Posted on 07/20/2010 6:25:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Did you know there are nine states that have no state income tax? The non-income-tax states (see accompanying chart) are geographically and economically diverse, ranging from the state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, to Texas and Florida in the South, and up to New Hampshire in the Northeast.
Why is it that some of the states with the biggest fiscal problems have the highest individual state income tax rates, such as New York and California, while some of the states with the least fiscal problems have no state income tax at all? High-tax advocates will argue that the high-tax states provide much more and better state services, but the empirical evidence does not support the assertion. On average, schools, health and safety, roads, etc. are no better in states with income taxes than those without income taxes. More importantly, the evidence is very strong that people are moving from high-tax states to lower-tax-rate states - the migration from California to Texas and from New York to Florida being prime examples. (Next year, the combined federal, state and local income tax rate for a citizen of New York City will be well over 50 percent, as contrasted with approximately 38 percent for citizens of Texas and Florida.) If the citizens of California and New York really thought they were getting their money's worth for all of the extra state taxation, they would not be moving to low-tax states.
The obvious question then is: Where is all the extra money from these state income taxes going? It is going primarily to service debt, and to pay for inflated salaries and employee benefits. It is interesting that the high-tax-rate states also, on average, have much higher per capita debt levels than states without income taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Stick a fork in it. It's done. I just hope when the collapse of California comes it doesn't bring down the rest of us with it.....
How long have you lived here?
< /SARC>
Ultimately, if states:
1. Spent only money that they have
2. Only borrow to invest in thing that INCREASE real productivity.
3. Taxed business, reasonably, on profits
4. Taxed consumers, reasonably, on consumption
a state would not NEED an income tax!
Instead, states borrow to pay for consumption - it is a trap that is very difficult to get out of.
Expenditure control is the key. Looking at only one state tax source doesn’t tell the entire picture when trying to compare states’ relative tax burdens.
I like a state (like NH) that relies heavily on property taxes, rather than income taxes, because that lets people know exactly how much government costs, unlike these “tax the other guy” schemes (e.g. “millionaire taxes”) that allow politicians to keep ratcheting up spending. I want politicians’ feet held to the fire on spending, not focusing on some “small” increase in the sales tax or income tax to allow them to expand spending on programs and public sector bloated salaries and retirement packages.
I have relatives up there already and they absolutely love it. He's with the Coast Guard and is scheduled to move back to the lower states next summer and they are dreading it.
Here around Cleveland OH we have state and city income tax as well as state and county sales tax.
As well as county and city property tax.
Oh, and our roads and infrastructure suck, and a good portion or our county gvt is facing indictment for corruption.
Nice place. Huh? :)
Ah yes, but how many consecutive governors have you sent to prison lately? We've got a head start there, and it looks likely we'll be able to extend the streak with the jokers we've got running now.
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.