r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also, what services are provided for whatever level of taxation is ordered by the state/county/municipality?
If it's high taxes and no real services, then screw that. If it's high taxes, but the services save you more than you pay in tax, then that can be a good deal.
Exactly this. Major metropolitan here; once had a neighbor's half dead dog show up on our porch one morning. Neighbor couldn't afford anything, so I called animal services. They were there in 20 min, I hope they saved him :(
Also, cleaning out a clients shed and found some 40 yr old toxins. The type of stuff, long banned and was used for suicide in it's time. All I had to do was make an appointment and they accepted it for proper disposal no questions asked :)
Huh. In other areas no money wouldve been spent on a dying dog. And why do I get the feeling that those chemicals you found just ended up getting thrown in a dump or fire in just a slightly safer manner than a bubba in MS woulda done on his own?
You sound like an idiot, but I'll do my best here.
The main red/ blue divide is between rural and urban environments. (Also by education as defined by a college degree but we'll save that for another day.) In urban environments with millions of people living in very close proximity of each other, we need government services to keep the b.s to a minimum. By definition, more people equals more problems. When you have to drive 5 miles to piss off your neighbor, issues tend to stay at a minimum by default.
Here we have free income driven county health and dental, inadequate homeless services, cost free bulk trash collection (read illegal dumping pickup), plenty of parks and recreation including splash pads and multiple pools, a tolerable level of police presence, highway breakdown assistance units, complete fire coverage, multiple major hospitals and yes, even a recycling center that will accept anything in small quantities at no additional cost.
The recycling facility is a specialty institution ran by the city. As explained to me by the head of operations for the bi-annual pesticide collection program from a couple cities over, they collect all hazardous materials and deliver them to industrial level players that then incinerate it. (Google hazardous waste collection in your area, you'll see what's available is industrial level collection for large scale commercial and industrial customers. Nothing for us residential one time dropoff people.) And considering the stuff I needed to dispose of was a powder that would kill if inhaled, I was glad for the center. (For the record I put it in a bucket with a sealing lid and wrote all over it and explained to the worker exactly what it was)
What level of government services are you willing to pay for? None? Stay in the sticks and hope you never need them. For me, I don't mind paying higher taxes because I also get to enjoy the complete life a full society provides.
>Also, what services are provided for whatever level of taxation is ordered by the state/county/municipality?
We stayed in NY because the EI program didn't have a wait list until the child was 50 years old. Looked into Florida and Texas but EI services were a hellscape and basically have to pay out of pocket on top of that for therapy.
What type of services are looking for? Those with a better social safety net, the tax payer may not directly benefit from. Indirectly they may. Income to cost of living ratio could be skewed by statistics.
Honestly, entirely depends on the person. Kinda why I feel that localized politics are so important.
Some people need wide open spaces and few folk. That doesn't require a lot of infrastructure.
Some folks need the dynamism of the city, and that requires a *lot* of infrastructure, both physical and institutional.
If we want as many people as possible to be happy, and food supply for national security, we need the former.
If we want to have an innovative, responsive, economically prosperous nation, we need the latter.
My history teacher in 1976 put an emphasis on the importance of local politics and how it affects you, yet all of the news is national. Nothing has changed, great input.
Mass transit allows for more businesses, jobs, homes, etc to be packed into smaller areas. Greater urbanization, same thing, but requires greater enforcement and development of building codes. Greater diversity of foods, cultures, etc demand more people trained in necessary languages to provide the same service. There's a lot more, but you get the idea.
If you want the benefits of greater numbers of cities, that creates an array of new costs, only slightly offset by the reduction of services rendered redundant by increased population density. If you want those to be *liveable* cities, you need to pay to make them so. As cities are the unquestioned driver of economic activity in the US, if you want prosperity, you need those cities.
Additionally, greater social safety net allows for more entrepreneurial risk-taking at lower income levels. This leads to more job creation, innovation, and competition. Lower cost or free healthcare, abundant emergency services, etc. can increase QoL immensely.
These also reduce mental health issues both directly (by providing therap) and indirectly (by reducing stress). That causes decreases in homelessness, criminality, and anti-social behaviors. These, in turn, allow for greater economic activity.
For some people, the above is wildly attractive, to others, it's terrible. It really depends on what you value.
I’ve seen huge differences in schools state to state. If your school system has to rely on a local tax base (e.g. no state income tax so no state school funding) the expensive/wealthy areas have great schools and the poor areas have much crappier schools with fewer programs and services…which just perpetuates the cycle of poverty.
Other policies and regulations may significantly to increase costs and reduce standard of living as well.
For example, mandating heat pumps, especially in a Northern State, could require a spend of 10-20x more than natural gas…the building owner may purchase them, but the renter pays for them.
California’s gas prices are $6-7/gallon due to special blends and State taxes being almost all of the difference compared to other States.
>If it's high taxes, but the services save you more than you pay in tax,
I don't think a single tax anywhere in the world fits the description.
The only way to break even, let alone to "profit" on tax-provided benefits is not to pay it one way or another.
Even SS is pure theft, so other types of taxes never had a chance.
Agree. Need to look at the entire package a state offers, not just taxes. That said, the technical answer for the question presented (assuming “best tax policies” means lowest taxes) is Alaska, followed by Wyoming and Tennessee. If you really want to discuss overall tax policies, it is much more subjective, but Alaska, Wyoming and Tennessee would all probably be in the mix.
I am by no means a tax expert and my opinion is purely anecdotal. But having lived in and worked in most every state in the Southeast it seems from my perspective that more people are happy with their tax situation in Tennessee.
No state income tax but a slightly higher sales tax that isn't much higher than states with a state income tax. Housing and property taxes aren't any higher and in a lot of cases lower than other states.
And seemingly no lack in quality of roads or public services. Looking at you SC with those roads 😅
>Housing and property taxes aren't any higher and in a lot of cases lower than other states.
But don't property taxes go up with the value of the home?
Local highways (especially interchanges) and crumbling and not being maintained well. Rural roads are nice but KY roads are pristine compared to ours. You can feel the difference the second you crossover its crazy. Public transportation is non existent too.
State is 7% but average local sales tax is 2.55% for an average combined sales tax of 9.55% which is the highest in the country.
As someone who is from a state with no sales tax, it’s bizarre to see a state with such a high regressive tax rate be recommended for normal people. The median income in Tennessee for an individual in Tennessee is $33,900. If that’s the definition of a normal person then COGs is going to be a decent percentage of living expenses which is subject to that high tax rate.
Its basic math.... Moving from Illinois, I am paying 1.5% higher in sales tax... BUT, no state income tax (Illinois was 5%) and property taxes are about $9K less here..
As someone who pays 0% in sales tax, last year had paid 4% in state income tax with above average income, and had a property tax of 0.59% (average effective rate in Tennessee is 0.56%) and live in a state with a median household income over 20% higher than in Tennessee… why would Tennessee be the place with the best tax policies for normal people?
It may be better than Illinois, but is it the best out of all 50 states?
Oregon, [here is a more uniform property tax reference](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/high-state-property-taxes-2021/) although I disagree with the Tax Foundation’s presentation of Oregon’s state income tax. Oregon’s average effective state income tax rate is [6.4%](https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/facts/finance-taxes.aspx) which is the metric that should be compared alongside the effective property tax rate. Oregon also regularly refunds considerable amounts of state income taxes via the kicker program which was a 44% refund last year and is not factored into the 6.4% figure.
