4 ms·

Have you found the additional property tax to cancel out any benefits of no state Income tax? Especially this year with Caps to SALT ?

acomjean 8y ago
As a Massachusetts resident, our neighboring state, New Hampshire has no income tax. I was working at a place many years ago, that moved to along a major N/S highway that made commuting from out of state more feasible. Those at work who looked into moving there have noted, the commute is much worse, income tax is negated a lot by high property taxes. When the company started downsizing it was noted that those in NH had significantly worse unemployment benefits. Some feel its worth it, but a lot don't. I think we had one person move.
will_brown 8y ago
I’m in FL too, but not the same city/county. Curious what you mean by additional property tax? Is that something in all of FL or just that county? (Maybe you were referencing Nashville)?
- gm-conspiracy 8y ago
  The county voters will pass levies to raise additional monies for the local school system.
nickreese 8y ago
In our situation and tax bracket, state income tax was the most important part of optimizing our overall tax burden. Property tax and sales tax isn't bad here or in Nashville. In Sarasota property tax is < 1% per year on assessed value and sales tax is 7%. Ideologically, I think taxes should be based on consumption, not on earning power.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Interesting that you put it like that, no income tax, rather than optimal services for the tax paid. Do you consider that as a richer person you should directly contribute financially to the improvement of the society that you live in at all; or is it that you see property tax as a fairer way to do that? (Or something else?)
  - phd514 8y ago
    I'm not the GP, but I don't think that paying more taxes is the best way to improve society. I'm not rich, but as someone making above median wages and living in a low-COL area with no state income taxes, I put my money where my mouth is by contributing an amount roughly equal to my annual federal income tax to local charities that provide a variety of services to people in need.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Thanks for responding, if I may probe further -- is it that you think the state can't provide the services those charities do, or that your particular local incarnation of it won't (ever?)? Where I am, a poor UK city, the Christian Churches provide a lot of services to the poor (homeless shelters, food banks, pensioners meals, friendship clubs, pregnancy counselling, family counselling, pastoral care) often with referral by front line council workers. Most of those services are free at the point of need (only family counselling is charged for IIRC) but couldn't operate on those budgets as council services -- largely because they rely on donations of buildings from the Churches, and donation of time from volunteers. The council has to rent, and has to pay at least minimum wage. So, in a way these essential community services work outside the state machine doing something that in a socialist setting government is expected to do. I can see this works inasmuch as those services exist, when they seemingly wouldn't otherwise, but the payment for those services isn't as fairly distributed as if it were acquired by taxation IMO. Also, in theory on a state level you save optimise service provision to save administration and logistics costs; whilst local piecemeal approaches can be relatively expensive ... but then in practice government seems to add layers of bureaucracy and expensive management ... Any further thoughts?

acomjean 8y ago

As a Massachusetts resident, our neighboring state, New Hampshire has no income tax. I was working at a place many years ago, that moved to along a major N/S highway that made commuting from out of state more feasible. Those at work who looked into moving there have noted, the commute is much worse, income tax is negated a lot by high property taxes. When the company started downsizing it was noted that those in NH had significantly worse unemployment benefits. Some feel its worth it, but a lot don't. I think we had one person move.

will_brown 8y ago

I’m in FL too, but not the same city/county. Curious what you mean by additional property tax? Is that something in all of FL or just that county? (Maybe you were referencing Nashville)?

gm-conspiracy 8y ago
The county voters will pass levies to raise additional monies for the local school system.

nickreese 8y ago

In our situation and tax bracket, state income tax was the most important part of optimizing our overall tax burden. Property tax and sales tax isn't bad here or in Nashville. In Sarasota property tax is < 1% per year on assessed value and sales tax is 7%. Ideologically, I think taxes should be based on consumption, not on earning power.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Interesting that you put it like that, no income tax, rather than optimal services for the tax paid. Do you consider that as a richer person you should directly contribute financially to the improvement of the society that you live in at all; or is it that you see property tax as a fairer way to do that? (Or something else?)
- phd514 8y ago
  I'm not the GP, but I don't think that paying more taxes is the best way to improve society. I'm not rich, but as someone making above median wages and living in a low-COL area with no state income taxes, I put my money where my mouth is by contributing an amount roughly equal to my annual federal income tax to local charities that provide a variety of services to people in need.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Thanks for responding, if I may probe further -- is it that you think the state can't provide the services those charities do, or that your particular local incarnation of it won't (ever?)? Where I am, a poor UK city, the Christian Churches provide a lot of services to the poor (homeless shelters, food banks, pensioners meals, friendship clubs, pregnancy counselling, family counselling, pastoral care) often with referral by front line council workers. Most of those services are free at the point of need (only family counselling is charged for IIRC) but couldn't operate on those budgets as council services -- largely because they rely on donations of buildings from the Churches, and donation of time from volunteers. The council has to rent, and has to pay at least minimum wage. So, in a way these essential community services work outside the state machine doing something that in a socialist setting government is expected to do. I can see this works inasmuch as those services exist, when they seemingly wouldn't otherwise, but the payment for those services isn't as fairly distributed as if it were acquired by taxation IMO. Also, in theory on a state level you save optimise service provision to save administration and logistics costs; whilst local piecemeal approaches can be relatively expensive ... but then in practice government seems to add layers of bureaucracy and expensive management ... Any further thoughts?