Posted on 01/07/2006 11:11:08 AM PST by wouldntbprudent
Where you live can have a big impact on how much you pay in taxes each year. The spread, according to numbers crunched by the nonprofit Tax Foundation, might not be enough to make you pull up stakes and move to a new state, but it can give you a case of tax envy. The state and local burden ranges from 6.4% (Alaska) to 13% (Maine).
(Excerpt) Read more at moneycentral.msn.com ...
state information ping
Well, Florida is pretty good - no state income tax, but sales taxes are a bit much at around 7%. No tax on food: Does Colorado still tax food?
Colorado doesn't tax food; but does have a sales tax running between 7-9 % depending on local, AND an income tax.
Working for the guvmint . . .
Now what we need to do is correlate this info to that thread a few days ago showing the Blue states were losing population to the Red states . . .
If Doyle's re-elected I'm leaving. My property taxes is off da hizzook!
As ususal, the MSM misleads.
Having left Oregon (a very high tax state with a 9% income tax) for Nevada (a state with no income tax and very low property taxes) I can tell you that these two are polar opposites in terms of the taxes that one pays. Yet this article claims that taxes in Oregon are less than Nevada, and that Nevada taxes are on a par with Kalifornia. Hogwash.
Likewise, the article misses the boat on Wyoming, another state with no personal income tax or estate tax.
One more thing about Nevada: the state may collect a lot of taxes through gambling (euphemistically referred to here as "gaming") but almost none of that money is paid by people who are having the equivalent of a gun put to their heads and told to pay up under threat of jail. If you don't want to pay a gambling tax, you don't gamble. This is quite different than an income tax; everyone has to work to live.
Seventy percent of the taxes collected in Nevada are collected from people who don't live here. So you all keep coming back, and bring your "gaming" money!
This report...
Massachusetts has lost thousands in population over the last two years, according to newly released U.S. Census numbers.
But the numbers do more than signal an...exodus from the Bay State...
It puts Massachusetts in danger of losing yet another congressional seat after 2010, when the House of Representatives is reapportioned.
"It's discouraging," said Phil Johnston, chairman of the state Democratic Party. "It means we're losing political clout with the Congress, and it's not good."
Since 1920, when Massachusetts had 16 representatives, the state has seen a steady decline, down to the current 10 representatives...
"It would be likely we would lose one (seat)," said U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Lowell. "But it's not out of the realm of possibility we could lose two."
Federal aid for various programs is distributed according to population, which means Massachusetts could start seeing fewer federal dollars...
One less seat also means less say in who becomes president of the United States.
"Assuming we lose a House seat, we lose a vote in the Electoral College, and someone else picks up a vote, (probably) in the south," ...
The dem legislature and the dem. gov. added another 3 percent this week to the gas tax of 26.85 per gallon.
It's crazy! And we can't do much about it. Just hang on for the ride.
Here I thought you Alaska residents had it made, with your yearly stipend from the oil revenue fund.
Yep, that's the one! Thank you.
Do you think these jokers have any clue why people are leaving??
Wow, and we were considering moving to N.C. Better look closely at even the Red states, I guess.
Pointing out the Maine is the highest taxed state? Our liberal governor HATES when people do that. Expect an irate phone call.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.