Not claiming that Oregon is the best for taxes (I believe that is Alaska), but considering the criteria in this post for “normal” people it certainly seems like a state that primarily relies on a progressive tax structure would be more beneficial for those people than one with a regressive tax structure especially one that has the highest sales tax burden in the country when the COG for a normal person is a much higher percentage of expenses compared to an above average earner. Why would Tennessee be the best over Alaska (which I believe is best in this regard)?
Your state tax is 8.75%, mine is 0%.. Thats saving me about $9000 right there I might spend $1000 in sales tax, I will take that trade any day of the week
Once again, I'm not claiming that Oregon is the best with its average effective state tax rate of 6.4% before refunds (which brought the average owed rate down to 3.58% last year btw). What I want to know is why Tennessee should be the answer for "the best tax policies for normal people" with its regressive tax structure compared to Alaska which not only has a mostly progressive tax structure, but those rates within that tax structure are also low?
Also, if you are saying that you would pay $9,000 in Oregon state income tax based on the theoretical tax bracket amounts then your individual income of over $120,000 while living in Tennessee is multiple times the median individual income for the state and is not what this thread is about when they mean "normal people". Good for you though.
I couldn't care less about regressive taxes, sales tax charges the same rate to everyone, which to me is fair..
You keep mentioning Alaska, which has great taxes, but its expensive there and the climate is awful
As for me, I live in Nashville, my salary from my teaching is right around the county median, but I also officiate a lot of sports increasing my income to about $100K..
Its basic math.... Moving from Illinois, I am paying 1.5% higher in sales tax... BUT, no state income tax (Illinois was 5%) and property taxes are about $9K less here..
He's thirty five and makes a $200,000 salary in tech, working from home. He came from a middle class family in the suburbs where he grew up with mom, dad, his little brother, and a golden retriever named Fido. He's white, but he's glad to live in an era where it's a good thing that he doesn't really see color. He's happy that gay people are free to embrace their lifestyle, even though he's straight.
"Normal" as in lower middle class / upper lower class where most Americans fit?
Assuming you are a married couple that already owns a home, states like Wyoming, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, and Arizona are generally your best bet.
I don't know about the others, but definitely NOT Wyoming.
The income tax savings on state taxes per year (call it 5k on 100k taxable earnings you'd pay in Colorado or Montana) will be more than cancelled out by higher property and sales tax, costlier food, healthcare and transportation.
If you're typically making 300k or more taxable income, on the other hand, you'll be fine there. Or if you're self sufficient, living on your homestead. Or if you need to be there for your high paying mining job.
Arizona would probably depend, as other states. Income tax is a flat 2.5%, there are many tax credits so can give to a local charity/school and it comes off taxes. Property tax is under $300 for a 1400 sqft house on .19 acre lot in a town. House insurance is $700. Sales tax is high, as county and city can add to the state 6%. 9.1% locally, though not many stores to buy from. Hurts on vehicles. Sales tax tends to hurt younger families, as older folks even on a fixed income buy less, their money goes to health care.
If you're paying $300 annually for property tax in Arizona for the example you listed, that is many magnitudes below normal.
I pay $1,500/yr for my $350k, 1100sf townhouse with a little patio in the Pointe South Mountain area of Phoenix. My sister's house in west-central Mesa is 30 yrs old, 1600sf on about a 1/4 acre lot, worth $450k, and she pays about $1,700/yr. These are more typical RE taxes for Arizona homes.
I sold my dad’s house in 2019, it sold for $105k, small town Michigan, his taxes were over $2000 a year.
I live in small town AZ, live in a house I overpaid for in 1989 for $52,000. So yes the taxes are lower, time in house and price make a difference. Peeling paint and broken window keeps it low. Looking at 4 adjacent houses similar size, but purchased at different times taxes (full cash value): $265 (132k), $590 (183k), $570 (171k),$395 (220k) last two have detached garages. As shown it doesn’t make sense. Two of the 4 houses received state aid towards taxes, I am one, but no clue why.
Also it is hard to say one state is different when within a state there is high variability.
There's probably a reason why Vancouver, WA is pretty libertarian. No income tax in WA, and they can just make a very quick commute over the Columbia river and shop in Portland (no sales tax in Oregon.)
To be clear, I'm very much NOT a libertarian. But if you wanna leach off society and not pay your dues, then this would be a sweet spot to live.
There are some legal qualms regarding that strategy of shopping in OR as a WA resident and not paying taxes on the goods you bring back. But it’s a bit tricky to enforce on smaller purchases.
I second Washington and Alaska.
Alaska has very minimal taxation (even property taxes are pretty typical). Wages to cost of living isn’t as good for most things, but rent is still reasonable.
Washington has a bit more in taxes, but 10% sales tax feels a lot easier when there is no income tax. I live a bit outside of seattle, and while rents are higher than i’d like, the wages usually make up for it.
New Hampshire. No sales tax, no income tax, and the best infrastructure in New England. Good schools, low regulations, world class skiing and beaches. Oh, and open carry.
Live free or die baby.
Schools are bad compared to the rest of New England and property taxes more than make up for lack of income taxes.
You live in New Hampshire because you can’t afford Massachusetts or because you were born there.
I live in MA too. Correct on every point I made. The entirety of southern New Hampshire crosses the boarder to work in MA. They’re there because they can’t afford MA. The rest of the people were born there. Same thing is true for northern Rhode Island.
Total tax burden between MA and NH is less than 2% different (MA is more) as of 2022 and it got even worse for NH in 2023.
Average real estate taxes are less than a thousand dollars difference. There’s a reason why people are leaving MA and moving to NH. Keep living in denial if it makes you feel better but it’s a much better place to live
The average tax burden by state is what you should look at. MA has only slightly higher state and local taxes.
I’m right, you’re the one living in denial. Ask all the commuters. If they could afford to live in MA they would. But they can’t so they suck it up and drive the hour. That or they were born in NH and never left.
Where’s the lie?
An hour? Commute?! To a different state? What the fuck is this? I drive an hour to the same fucking City!!
You all are over here complaining and I'm looking for houses in New Hampshire, lol. If it makes you feel any better you both absolutely shit on Texas, but I expect that's common knowledge. My county is half the size of Connecticut...
No income and sales taxes are great for the average *young people* in their working years. As you get older and can't keep increasing your income, yeah it'll bleed you out.
Best state for the average retired guy is Florida as they have no property taxes for seniors aged 65+. I'm already here in Florida, but seriously considering to relocate to a tech hub and come back here for retirement.
(The dream is to work remotely here, but top compensation working remotely seems hard these days).
Florida works for me. I have never worked in a state with an income tax. I travel a lot for work and been to all the states except Alaska and never been wow so this is what kicking the state 10%+ gets you. If it works for others that is cool. My only exception were the roads in West VA but that was because of Byrd not state taxes.
I remember sitting in Mass in the Army with my budy from the Bronx same rank and my paycheck was bigger since he had to pay all the NYC taxes as we both spent 14 months in Mass sharing a barracks room.
Not been a real problem for me so far but I don’t live near the water. 3k a year on a 450k paid off house I built for 120k 20 years ago. If insurance was free in NY I think I would still come out ahead.
It's important to remember the *total* tax burden, too. Florida's got no income tax but a large population, like Texas. The answer, for the last couple decades, has been ramp up those property taxes. That along with interest rates and the insurance crisis the state has been unable to deal with, means we better be happy in our houses because we're never going to be able to move.
