http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/li...2005/index.html (http://apolyton.net/go.php?http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.html)

<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000080 1px dotted; BORDER-TOP: #000080 1px dotted; BORDER-LEFT: #000080 1px dotted; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000080 1px dotted; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #e2e2e2" width="80%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD>quote:
The Tax Foundation, a policy research group, estimated the average taxpayer's total state and local tax burden for 2005 in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. That burden reflects what residents pay in state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes and fuel taxes, among others. States below are ranked from least to most tax friendly.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Interesting stuff.

Top 5 tax heavy states (DC is 12.20%, btw):

Maine 13.00%
New York 12.00%
Hawaii 11.50%
Rhode Island 11.40%
Wisconsin 11.40%

Bottom 5 tax heavy states:

Alaska 6.40%
New Hampshire 7.40%
Delaware 8.00%
Tennessee 8.30%
Alabama 8.70%

Though the surprise is Massachusetts, with a state and local tax burden of 9.80% is tied for 30th in highest tax burden! You'll pay more state and local taxes in North Carolina, Mississippi, or Wyoming than you will in Massachusetts!

It's the intent, not the execution.

Well, there's no way to use the word tax wittily in combination with Maine. Taixe. That's the best you can do. This is bullshit.

Well, there's no way to use the word tax wittly in combination with Maine. Taixe. That's the best you can do. This is bullshit.
LOL

Here's one by city:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbycity2005/index.html#table

Boston ranks 12th overall. Amazingly, 14 of the top 16 are in "blue" states while 13 of the bottom 15 are all from "red" states. So, if you are worried about tax revenue in a big city, better to choose a red state ;)

Boston ranks 12th overall. Amazingly, 14 of the top 16 are in "blue" states while 13 of the bottom 15 are all from "red" states. So, if you are worried about tax revenue in a big city, better to choose a red state ;)

A more useful analysis might include the makeup of city & county (where applicable) government, since they're the ones levying the local taxes and spending (or squandering) the money.

A good example is Chicago & Cook County, for decades in Democrat control to the point of being a One-Party City & County. Very high taxes, lots of misuse of funds and squandering of money. Although, in Chicago's case I think this is due to there only being one party in power, for so long, as opposed to that party just being Democrats.

Here's one by city:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbycity2005/index.html#table

Boston ranks 12th overall. Amazingly, 14 of the top 16 are in "blue" states while 13 of the bottom 15 are all from "red" states. So, if you are worried about tax revenue in a big city, better to choose a red state ;)

Coincidentially, those same red states get the most federal aid- a wondeful taxation scheme, since there is a net transfer of assets from blue to red. Aha, hypocrisy. :D

Coincidentially, those same red states get the most federal aid- a wondeful taxation scheme, since there is a net transfer of assets from blue to red. Aha, hypocrisy. :D
But they pay the same federal tax rate as people from blue states. Are you saying that blue states should get more federal aid because they pay higher state taxes? Seems like two separate issues. Plus, much of the federal aid to states comes in the form of disaster cleanup since many of the red states are in the areas of hurricanes, floods, fires and tornadoes.

Plus, much of the federal aid to states comes in the form of disaster cleanup since many of the red states are in the areas of hurricanes, floods, fires and tornadoes.

That's a weak argument. If you know you're disaster-prone, you should have funds set up to provide for this, instead of having to rely on the government to bail you out each time.

Heh. Republicans relying on the federal government to bail them out. Oh, the irony.

They pay the same rate, but I believe more federal tax revenue is generated in blue states and spent in red states.

But they pay the same federal tax rate as people from blue states. Are you saying that blue states should get more federal aid because they pay higher state taxes? Seems like two separate issues.
It is the same issue IF the blue states have higher state and local taxes because they have to make up the gap in not receiving as much federal money (i.e., their state taxes wouldn't be as high if they got more federal aid). That seems like a pretty big leap to make, but I can easily see how the two issues are interrelated.

