist.
\_ When was it passed?
\_ 1978
\_ The problem was inflation. Local governments assessed
property whose worth was climbing 12-13% due to inflation.
Thus, much higher property taxes. Prop 13 forced a solution
that should have been dealt with on a local level (ie.
lowering property taxes in the face of high inflation).
\_ I know a few people who moved to Nevada before they cashed out
their options to avoid CA income tax.
\_ tangent, would this be feasible: own home/residence in NV,
have all HR related things sent there, but live in rented
apt in CA?
\_ you make too much money
\_ no such thing. he earns it.
\_ More than feasible. There are a good number of professionals
in SV that live in Portland, AZ, CO, NV who fly in, work 10,
then take 4 days off (or do the 4x10 work week). The problem
lies with the dealing with flying and family. It can suck...
CA.gov figured this out. You still have to pay CA income tax
for work done here, despite your residence.
\_ I knew a guy working at Intel who had multiple homes
around the country, including Oregon. When he wanted
to cash out his options, he'd change his primary home
address to the one in Oregon.
\_ Oops, I meant Washington. He had a home in both, in
addition to few others.
\_ I wonder if it is worth it to him in this economy
to continue with this behavior? Did he rent out
the fake primary homes or are they empty when
he doesn't live there?
\_ I think these were his vacation homes and were
left empty.
\_ I know a guy who moved to Seattle several years ago to avoid state
tax. He was making so much money from stocks (not his own options)
that the pre-tax salary from his engineer job couldn't even cover
his tax. And that was before the dot-com boom even started. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal01.html Total tax burdens in each state are shown in the turquoise portion of the table (columns 5, 6 & 7). It can be instructive, however, to strip out the federal tax burden and compare just the tax burdens of states and localities. This is the yellow portion of the table on the left (columns 1, 2 & 3). Follow each row to see how a state's ranking changes when federal taxes are added back in. Generally, high-income states rise because, with their high costs of living and commensurately higher salaries, they are hit harder by the progressive federal income tax. Low-income states that have high state-local tax burdens fall in the ranking when federal taxes are added in. |
| www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/sltxlvls/index.htm This information is intended to help legislators, other elected officials and the public make comparisons between their states and others in the same region or with similar economic circumstances. The following tables present the most recent information available on state and combined state and local tax levels. State tax level data is provided through fiscal year (FY) 1997. Preliminary information is provided on combined state and local levels through FY 1996. All data are derived from tax collections reported to the Census Bureau by state and local governments. Comparing Tax Levels Tax levels are calculated two ways: by dividing total tax collections by state personal income, and by dividing total tax collections by state population. The first method yields the comparisons per $100 of state personal income used in these tables. Per capita collections are useful for comparing the given position of states in a given year, but because they are not adjusted for inflation they are not useful for time series comparisons. These time series comparisons examine whether tax collections are growing faster or slower than state personal income--a broad measure of taxpayers' ability to pay. Decreasing tax levels do not necessarily mean that tax collections are falling, just that collections are growing more slowly than state personal income. States with strong personal income growth may experience falling tax levels even though collections are growing. While these tables emphasize comparisons of tax collections as a share of personal income, state per capita comparisons are also provided. Per capita rankings and per $100 personal income rankings are generally similar, except for states with very high or very low per capita income. Tax levels in wealthy states like Connecticut rank higher on the per-capita scale while poor states like West Virginia rank much lower. This disparity reflects the wide variations in tax capacity between these states. Connecticut can generate high per-capita tax collections with low tax rates while West Virginia must tax its residents at higher rates to achieve relatively low per capita collections. Although comparisons of tax levels can be informative, four caveats should be emphasized: * Tax levels do not indicate whether taxes are too low or too high. These are political questions decided by the citizens and lawmakers of each state. States that rely on energy or tourism--Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, and Wyoming in particular--have the ability to export tax burdens to non-residents. Alaska