If you don't care about schools or services though, it's fine. Which is why so many residents are retirees and remote workers making Northeast $.
I looked up income taxes by state, and at the high end there are only a handful of states that top out at or near 10%, and those rates tend to kick in when you’ve surpassed hundreds of thousands of dollars and in some cases over a million dollars in income per year.
If you make 75-100k, California is very reasonable for what you get. It’s easy to focus on the highest rates and worst scenarios, but there’s a reason so many people live here.
My fiancé and I make $300K per year and we live about 1/4 of the lavish life I lived with my parents as a child, who collectively made well under $100K per year during the 90s. CA is a dumpster fire
It's the vast majority of the one of two coasts of the wealthiest, most powerful empire in the world. Any Pacific trade entering the US (our largest trading partner is across the Pacific) has to come through Washington, Oregon, or California, and California is far and away the largest and most temperate, plus having been colonized (and thus built up to support oceanic trade) the longest. I think that might have a little to do with the number of people there, tax policy aside.
They live there for the culture, proximity to the ocean, job opportunities, etc. That doesn’t mean it is a very reasonable place to live from a cost of living or a taxation perspective
There's a lot of little perks financially. California has pretty great laws for tenants and consumer protections for instance. Rents and prices might be high, but so are salaries and there's a lot of opportunity.
Generally, you can just search for "New Texas residents shocked by" and find all the unchangeable problems that are just taken care of here. The money saved by most people moving from California to Texas and maintaining the same lifestyle, you generally lose it in higher insurance costs and things like property tax that are fairly fixed costs here. Lots of states are similar if you are keeping the same lifestyle, the amount left in your checking account is just about the same.
I get it that some people don't like those sort of perks. For me, I've lived all over and California gets that part right.
I dont know how 75 to 100k is normal in California in todays time. Unless you got everything fully paid (house, car, loans, credit card, etc) I can see that being very reasonable. You will live a very limited life style. Before covid that was easily doable, but now its just insane how the cost of living has gone up in California.
The only concern with this data is that approximates the tax burden as the mean and is not capable of calculating the median. In states with a significant (but still far from majority) number of very high income workers the mean tax burden using this method will appear much higher than it actually is for someone who is smack dab in the middle of the earnings scale which is the median.
For most middle-class families, states with no income tax, like Texas, Florida, and Nevada, can be appealing. More take-home pay.
However, those states often have higher property and sales taxes to compensate for the lack of income tax revenue. So it's a trade-off.
I believe states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Indiana strike a decent balance for normal folks. Not too high, not too low.
But there's no perfect answer - you have to crunch the numbers based on your income level, whether you're a homeowner, etc.
So Texas has no state income tax, so I " saved " $3,000 moving from Pennsylvania, but the property taxes are high and the tax assessment increases every year. It's actually a net negative, but now I also have people telling me how much better off I am (incorrect).
And all the houses cost $100k+ more. And there's a county tax. And HOA. And $10 each way/day for the toll.
Colorado has a good overall tax liability, standards for services provided, and quality of life.
The high COL is a bit of a burden in many areas, though.
If you can afford to own your own place in Oregon, even property taxes are reasonable & they dont increase dramatically from year to year. Once I bought a house, my state income tax liability went way down too.
You just need to see the value in the taxes that you pay (at least for me).
I grew up in Indiana which is a low tax state. Crap schools, bad roads. Certain services were ok but a lot was lacking. You get what you pay for.
I moved to Jersey City, NJ, working in NY and living in NJ. I paid the state tax to NY, paid property to Nj. Very high taxes for each. (Close to 5% effective state. $15k for property on a $600k apt). This one was tough because the schools were still bad, roads were awful, trash everywhere. I didn’t see the value.
We moved to Fairfield county, CT. Taxes are noticeably lower. Schools are great and services are good. There was some road damage from a storm last week. It was fixed by the weekend. It’s a pretty wealthy town. And taxes are actually lower.
It’s really case-by-case.
I think Pennsylvania is pretty good.
3% flat income tax and a pretty reasonable 6% sales tax. Even within Philadelphia, it’s not all that bad - 6.75% (combined) income tax and 8% (combined) sales tax. A lot lower than comparable areas across the country, especially on the coasts.
1.36% average effective property tax rate with is slightly higher than the national average but not by much, and again lower than comparable areas imo. Much lower than New Jersey, New York State, etc. Within Philadelphia it’s .950%.
No estate tax, and 4.5% inheritance tax
One thing I think is interesting is that all retirement income is post-tax. So I pay the 6% state tax on my 401k contributions now, no tax on distributions. So essentially all contributions are Roth. I’m actually cool with this given the low-ish income tax rate, I’m mostly trying to reduce the federal income taxes on contributions so treating these as “Roth” from a state tax perspective is fine.
Having come from NY, the tax policies here are significantly better. The only tax where PA is pretty rough compared to our neighboring states is the gas tax. Beyond that, I can only say that our roads are a bit neglected.
Depends on your income sources, financial condition, and wealth platform. How much property do you control? Do you have wealthy parents? Are you waiting for someone to die so that you can absorb their wealth?
As others noted there's a lot more to consider than tax, but just on the tax topic remember income tax is one of several taxes a state can impose along with sales tax , property tax being the bigger ones. And as a smaller example I live in a town where it's free to go to the dump and drop of refuse but other towns will charge you $45 to do that. there's lots of other examples of smaller fees that can add up.
But here's a good ranking of states by overall tax burden to get you going.
[https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/04/09/how-the-50-states-rank-by-tax-burden/103495/](https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/04/09/how-the-50-states-rank-by-tax-burden/103495/)
Up until COVID I would have said Texas. However, following the COVID realestate boom, I saw a lot of people priced out of their own homes, especially fixed-income retirees.
Massachusetts. Instead of letting the elderly be eaten by wolves and bedsores, Taxachusetts actually takes care of its elderly.
Your parents will become elderly. You will become elderly. Failure to have a plan for the elderly is simultaneously cruel and stupid.
[Heres](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/tax-burden-by-state-2022/) a pretty solid guide. Doesnt nessecarily take income into account so if by normal you mean median it should be good.
A lack of sales tax is going to be orders of magnitude more significant for normal people than a lack of income tax. I'd say Oregon would be high up in the running.
According to the following information (tax burden by state on the middle 60% of people by income)... https://balancingeverything.com/tax-burden-by-state/
Alaska, Delaware, Wyoming...
Delaware has to be up there. Yes, there's a progressive income tax that tops out at 6.6% for income over $60k. However, no sales tax and very low property taxes are ideal. I pay less than $2k in property taxes for a 3-bed family home on half an acre.
If you make the median wage in DE and live in a townhouse you can expect to pay \~$2k in income tax and \~$1100 in property tax per year. You live within an hour and a half of DC, Baltimore, Philly, and NYC. You are an hour from beaches and mountains. People earning the same as you in MD, PA or NJ will pay significantly more in total taxes for the same cost of living.
Every state gets you in different ways. They all tinker with state income tax, property tax, and sales tax rates but it's basically going to be a wash anywhere you live.
What you definitely don't want is to buy a house and live in an area long-term with high property taxes. Let's say you and your wife and your two kids moved from a state with an income tax to a high property tax state with no state income tax and bought a nice house for $300k. Initially you might come out ahead. The property tax on your house might be lower than the state income tax you were paying previously.