They pay the same rate, but I believe more federal tax revenue is generated in blue states and spent in red states.

And this is magnified even more by the graduated income tax system: since blue-staters tend to be wealthier than red-staters, blue-staters also tend to pay higher rates on their federal taxes than blue staters do.

I thought Maine was part of Massachusetts.

That's a weak argument. If you know you're disaster-prone, you should have funds set up to provide for this, instead of having to rely on the government to bail you out each time.
I thought federal distaster prevention was a main focus of the government. Many disasters (ie, floods and fires) go across several states and their upkeep and recovery is not different than those of federal highways, IMO.

Saying states should be responsible for natural distasters is akin to saying New York should have received no federal funding to rebuild the damage of 9-11 or that California and Florida shouldn't receive any federal funding on immigration issues.

If that's the case, why even have a federal budget?

Heh. Republicans relying on the federal government to bail them out. Oh, the irony.
There are plenty of lefty's living in red states and some blue states (Illinois, Wisconsin, California) rely just as much on federal funding for fires and floods. If California never got federal funds for state wildfires they would be bankrupt by summer even with their lefty-"tax high" policies.

And this is magnified even more by the graduated income tax system: since blue-staters tend to be wealthier than red-staters, blue-staters also tend to pay higher rates on their federal taxes than blue staters do.
Hey, I would be more than happy to revisit the federal tax burden on the wealthy.

Alaska kind of stands out, but what's really noticeable is that there isn't a huge difference from top to bottom. Throw out the top and bottom 3 and you've got 11.4 - 8.3. I wouldn't think that's enough of a difference to make me decide to live one place as opposed to another.

Alaska kind of stands out, but what's really noticeable is that there isn't a huge difference from top to bottom. Throw out the top and bottom 3 and you've got 11.4 - 8.3. I wouldn't think that's enough of a difference to make me decide to live one place as opposed to another.

For the average household which makes about $60,000. The 3% spread means about 1,800 a year or $150 a month difference in take home pay. For some that could make difference.

Todd

For the average household which makes about $60,000. The 3% spread means about 1,800 a year or $150 a month difference in take home pay. For some that could make difference.

Todd

I would think cost of living changes would swamp that difference in a lot of comparisons.

And then there is opportunity - depending on one's profession, some states have more opportunities for income.

Then there is the quality of life factor.

All things being equal, you are correct, tax burden differences could be serious, but all things are NOT equal.

why am i less than shocked to see philadelphia as the 4th highest city :(

I would think cost of living changes would swamp that difference in a lot of comparisons.

And then there is opportunity - depending on one's profession, some states have more opportunities for income.

Then there is the quality of life factor.

All things being equal, you are correct, tax burden differences could be serious, but all things are NOT equal.

Agreed. Many other factors besides taxes determine where to live. I just wanted to give people a sizing of what 3% might mean in terms of tax home pay.

Ideally, you'd want a low tax burden and low cost of living with lots of jobs and a good quality of life. Good luck finding that :)

Todd

Whats this blue/red state thing? :rolleyes:

So tired of blue/red states....so damn tired of it.

There are plenty of lefty's living in red states and some blue states (Illinois, Wisconsin, California) rely just as much on federal funding for fires and floods. If California never got federal funds for state wildfires they would be bankrupt by summer even with their lefty-"tax high" policies.

California only gets back in federal spending about 77% of what it contributes in taxes, so don't go making totally ignorant accusations about how it is dependent on federal funding. Also, if you note the table, California is very near the average in taxation, in part because of low property taxes.

I believe that Alaska's tax rate is so low because every Alaskan resident gets oil royalties, which counts as a negative tax.

Interesting stuff.

Interesting, but there's at least a germ of a notion about how this might be flawed brewing in my mental petri dish.

I think it's the use of % of per capita income as a ranking criteria instead of somehow adjusting for those who pay no income tax at all (in states where applicable).

In other words, this is interesting, but not as interesting as showing the distribution of the tax burden by various income levels, by state.