consistently ranks at the top in tax levels even though its residents pay no state income or sales taxes. Large cities sometimes levy local sales and other types of taxes that other state residents do not pay. Property tax burdens also vary considerably, depending on property values and service levels in local jurisdictions. Local tax levels were assumed to be the same in FY 1996 as in FY 1995 because of the lag in Census Bureau reporting of state-by-state data on local taxes. Following fluctuations in state-local tax levels of less than 1 percent annually since 1992, this slight decrease reflects slower growth in state taxes relative to personal income in 1995. The Census Bureau reported no change to tax levels in Maine and Massachusetts. Three states--Alaska, New Hampshire and Wyoming--saw levels fall by more than 5 percent. The largest drop of nearly 17 percent was in Alaska, due to falling oil prices. Conversely, the largest increase from FY 1995 to FY 1996 was in Hawaii at just over 2 percent. Despite its large drop from FY 1995 to FY 1996, Alaska maintained the ranking for the highest tax level. New Hampshire, which had the second to lowest tax level in FY 1995, captured the lowest spot from Alabama in FY 1996. Slower tax level growth was most heavily concentrated in the New England, Middle Atlantic and Rocky Mountain regions, where tax levels fell in each state. Tax levels rose the most in the plains region, with five of seven states experiencing an increase. Unlike the information presented in 52 Table 1, these are final figures based upon revised data on state and local tax collections and revised personal income figures for 1994. Aggregate Tax Levels, 1970-1997 53 Table 3 presents aggregate national data from 1970 through 1997. This table illustrates how the different factors influence state and local tax levels. Local taxes, anchored by the property tax, are not strongly influenced by economic cycles. Recessions in 1970-71, 1975, 1982-83 and 1991 did not significantly affect local tax levels. However, tax revolts and state policies governing K-12 education finance strongly influence local taxes. In the early 1970s, many states shifted school financing responsibilities from property taxes to state tax sources. Federal revenue sharing also helped reduce local tax levels. In the late 1970s, the property tax revolt swept across the western states and Massachusetts. Changes in state tax levels reflect the impact of economic cycles and responses to them. The levels tend to drop during recessions and rebound quickly afterwards because state tax policy is counter-cyclical. In recessions, state personal income tax revenues fall as unemployment rises, income growth slows, and consumers put off purchases of durable goods. Revenues rebound during expansions as employment and incomes grow and consumers regain the confidence to buy cars and other big-ticket items. State tax collections rebounded sharply, for example, in 1972, 1984 and the mid-1990s. Although sales taxes remain the dominant source of revenue for states, personal income taxes have just about pulled even. Per Capita Tax Levels 55 Table 4 and 56 Table 5 compare per capita state and local tax levels among the 50 states. The same caveats apply to these tables as to tables 1 and 2. Since these figures are not adjusted for inflation, year-to-year comparisons are not very significant. What is more significant are the changes in the relative rankings of the states. New Mexico's rank jumped from 36 to 31 and Michigan's from 20 to 15. Arizona and New Hampshire were the two states whose rankings fell the most. Sales and personal income are the two most important state tax sources with each providing, on average, about one-third of collections. Most states have a relatively balanced system with sales, personal income and other taxes providing roughly one-third each of revenues. In five states--Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee and Washington--sales taxes accounted for more than half of all collections. Only in New York and Oregon did personal income taxes make up more than half of state tax collections. In Wyoming and Alaska, "other" taxes provide over half of state tax collections. Alaska and Wyoming derive the bulk of their revenues from severance taxes. Individual State Tax Sources State-Local (Tax Sources Combined) State-Local (Property Taxes) Revenue per Capita Revenue per $100 of Personal Income Percentage of Collections from each source Revenue per Capita Revenue per $100 of Personal Income Collections per Capita Collections per $100 Personal Income 1994 60 go! |
| www.vermontgop.org/tax_burden.shtml Census Bureau, Vermonters devote a larger percentage of their income to state taxes than do residents of ANY OTHER STATE. Income figures from the 2000 census, revised August 22, 2002, indicate that Vermont's median income ranked 27th nationally. These figures are below, with the states rank ordered from highest to lowest tax burden. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. |
| www.daveross.com/taxburden.html References 1. |