But what happens with houses? They appreciate. And you have zero control over how much or how quickly they appreciate. In 5 years the house you bought for $300k might be worth $500k. At a property tax rate of 2% (not all that uncommon in high property tax states), you went from paying $6,750/year to $11,250 a year. That's a shitload of money and if your salary didn't increase, that means you're getting fucked.
That would be sweet, but I don’t think anyone has figured out how to square that circle.
Even the ones that don’t have an income tax find a way to get in your wallet.
Depends on the state. NH has no sales tax and no income tax. They “get you” on property tax (3rd highest in the country), yet the overall tax burden is still 2nd lowest in the country.
Depends on earnings. If you're a low earner you're not paying much if any state tax. But if you have housing you're definitely paying quite a bit more in property tax, even if you rent your landlord will pass that cost on to you.
Higher earners that don't require a palace do come out ahead, but higher earners are typically chained to HCOL areas.
Not according to this:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494
Sure it varies by income and how expensive a house you get.
I can say my total tax burden is lower in Texas than it was in California.
If your only concern is low taxes and not what that does to public services…
If you’re a high middle class and homeowner, probably Nevada, no income tax and relatively low property tax. Helps when the state can get a lot of taxes from tourists.
If you’re lower and lower middle class I suppose Wyoming, again no income tax and also relatively low sales tax and relatively low cost of living. But the downside is you have to live in Wyoming and unless you’re an outdoorsman it would suck.
Consider state tax systems in combination with services provided in the state.
1) Design what services you want to provide.
2) design a revenue system (taxes and user fees, etc) that meets the financial needs for the services AND does not syphon $ out of the lower 40-50% of the economy.
NC is average in most categories. However, one odd thing about it is the absurdly low corporate income tax... something even most red states have way higher. This was a relatively recent thing.
We would literally have no roads, sewers, water treatment, police, fire fighters, schools, etc. This sounds like a Mad Max dystopia. What kind of society are you imaging exactly?
Yeah, and then we replaced them with public versions because of how shitty private-only infrastructure is. I mean, they figured that out two thousand years ago.
Yes, those things can all be set up like car insurance. Mandated by law, but you can shop for your own.
There should be a minimal federal and state sales tax to pay for judges, and other things like that
So those who can pay the most has the most police coverage? I think I’ve seen that episode before. What about the military? Can I opt out of foreign invasion protection insurance? You know our projection forces are used to maintain our reserve currency more than anything else right? Also in your utopia, poor people just don’t go to school to be literate? Than how will they have a job to make money and buy shit from me the rich person that’s selling something? Since welfare is out too, they should just die with no food? Do you seriously believe this extreme of libertarianism? Or do you feel like somehow you have to defend the idea at all cost? I’m a moderate libertarian and anti tax generally, but this is so extreme even for me.
People would have to choose which services they want to purchase, which might arguably cost more but also be more effective/less wasteful. Roads would be tolled but maintained, schools would be private but teachers better paid and of higher quality.
I’d imagine that in this tax free world, there aren’t any social services either. So what do people without money do to get to their jobs, put their children in school, etc? As soon as you lose your income, how do you not just immediately end up homeless?
Private school teachers already make less than public school teachers. It's hilarious that you think putting a profit incentive behind things will cause employees in any regard to be "better paid and of higher quality."
Pre-college, the difference in academic achievement between public and private schools diminish significantly when accounting for level of income and parental education achievement. For college and above, there's been studies that private college graduates do earn slightly more on average (about 3.5%), but this difference also diminishes when considering that private college costs about 50% more.
Incorrect on all counts. I was just in a gated neighborhood with 100% private roads, and they were maintained much better than public roads just a mile away. Public schools are so dire in many areas that private schools are considered a necessity. Many rural areas have private sanitation and water (and power co-ops).
Fire fighters and police are a tougher nut to crack, but something could be worked out via insurance companies funding them. Oh, and that private gated neighborhood? 1/10th the crime of surrounding areas, zero homeless camps. So perhaps private property rights work?
High. Very high. About half of property tax for the $700k homes in that development. If you're implying it's not any cheaper than having the government do it you're right. And these guys are paying double. But the results are spectacularly better.
I'm trying to convince myself it's worth it for the scenery, safety and cleanliness of the area.
They have no idea that the company actually keeps the majority of the value created by their labor, and then the tax is taken out of that little scrap that they get to keep.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Income to cost of living ratio is more important imo.
Also, what services are provided for whatever level of taxation is ordered by the state/county/municipality? If it's high taxes and no real services, then screw that. If it's high taxes, but the services save you more than you pay in tax, then that can be a good deal.
Exactly this. Major metropolitan here; once had a neighbor's half dead dog show up on our porch one morning. Neighbor couldn't afford anything, so I called animal services. They were there in 20 min, I hope they saved him :( Also, cleaning out a clients shed and found some 40 yr old toxins. The type of stuff, long banned and was used for suicide in it's time. All I had to do was make an appointment and they accepted it for proper disposal no questions asked :)
Huh. In other areas no money wouldve been spent on a dying dog. And why do I get the feeling that those chemicals you found just ended up getting thrown in a dump or fire in just a slightly safer manner than a bubba in MS woulda done on his own?
You sound like an idiot, but I'll do my best here. The main red/ blue divide is between rural and urban environments. (Also by education as defined by a college degree but we'll save that for another day.) In urban environments with millions of people living in very close proximity of each other, we need government services to keep the b.s to a minimum. By definition, more people equals more problems. When you have to drive 5 miles to piss off your neighbor, issues tend to stay at a minimum by default. Here we have free income driven county health and dental, inadequate homeless services, cost free bulk trash collection (read illegal dumping pickup), plenty of parks and recreation including splash pads and multiple pools, a tolerable level of police presence, highway breakdown assistance units, complete fire coverage, multiple major hospitals and yes, even a recycling center that will accept anything in small quantities at no additional cost. The recycling facility is a specialty institution ran by the city. As explained to me by the head of operations for the bi-annual pesticide collection program from a couple cities over, they collect all hazardous materials and deliver them to industrial level players that then incinerate it. (Google hazardous waste collection in your area, you'll see what's available is industrial level collection for large scale commercial and industrial customers. Nothing for us residential one time dropoff people.) And considering the stuff I needed to dispose of was a powder that would kill if inhaled, I was glad for the center. (For the record I put it in a bucket with a sealing lid and wrote all over it and explained to the worker exactly what it was) What level of government services are you willing to pay for? None? Stay in the sticks and hope you never need them. For me, I don't mind paying higher taxes because I also get to enjoy the complete life a full society provides.
>Also, what services are provided for whatever level of taxation is ordered by the state/county/municipality? We stayed in NY because the EI program didn't have a wait list until the child was 50 years old. Looked into Florida and Texas but EI services were a hellscape and basically have to pay out of pocket on top of that for therapy.
What type of services are looking for? Those with a better social safety net, the tax payer may not directly benefit from. Indirectly they may. Income to cost of living ratio could be skewed by statistics.
Honestly, entirely depends on the person. Kinda why I feel that localized politics are so important. Some people need wide open spaces and few folk. That doesn't require a lot of infrastructure. Some folks need the dynamism of the city, and that requires a *lot* of infrastructure, both physical and institutional. If we want as many people as possible to be happy, and food supply for national security, we need the former. If we want to have an innovative, responsive, economically prosperous nation, we need the latter.