{It's been a really shitty day, I'm pretty sure I didn't explain what I meant very well, but maybe somebody can find a better way to word what I'm getting at}

Whats this blue/red state thing? :rolleyes:

So tired of blue/red states....so damn tired of it.

You mean you don't notice the obvious color change when you're crossing state lines?

I think it's the use of % of per capita income as a ranking criteria instead of somehow adjusting for those who pay no income tax at all (in states where applicable).

I think you are overestimating the detail in the approach here. They aren't actually measuring tax burdens on individual people, they are just counting the total dollars that come into the state coffers from several taxes (not all of them) and calculating that as a share of total personal income in the state.

This measure makes no claim to discuss tax equity, just aggregated tax burden.

This ranking is always a source of much political hay here in Maryland.

One specific debate is whether the most appropriate measure of tax burden is per cent of personal income, as used here, or simply tax dollars per capita. Of course, nearly everyone lines up on this mathematical issue on the side of whichever seems to support their politicla agenda. Since Maryland is a high-income state, those who want to criticize Maryland's tax burden point to dollars per person (or household) - where the burden ends up being pretty high, often in the top three or five. Those who seek to defend the state's tax policies point to the % of PI measure, where we are nearer the middle.

Color me shocked.

California only gets back in federal spending about 77% of what it contributes in taxes, so don't go making totally ignorant accusations about how it is dependent on federal funding.
Last I checked, states don't keep the federal taxes paid by their citizens. If you remove the federal aid for fire prevention, that Cali budget would start drying up pretty quick.

Also, if you note the table, California is very near the average in taxation, in part because of low property taxes.
I guess that explains why businesses and property owners are flocking to Phoenix and Vegas in record numbers from California. Hey, whatever California is doing, keep it up. Arizona is certainly reaping the benefits right now. The price of my house just shot up about 50K in one year thanks in part to Californians entering the Arizona real estate market.

The price of my house just shot up about 50K in one year thanks in part to Californians entering the Arizona real estate market.

Could you please send any of the excess buyers my way? I'd really really like to escape the hellhole of a Hooterville I'm living in (like most everyone else I know who moved here for the historic houses) but as one observant wag put it (about one of our friends home that's on the market) "why would anyone who could afford that house want to live here?".

So, if you run across some buyers with more money than sense, the zip is 31064 -- I'll even pay the postage for you to ship them here.

I thought federal distaster prevention was a main focus of the government. Many disasters (ie, floods and fires) go across several states and their upkeep and recovery is not different than those of federal highways, IMO.

Saying states should be responsible for natural distasters is akin to saying New York should have received no federal funding to rebuild the damage of 9-11 or that California and Florida shouldn't receive any federal funding on immigration issues.

If that's the case, why even have a federal budget?
Hmmmm .... Spending on disaster relief by the federal budget is around $6 billion out of $2.5 trillion budget -- or about .25 percent. Saying that federal disaster relief skews how much federal funding goes to "red" states is a little like saying that ... well, I can't think of a metaphor that adequately sums up the ludicrousness of the argument.

IHere's one by city:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/li...ndex.html#table (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbycity2005/index.html#table)

Boston ranks 12th overall. Amazingly, 14 of the top 16 are in "blue" states while 13 of the bottom 15 are all from "red" states. So, if you are worried about tax revenue in a big city, better to choose a red state ;)
Yeah, if tax burden is all you're concerend about, those red states are just dandy. Of course, there are more museums, parks, schools, sports facilities, theatres and other publicly support venues in just about any block of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago than there are in Cheyenne, Anchorage, Jacksonville and Sioux Falls combined.

