4 ms·

No, not miles of empty land, just a change from some of highest taxes in the country to the some THE lowest. http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/09staxrank.htm

No, not miles of empty land, just a change from some of highest taxes in the country to the some THE lowest. http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/09staxrank.html http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/09staxrank.html

pragmatic 16y ago
Why the down votes for linking to a supporting document? Haters going to hate?
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  Because the supporting document shows total state taxes, not tax rates. In other words, the supporting document doesn't.
- btmorex 16y ago
  Maybe because you linked to a document that ranks total state taxes instead of per capita taxes? (which is incredibly misleading regardless of whether or not it was deliberate)
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Minnesota is not going to fair well on the per capita basis either.
- pragmatic 16y ago
  Tough crowd. Here goes, taxes are lower in South Dakota. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html "Minnesota ranks 43rd in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index." "Neighboring states ranked as follows: North Dakota (25th), South Dakota (1st), Iowa (46th) and Wisconsin (42nd)." "Minnesota's 2008 state-level individual income tax collections were $1,493 per person, which ranked 5th highest nationally."
SwellJoe 16y ago
I did a ton of research recently on this issue, and other cost-of-living issues, because I live in an RV full-time. I'm currently paying California taxes, because that was my most recent permanent residence...but everything is insanely expensive in California, including vehicle insurance, health insurance, taxes of all sorts, vehicle registration and licensing, etc. On my way back from Alaska in a couple of months I'm going to take a detour east to setup my domicile in South Dakota (I want to see Mount Rushmore and the Crazy Horse monument, anyway). It will save me at least a few thousand dollars next year.

pragmatic 16y ago

Why the down votes for linking to a supporting document? Haters going to hate?

cynicalkane 16y ago
Because the supporting document shows total state taxes, not tax rates. In other words, the supporting document doesn't.
btmorex 16y ago
Maybe because you linked to a document that ranks total state taxes instead of per capita taxes? (which is incredibly misleading regardless of whether or not it was deliberate)
- roboneal 16y ago
  Minnesota is not going to fair well on the per capita basis either.
pragmatic 16y ago
Tough crowd. Here goes, taxes are lower in South Dakota. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html "Minnesota ranks 43rd in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index." "Neighboring states ranked as follows: North Dakota (25th), South Dakota (1st), Iowa (46th) and Wisconsin (42nd)." "Minnesota's 2008 state-level individual income tax collections were $1,493 per person, which ranked 5th highest nationally."

SwellJoe 16y ago

I did a ton of research recently on this issue, and other cost-of-living issues, because I live in an RV full-time. I'm currently paying California taxes, because that was my most recent permanent residence...but everything is insanely expensive in California, including vehicle insurance, health insurance, taxes of all sorts, vehicle registration and licensing, etc. On my way back from Alaska in a couple of months I'm going to take a detour east to setup my domicile in South Dakota (I want to see Mount Rushmore and the Crazy Horse monument, anyway). It will save me at least a few thousand dollars next year.