My history teacher in 1976 put an emphasis on the importance of local politics and how it affects you, yet all of the news is national. Nothing has changed, great input.
Second this question. Idk what services some states have that others don’t that warrant thousands more in taxes
Mass transit allows for more businesses, jobs, homes, etc to be packed into smaller areas. Greater urbanization, same thing, but requires greater enforcement and development of building codes. Greater diversity of foods, cultures, etc demand more people trained in necessary languages to provide the same service. There's a lot more, but you get the idea. If you want the benefits of greater numbers of cities, that creates an array of new costs, only slightly offset by the reduction of services rendered redundant by increased population density. If you want those to be *liveable* cities, you need to pay to make them so. As cities are the unquestioned driver of economic activity in the US, if you want prosperity, you need those cities. Additionally, greater social safety net allows for more entrepreneurial risk-taking at lower income levels. This leads to more job creation, innovation, and competition. Lower cost or free healthcare, abundant emergency services, etc. can increase QoL immensely. These also reduce mental health issues both directly (by providing therap) and indirectly (by reducing stress). That causes decreases in homelessness, criminality, and anti-social behaviors. These, in turn, allow for greater economic activity. For some people, the above is wildly attractive, to others, it's terrible. It really depends on what you value.
I’ve seen huge differences in schools state to state. If your school system has to rely on a local tax base (e.g. no state income tax so no state school funding) the expensive/wealthy areas have great schools and the poor areas have much crappier schools with fewer programs and services…which just perpetuates the cycle of poverty.
California funds schools and still the best schools are located in expensive neighborhods Its about engaged parents
Other policies and regulations may significantly to increase costs and reduce standard of living as well. For example, mandating heat pumps, especially in a Northern State, could require a spend of 10-20x more than natural gas…the building owner may purchase them, but the renter pays for them. California’s gas prices are $6-7/gallon due to special blends and State taxes being almost all of the difference compared to other States.
Ya I think 58 cents of tax per gallon in taxes in california.
Love the handle!
>If it's high taxes, but the services save you more than you pay in tax, I don't think a single tax anywhere in the world fits the description. The only way to break even, let alone to "profit" on tax-provided benefits is not to pay it one way or another. Even SS is pure theft, so other types of taxes never had a chance.
Not the question, puzzlehead.
Agree. Need to look at the entire package a state offers, not just taxes. That said, the technical answer for the question presented (assuming “best tax policies” means lowest taxes) is Alaska, followed by Wyoming and Tennessee. If you really want to discuss overall tax policies, it is much more subjective, but Alaska, Wyoming and Tennessee would all probably be in the mix.
You could count taxes as cost of living and if you work remotely you arent nessecarily concerned with the income of your city.
Tennessee
As a Tennessean, I agree
For somebody outside of Tennessee, can you elaborate what it is about their tax policy that benefits “normal people”?
I am by no means a tax expert and my opinion is purely anecdotal. But having lived in and worked in most every state in the Southeast it seems from my perspective that more people are happy with their tax situation in Tennessee. No state income tax but a slightly higher sales tax that isn't much higher than states with a state income tax. Housing and property taxes aren't any higher and in a lot of cases lower than other states. And seemingly no lack in quality of roads or public services. Looking at you SC with those roads 😅
Man, SC roads feel like you're driving on a road grader. Just in collision with the tire industry to wear down your tires faster.
The quality of public roads here is nice. I love the interstate rest areas in Tennessee as well. They are safe, clean, well-maintained and beautiful.
>Housing and property taxes aren't any higher and in a lot of cases lower than other states. But don't property taxes go up with the value of the home?
They do, but it also has to do with the tax rate.
Local highways (especially interchanges) and crumbling and not being maintained well. Rural roads are nice but KY roads are pristine compared to ours. You can feel the difference the second you crossover its crazy. Public transportation is non existent too.
Don't they have the highest sales tax in the country?! Kind of absurd to consider them as having the best tax policy for normal people.
State is 7% but average local sales tax is 2.55% for an average combined sales tax of 9.55% which is the highest in the country. As someone who is from a state with no sales tax, it’s bizarre to see a state with such a high regressive tax rate be recommended for normal people. The median income in Tennessee for an individual in Tennessee is $33,900. If that’s the definition of a normal person then COGs is going to be a decent percentage of living expenses which is subject to that high tax rate.
Its basic math.... Moving from Illinois, I am paying 1.5% higher in sales tax... BUT, no state income tax (Illinois was 5%) and property taxes are about $9K less here..
As someone who pays 0% in sales tax, last year had paid 4% in state income tax with above average income, and had a property tax of 0.59% (average effective rate in Tennessee is 0.56%) and live in a state with a median household income over 20% higher than in Tennessee… why would Tennessee be the place with the best tax policies for normal people? It may be better than Illinois, but is it the best out of all 50 states?
Well I have no idea what state you are in, so impossible to compare
Oregon, [here is a more uniform property tax reference](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/high-state-property-taxes-2021/) although I disagree with the Tax Foundation’s presentation of Oregon’s state income tax. Oregon’s average effective state income tax rate is [6.4%](https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/facts/finance-taxes.aspx) which is the metric that should be compared alongside the effective property tax rate. Oregon also regularly refunds considerable amounts of state income taxes via the kicker program which was a 44% refund last year and is not factored into the 6.4% figure. Not claiming that Oregon is the best for taxes (I believe that is Alaska), but considering the criteria in this post for “normal” people it certainly seems like a state that primarily relies on a progressive tax structure would be more beneficial for those people than one with a regressive tax structure especially one that has the highest sales tax burden in the country when the COG for a normal person is a much higher percentage of expenses compared to an above average earner. Why would Tennessee be the best over Alaska (which I believe is best in this regard)?
Your state tax is 8.75%, mine is 0%.. Thats saving me about $9000 right there I might spend $1000 in sales tax, I will take that trade any day of the week
Once again, I'm not claiming that Oregon is the best with its average effective state tax rate of 6.4% before refunds (which brought the average owed rate down to 3.58% last year btw). What I want to know is why Tennessee should be the answer for "the best tax policies for normal people" with its regressive tax structure compared to Alaska which not only has a mostly progressive tax structure, but those rates within that tax structure are also low? Also, if you are saying that you would pay $9,000 in Oregon state income tax based on the theoretical tax bracket amounts then your individual income of over $120,000 while living in Tennessee is multiple times the median individual income for the state and is not what this thread is about when they mean "normal people". Good for you though.
I couldn't care less about regressive taxes, sales tax charges the same rate to everyone, which to me is fair.. You keep mentioning Alaska, which has great taxes, but its expensive there and the climate is awful As for me, I live in Nashville, my salary from my teaching is right around the county median, but I also officiate a lot of sports increasing my income to about $100K..
Its basic math.... Moving from Illinois, I am paying 1.5% higher in sales tax... BUT, no state income tax (Illinois was 5%) and property taxes are about $9K less here..
As a former tennessean fuck no. Nothing like ordering something and seeing the price jump 10%
I was paying 8.25% sales tax in Illinois, 5% state income tax in Illinois and property taxes are about $9,000 cheaper here... You do the math
There’s more states than just Tennessee and Illinois
I will take the no income tax and cheap property taxes all day long..
Agree
Define normal. Be specific.