Perhaps the lesson is that the bestplace to live is in Las Vegas where you pay few taxes, you just gouge out the eyes of all the if-it-feels-good-do-it liberals or the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do conservatives binging at the flesh and gambling buffet. :)

I guess that explains why businesses and property owners are flocking to Phoenix and Vegas in record numbers from California. Hey, whatever California is doing, keep it up. Arizona is certainly reaping the benefits right now. The price of my house just shot up about 50K in one year thanks in part to Californians entering the Arizona real estate market.
Property taxes have very little to do with why Californians are seeking refuge in other real estate markets. Instead, it has more to do with the housing shortage throughout the state, which drives prices up and makes the median home unaffordable for the vast majority of buyers.

Your point with regard to businesses is valid, but it's a separate issue. Nevada, in particular, provides a Delaware-like corporate regulation and taxation scheme, making it very attractive to businesses.

Property taxes have very little to do with why Californians are seeking refuge in other real estate markets. Instead, it has more to do with the housing shortage throughout the state, which drives prices up and makes the median home unaffordable for the vast majority of buyers. Precisely. Aside from areas like San Jose where a housing bust is in the midst, increased land and material prices, higher regulation and dwindling lot supply are continue to force California land prices higher. Arizona and Nevada are benefitting from people and businesses who want a California lifestyle at lower prices.

Of course, a $50,000 increase in your home appreciation is going to increase your tax burden. :)

The price of my house just shot up about 50K in one year thanks in part to Californians entering the Arizona real estate market.

Real estate is jumping in value even in tax hells. It's not a reaction to tax policy.

there are more museums, parks, schools, sports facilities, theatres and other publicly support venues in just about any block of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago than there are in Cheyenne, Anchorage, Jacksonville and Sioux Falls combined.

I sure wouldn't laud Baltimore as being a bastion of high quality living. In fact, I can only think of a couple of major parks in Baltimore, and you'd be fortunate to make it out of them unscathed if you ask me. Besides the new stadiums, I wouldn't say there is much in the way of sports facilities. Maybe the dilapidated Pimlico. I saw few baseball, soccer or football fields in the city (at least that weren't on college campuses). The main museums that I can think of are the BMA (very small compared to "major" museums IMO) and the Firefighters' Museum. Ok, I guess there is the Science Center.

Maybe I'm just bitter about most of my time there, but it was *not* a spectacular place to live in my view.

I guess that explains why businesses and property owners are flocking to Phoenix and Vegas in record numbers from California. Hey, whatever California is doing, keep it up. Arizona is certainly reaping the benefits right now. The price of my house just shot up about 50K in one year thanks in part to Californians entering the Arizona real estate market.

Mine shot up about $100K in the last year from Bay Area people moving to the Sacramento area because they can't afford Bay Area home prices. If the number of people leaving California were as drastic as you imply, then the property values here would be declining, not increasing at a phenomenal rate.

Of course, a $50,000 increase in your home appreciation is going to increase your tax burden. :)

In California - not really. Proposition 13 (passed in 1978) capped the amount that local government can increase the assessed value of real estate at something like 1% a year. The only times a property can be reassessed at market value are when it is sold, and when there is a major improvement that affects its value. That's why California is a low property tax state (for people who have owned their homes for a while).

You mean you don't notice the obvious color change when you're crossing state lines?

In the winter time there are green ones and white ones, other then that I think I missed it.

Massachusetts is also either 48th or 49th in spending on education, mostly because all the politicians went to private schools and don't consider anything more than an hour outside of Boston (I-495) part of the state. Yet somehow UMass still has the highest retention rate post-graduation in the country and is 2nd most requested for the inter-college transfer system (after U-Hawaii.)

The main museums that I can think of are the BMA (very small compared to "major" museums IMO) and the Firefighters' Museum. Ok, I guess there is the Science Center.

I'm not exactly a Baltimore apologist, but if you never visited (or were unaware of?) the National Aquarium, you missed out on a pretty central part of the city's cultural landscape (and are giving the city short shrift as a result). Also, the Walters Art Gallery is above average for a city of its size. Not trying to suggest Baltimore is necessarily better than anywhere else, but your list doesn't excatly do the city justice.

Baltimore also has the most amazing Holocaust memorial. Not sure if that's a Q of life thing or not...