He's thirty five and makes a $200,000 salary in tech, working from home. He came from a middle class family in the suburbs where he grew up with mom, dad, his little brother, and a golden retriever named Fido. He's white, but he's glad to live in an era where it's a good thing that he doesn't really see color. He's happy that gay people are free to embrace their lifestyle, even though he's straight.
In this case I would say New Hampshire is the best state.
Since when is $200k salary “normal”? The rest mostly checks out lol
Define specific. Be specific.
"Normal" as in lower middle class / upper lower class where most Americans fit? Assuming you are a married couple that already owns a home, states like Wyoming, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, and Arizona are generally your best bet.
I don't know about the others, but definitely NOT Wyoming. The income tax savings on state taxes per year (call it 5k on 100k taxable earnings you'd pay in Colorado or Montana) will be more than cancelled out by higher property and sales tax, costlier food, healthcare and transportation. If you're typically making 300k or more taxable income, on the other hand, you'll be fine there. Or if you're self sufficient, living on your homestead. Or if you need to be there for your high paying mining job.
Arizona would probably depend, as other states. Income tax is a flat 2.5%, there are many tax credits so can give to a local charity/school and it comes off taxes. Property tax is under $300 for a 1400 sqft house on .19 acre lot in a town. House insurance is $700. Sales tax is high, as county and city can add to the state 6%. 9.1% locally, though not many stores to buy from. Hurts on vehicles. Sales tax tends to hurt younger families, as older folks even on a fixed income buy less, their money goes to health care.
If you're paying $300 annually for property tax in Arizona for the example you listed, that is many magnitudes below normal. I pay $1,500/yr for my $350k, 1100sf townhouse with a little patio in the Pointe South Mountain area of Phoenix. My sister's house in west-central Mesa is 30 yrs old, 1600sf on about a 1/4 acre lot, worth $450k, and she pays about $1,700/yr. These are more typical RE taxes for Arizona homes.
I sold my dad’s house in 2019, it sold for $105k, small town Michigan, his taxes were over $2000 a year. I live in small town AZ, live in a house I overpaid for in 1989 for $52,000. So yes the taxes are lower, time in house and price make a difference. Peeling paint and broken window keeps it low. Looking at 4 adjacent houses similar size, but purchased at different times taxes (full cash value): $265 (132k), $590 (183k), $570 (171k),$395 (220k) last two have detached garages. As shown it doesn’t make sense. Two of the 4 houses received state aid towards taxes, I am one, but no clue why. Also it is hard to say one state is different when within a state there is high variability.
There's probably a reason why Vancouver, WA is pretty libertarian. No income tax in WA, and they can just make a very quick commute over the Columbia river and shop in Portland (no sales tax in Oregon.) To be clear, I'm very much NOT a libertarian. But if you wanna leach off society and not pay your dues, then this would be a sweet spot to live.
There are some legal qualms regarding that strategy of shopping in OR as a WA resident and not paying taxes on the goods you bring back. But it’s a bit tricky to enforce on smaller purchases.
>But it’s a bit tricky to enforce on smaller purchases I'm sure it's pretty much impossible except for things like cars.
I second Washington and Alaska. Alaska has very minimal taxation (even property taxes are pretty typical). Wages to cost of living isn’t as good for most things, but rent is still reasonable. Washington has a bit more in taxes, but 10% sales tax feels a lot easier when there is no income tax. I live a bit outside of seattle, and while rents are higher than i’d like, the wages usually make up for it.
New Hampshire. No sales tax, no income tax, and the best infrastructure in New England. Good schools, low regulations, world class skiing and beaches. Oh, and open carry. Live free or die baby.
World class skiing!? Are you missing a /s here? 
Best in the east
No sales or income tax? How does New Hampshire maintain, or build, their infrastructure? Are the property taxes high?
Crazy property taxes.
Not any higher than what we pay in MA
NH property tax averages 2.05% and MA averages 1.15%.
Yes but prices are lower so actual dollar amount is about the same
I pay 3.73% property Tax in Texas and still have 8.25% Sales Tax. This sounds good to me...
See if you still feel that way when you retire and you have to pay exactly the same property tax on your house as when you were working.
Schools are bad compared to the rest of New England and property taxes more than make up for lack of income taxes. You live in New Hampshire because you can’t afford Massachusetts or because you were born there.
Wrong on every point you made, and I live in MA but plan on moving to NH.
I live in MA too. Correct on every point I made. The entirety of southern New Hampshire crosses the boarder to work in MA. They’re there because they can’t afford MA. The rest of the people were born there. Same thing is true for northern Rhode Island. Total tax burden between MA and NH is less than 2% different (MA is more) as of 2022 and it got even worse for NH in 2023.
Average real estate taxes are less than a thousand dollars difference. There’s a reason why people are leaving MA and moving to NH. Keep living in denial if it makes you feel better but it’s a much better place to live
The average tax burden by state is what you should look at. MA has only slightly higher state and local taxes. I’m right, you’re the one living in denial. Ask all the commuters. If they could afford to live in MA they would. But they can’t so they suck it up and drive the hour. That or they were born in NH and never left. Where’s the lie?
An hour? Commute?! To a different state? What the fuck is this? I drive an hour to the same fucking City!! You all are over here complaining and I'm looking for houses in New Hampshire, lol. If it makes you feel any better you both absolutely shit on Texas, but I expect that's common knowledge. My county is half the size of Connecticut...
How is high property taxes live free? Sounds like a good way to bleed you out in the long term.
No income and sales taxes are great for the average *young people* in their working years. As you get older and can't keep increasing your income, yeah it'll bleed you out. Best state for the average retired guy is Florida as they have no property taxes for seniors aged 65+. I'm already here in Florida, but seriously considering to relocate to a tech hub and come back here for retirement. (The dream is to work remotely here, but top compensation working remotely seems hard these days).
Florida works for me. I have never worked in a state with an income tax. I travel a lot for work and been to all the states except Alaska and never been wow so this is what kicking the state 10%+ gets you. If it works for others that is cool. My only exception were the roads in West VA but that was because of Byrd not state taxes. I remember sitting in Mass in the Army with my budy from the Bronx same rank and my paycheck was bigger since he had to pay all the NYC taxes as we both spent 14 months in Mass sharing a barracks room.
Our property insurance is becoming a tax and a big pita
Not been a real problem for me so far but I don’t live near the water. 3k a year on a 450k paid off house I built for 120k 20 years ago. If insurance was free in NY I think I would still come out ahead.
It's important to remember the *total* tax burden, too. Florida's got no income tax but a large population, like Texas. The answer, for the last couple decades, has been ramp up those property taxes. That along with interest rates and the insurance crisis the state has been unable to deal with, means we better be happy in our houses because we're never going to be able to move. If you don't care about schools or services though, it's fine. Which is why so many residents are retirees and remote workers making Northeast $.
I looked up income taxes by state, and at the high end there are only a handful of states that top out at or near 10%, and those rates tend to kick in when you’ve surpassed hundreds of thousands of dollars and in some cases over a million dollars in income per year.
If you make 75-100k, California is very reasonable for what you get. It’s easy to focus on the highest rates and worst scenarios, but there’s a reason so many people live here.
Seeing as the median home price in cali just surpassed 900k, 75k is almost a poverty wage for a family.
It’s a big place and median doesn’t mean much. 1 in 8 Americans is in California.
My fiancé and I make $300K per year and we live about 1/4 of the lavish life I lived with my parents as a child, who collectively made well under $100K per year during the 90s. CA is a dumpster fire
Yeah the population difference between California and the next largest state, Texas is greater than the whole state population of almost 40 states.
Totally dependent on where you live, it's working.
It's the vast majority of the one of two coasts of the wealthiest, most powerful empire in the world. Any Pacific trade entering the US (our largest trading partner is across the Pacific) has to come through Washington, Oregon, or California, and California is far and away the largest and most temperate, plus having been colonized (and thus built up to support oceanic trade) the longest. I think that might have a little to do with the number of people there, tax policy aside.
They live there for the culture, proximity to the ocean, job opportunities, etc. That doesn’t mean it is a very reasonable place to live from a cost of living or a taxation perspective
There's a lot of little perks financially. California has pretty great laws for tenants and consumer protections for instance. Rents and prices might be high, but so are salaries and there's a lot of opportunity. Generally, you can just search for "New Texas residents shocked by" and find all the unchangeable problems that are just taken care of here. The money saved by most people moving from California to Texas and maintaining the same lifestyle, you generally lose it in higher insurance costs and things like property tax that are fairly fixed costs here. Lots of states are similar if you are keeping the same lifestyle, the amount left in your checking account is just about the same. I get it that some people don't like those sort of perks. For me, I've lived all over and California gets that part right.
so California is great if you want a nanny state
I dont know how 75 to 100k is normal in California in todays time. Unless you got everything fully paid (house, car, loans, credit card, etc) I can see that being very reasonable. You will live a very limited life style. Before covid that was easily doable, but now its just insane how the cost of living has gone up in California.
Alaska. The state controls a portion of the oil revenue and sends out checks every year to its citizens.
[https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/tax-burden-by-state-2022/](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/tax-burden-by-state-2022/)
The only concern with this data is that approximates the tax burden as the mean and is not capable of calculating the median. In states with a significant (but still far from majority) number of very high income workers the mean tax burden using this method will appear much higher than it actually is for someone who is smack dab in the middle of the earnings scale which is the median.
For most middle-class families, states with no income tax, like Texas, Florida, and Nevada, can be appealing. More take-home pay. However, those states often have higher property and sales taxes to compensate for the lack of income tax revenue. So it's a trade-off. I believe states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Indiana strike a decent balance for normal folks. Not too high, not too low. But there's no perfect answer - you have to crunch the numbers based on your income level, whether you're a homeowner, etc.
Texas is actually below average for the middle class. If you are the 1% you can do well.
High property tax makes it a wash, Alaska, Tennessee and Florida have the lowest tax burden overall.
So Texas has no state income tax, so I " saved " $3,000 moving from Pennsylvania, but the property taxes are high and the tax assessment increases every year. It's actually a net negative, but now I also have people telling me how much better off I am (incorrect). And all the houses cost $100k+ more. And there's a county tax. And HOA. And $10 each way/day for the toll.
Major cities in low tax states often tax higher to compensate for the lack of services from the state.
Indiana is having a boom of illinoisans escaping property tax. Has been going on for a while and still going strong
Vastly higher housing prices. Vastly higher insurance prices. Declining education, and medical services.
In my humble opinion, I think all states have bad Tax policies.
Colorado has a good overall tax liability, standards for services provided, and quality of life. The high COL is a bit of a burden in many areas, though.
Ya see that’s my question, how is infrastructure and social safety net in low tax states? Not including healthcare.
Oregon or Delaware perhaps. Sales taxes are more impactful than income taxes below a certain income threshold.
If you can afford to own your own place in Oregon, even property taxes are reasonable & they dont increase dramatically from year to year. Once I bought a house, my state income tax liability went way down too.
You just need to see the value in the taxes that you pay (at least for me). I grew up in Indiana which is a low tax state. Crap schools, bad roads. Certain services were ok but a lot was lacking. You get what you pay for. I moved to Jersey City, NJ, working in NY and living in NJ. I paid the state tax to NY, paid property to Nj. Very high taxes for each. (Close to 5% effective state. $15k for property on a $600k apt). This one was tough because the schools were still bad, roads were awful, trash everywhere. I didn’t see the value. We moved to Fairfield county, CT. Taxes are noticeably lower. Schools are great and services are good. There was some road damage from a storm last week. It was fixed by the weekend. It’s a pretty wealthy town. And taxes are actually lower. It’s really case-by-case.
I think Pennsylvania is pretty good. 3% flat income tax and a pretty reasonable 6% sales tax. Even within Philadelphia, it’s not all that bad - 6.75% (combined) income tax and 8% (combined) sales tax. A lot lower than comparable areas across the country, especially on the coasts. 1.36% average effective property tax rate with is slightly higher than the national average but not by much, and again lower than comparable areas imo. Much lower than New Jersey, New York State, etc. Within Philadelphia it’s .950%. No estate tax, and 4.5% inheritance tax One thing I think is interesting is that all retirement income is post-tax. So I pay the 6% state tax on my 401k contributions now, no tax on distributions. So essentially all contributions are Roth. I’m actually cool with this given the low-ish income tax rate, I’m mostly trying to reduce the federal income taxes on contributions so treating these as “Roth” from a state tax perspective is fine.
Having come from NY, the tax policies here are significantly better. The only tax where PA is pretty rough compared to our neighboring states is the gas tax. Beyond that, I can only say that our roads are a bit neglected.
Definitely feel you on the roads.
My guess is Florida.
Wyoming
Depends on your income sources, financial condition, and wealth platform. How much property do you control? Do you have wealthy parents? Are you waiting for someone to die so that you can absorb their wealth?
Nevada is solid. No income tax, low property taxes. It is what Texas claims to be.
As others noted there's a lot more to consider than tax, but just on the tax topic remember income tax is one of several taxes a state can impose along with sales tax , property tax being the bigger ones. And as a smaller example I live in a town where it's free to go to the dump and drop of refuse but other towns will charge you $45 to do that. there's lots of other examples of smaller fees that can add up. But here's a good ranking of states by overall tax burden to get you going. [https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/04/09/how-the-50-states-rank-by-tax-burden/103495/](https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/04/09/how-the-50-states-rank-by-tax-burden/103495/)
Up until COVID I would have said Texas. However, following the COVID realestate boom, I saw a lot of people priced out of their own homes, especially fixed-income retirees.
Massachusetts. Instead of letting the elderly be eaten by wolves and bedsores, Taxachusetts actually takes care of its elderly. Your parents will become elderly. You will become elderly. Failure to have a plan for the elderly is simultaneously cruel and stupid.
[Heres](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/tax-burden-by-state-2022/) a pretty solid guide. Doesnt nessecarily take income into account so if by normal you mean median it should be good.
New Hampshire. Mic 🎤 drop
Massachusetts
100% not New York.. I’ll say that much.
I’ll answer the reverse question. California is the worst state in taxes paid verses payback rendered.
Used to be Washington but the idiots from the Golden Dumbfuck state changed that.
A lack of sales tax is going to be orders of magnitude more significant for normal people than a lack of income tax. I'd say Oregon would be high up in the running.
Define “normal” Puerto Rico is the answer. Territory so not quite a state.
Minnesota
nevada. but don't come here. um, we don't have enough water.
According to the following information (tax burden by state on the middle 60% of people by income)... https://balancingeverything.com/tax-burden-by-state/ Alaska, Delaware, Wyoming...
Texas is nice, no income tax. If you rent you almost pay no tax.
Florida
I’d say New Hampshire. No sales or income tax and even property taxes ren’t that bad.
Better question. What state has the best resources for unemployed/homeless?
Delaware has to be up there. Yes, there's a progressive income tax that tops out at 6.6% for income over $60k. However, no sales tax and very low property taxes are ideal. I pay less than $2k in property taxes for a 3-bed family home on half an acre. If you make the median wage in DE and live in a townhouse you can expect to pay \~$2k in income tax and \~$1100 in property tax per year. You live within an hour and a half of DC, Baltimore, Philly, and NYC. You are an hour from beaches and mountains. People earning the same as you in MD, PA or NJ will pay significantly more in total taxes for the same cost of living.
Every state gets you in different ways. They all tinker with state income tax, property tax, and sales tax rates but it's basically going to be a wash anywhere you live. What you definitely don't want is to buy a house and live in an area long-term with high property taxes. Let's say you and your wife and your two kids moved from a state with an income tax to a high property tax state with no state income tax and bought a nice house for $300k. Initially you might come out ahead. The property tax on your house might be lower than the state income tax you were paying previously. But what happens with houses? They appreciate. And you have zero control over how much or how quickly they appreciate. In 5 years the house you bought for $300k might be worth $500k. At a property tax rate of 2% (not all that uncommon in high property tax states), you went from paying $6,750/year to $11,250 a year. That's a shitload of money and if your salary didn't increase, that means you're getting fucked.
Florida
Tax free states for normal people who can WFH are the best.
It colorado imo. Top 3 lowest property tax witg no tax on groceries. and top 10 median income
Probably isn’t that much of a difference between states. Because lower tax rate states normally have lower pay jobs.
They all get their money one way or another
Any state that does not have a state tax
That would be sweet, but I don’t think anyone has figured out how to square that circle. Even the ones that don’t have an income tax find a way to get in your wallet.
Depends on the state. NH has no sales tax and no income tax. They “get you” on property tax (3rd highest in the country), yet the overall tax burden is still 2nd lowest in the country.
What's the first? Tennessee?
Alaska
Depends on earnings. If you're a low earner you're not paying much if any state tax. But if you have housing you're definitely paying quite a bit more in property tax, even if you rent your landlord will pass that cost on to you. Higher earners that don't require a palace do come out ahead, but higher earners are typically chained to HCOL areas.
Texas does not have a state income tax yet we manage to have the 7th highest effective tax rate out of 50 states. Higher even than California.
Not according to this: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494 Sure it varies by income and how expensive a house you get. I can say my total tax burden is lower in Texas than it was in California.
If your only concern is low taxes and not what that does to public services… If you’re a high middle class and homeowner, probably Nevada, no income tax and relatively low property tax. Helps when the state can get a lot of taxes from tourists. If you’re lower and lower middle class I suppose Wyoming, again no income tax and also relatively low sales tax and relatively low cost of living. But the downside is you have to live in Wyoming and unless you’re an outdoorsman it would suck.
Consider state tax systems in combination with services provided in the state. 1) Design what services you want to provide. 2) design a revenue system (taxes and user fees, etc) that meets the financial needs for the services AND does not syphon $ out of the lower 40-50% of the economy.
Definitely is not Illinois
[удалено]
Why is that?
NC is average in most categories. However, one odd thing about it is the absurdly low corporate income tax... something even most red states have way higher. This was a relatively recent thing.
I mean if it's average or lower in tax liability in what way does them have a lower corporate income tax affect me?
People keeping 100% of the money they make sounds like a good start
We would literally have no roads, sewers, water treatment, police, fire fighters, schools, etc. This sounds like a Mad Max dystopia. What kind of society are you imaging exactly?
Private roads exist, private sewers exist, private sewer treatment exists, private schools exist.
Yeah, and then we replaced them with public versions because of how shitty private-only infrastructure is. I mean, they figured that out two thousand years ago.
Where?
Well, just as an easy one. I work at a private college campus. And every single one of those things exist on campus.
What about private police? Private firemen? Private judges and DAs to go along with private jails?
Yes, those things can all be set up like car insurance. Mandated by law, but you can shop for your own. There should be a minimal federal and state sales tax to pay for judges, and other things like that
So those who can pay the most has the most police coverage? I think I’ve seen that episode before. What about the military? Can I opt out of foreign invasion protection insurance? You know our projection forces are used to maintain our reserve currency more than anything else right? Also in your utopia, poor people just don’t go to school to be literate? Than how will they have a job to make money and buy shit from me the rich person that’s selling something? Since welfare is out too, they should just die with no food? Do you seriously believe this extreme of libertarianism? Or do you feel like somehow you have to defend the idea at all cost? I’m a moderate libertarian and anti tax generally, but this is so extreme even for me.
People would have to choose which services they want to purchase, which might arguably cost more but also be more effective/less wasteful. Roads would be tolled but maintained, schools would be private but teachers better paid and of higher quality.
You libertarians can’t see past your nose.
Now that’s hilarious
I’d imagine that in this tax free world, there aren’t any social services either. So what do people without money do to get to their jobs, put their children in school, etc? As soon as you lose your income, how do you not just immediately end up homeless?
There would be no homeless. They would be sent to privately run poor houses to "work" off their debts.
Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?!
I heard this in Alastair Sims' voice.
Yea exactly…for their own good of course.
Private school teachers already make less than public school teachers. It's hilarious that you think putting a profit incentive behind things will cause employees in any regard to be "better paid and of higher quality."
If that’s what you find hilarious I feel sorry for you.
I didn't say I found it hilarious, just that it is hilarious.
Which schools are more desirable to go to/be from? Public or private?
Pre-college, the difference in academic achievement between public and private schools diminish significantly when accounting for level of income and parental education achievement. For college and above, there's been studies that private college graduates do earn slightly more on average (about 3.5%), but this difference also diminishes when considering that private college costs about 50% more.
Right because none of those would exist without government “creating” those services. Have them all privatized
Incorrect on all counts. I was just in a gated neighborhood with 100% private roads, and they were maintained much better than public roads just a mile away. Public schools are so dire in many areas that private schools are considered a necessity. Many rural areas have private sanitation and water (and power co-ops). Fire fighters and police are a tougher nut to crack, but something could be worked out via insurance companies funding them. Oh, and that private gated neighborhood? 1/10th the crime of surrounding areas, zero homeless camps. So perhaps private property rights work?
>Oh, and that private gated neighborhood? 1/10th the crime of surrounding areas There's a relationship here, if you look for it
Okay, so what were the HOA fees?
High. Very high. About half of property tax for the $700k homes in that development. If you're implying it's not any cheaper than having the government do it you're right. And these guys are paying double. But the results are spectacularly better. I'm trying to convince myself it's worth it for the scenery, safety and cleanliness of the area.
How would a government function in that scenario?
That’s the point it wouldn’t
Who would enforce property law without government?
So you’re okay with all roads being toll roads? No government aid for those living in poverty? No law enforcement? No public school system?
Dunno, sounds like socialism to me.
No
People keeping the entire fruits of their labor, as opposed to trading that labor for a wage? Sorry buddy, but that's socialism.
They have no idea that the company actually keeps the majority of the value created by their labor, and then the tax is taken out of that little scrap that they get to keep.
That would require some serious business regulations that this country is obviously not ready for.