But with all that, North Dakota does not even make it to the top five tax-friendly states for retirees, according to Kiplinger. These are the top five tax-friendly states for retirees: Alaska, Wyoming, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.
Look at the property taxes in Wyoming:
Retirees don't pony up much in taxes in the Cowboy State. Thanks to the abundant revenues that Wyoming collects from oil and mineral companies, residents shoulder the lowest tax burden of any state except Alaska, according to the Tax Foundation. Prescription drugs and groceries are exempt from state sales taxes. For most property, only 9.5% of market value is subject to tax, so a home worth $100,000 is taxed on $9,500 of assessed value.Wyoming is high on my list. One of the best years of my life was an overnight stay in Rock Springs some years ago.
But what really surprised me was that Texas did not make it to the top five. It must be their property tax rates because Texas has no state income tax. Nor does South Dakota or Florida, to the best of my knowledge. With the fiscal problems that Pennsylvania has (Harrisburg is technically bankrupt), it is amazing that it makes the top five. Whatever.
Another link regarding this issue, click here.
On a positive note, Schlumberger's earnings soar.
Alaska and Wyoming are relying on natural resources to pay their taxes. As with North Dakota, these are states with tiny populations relative to their natural resources. North Dakota will soon be in exactly the same situation as we already see legislation moving us in that direction - using oil taxation to pay our personal/property/corporate taxes. Whehter this is a good idea is an open question. It's intersting to note that North Dakota taxes on oil combine to 11.5% (with many ameliorating details), and Alaska is now at 25% (with many ameliorating details). The latest increase in Alaska was effected under governor Palin and coincided with the run-up to $140/ barrel oil. As we all know, Alaska is not only paying their taxes with oil, citizens are receiving annual checks. When you add to this the fact that these states receive far more back from the federal government than they pay...
ReplyDeleteHess342
Yes, many, many ways to dice and slice this. I know it costs a lot more to live in North Dakota or Alaska than it does to live in south Texas. Alaskans depend on expensive air travel, as just one small example. And utility bills in south Texas in the winter are minimal compared to heating bills in ND and AK. I understand some heating bills in ND can be $300/month; my heating bill has never been higher than $50/month. Most months, in south Texas, we can get by with neither heating nor cooling, if we want. So, lots of factors to consider.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Texas and Taxes, comparing Alaska and Texas with respect to oil production and population, Alaska produces approximately 25 times more and is in gradual decline. North Dakota produces about 12 times more and is in steep incline.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Texas and our discussion of US Grant's Personal Memoirs, I took it on as an iPad productivity challenge. Grant's Memoir was found in the public domain and so dropped freely into iBooks. Because Copy/Paste failed me here (from book to Blog comment section) it was necessary to email and finish on another computer.
Just out of West Point , Grant was assigned to the southwest theater, then the western border of Louisiana. Written after an illustrious military career and two terms as US president, he writes as follows.
There was no intimation given that the removal of the 3d and 4th regiments of infantry to the western border of Louisiana was occasioned in any way by the prospective annexation of Texas, but it was generally understood that such was the case. Ostensibly we were intended to prevent filibustering into Texas, but really as a menace to Mexico in case she appeared to contemplate war. Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico—another Mexican state at that time—on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. Soon they set up an independent government of their own, and war existed, between Texas and Mexico, in name from that time until 1836, when active hostilities very nearly ceased upon the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican President. Before long, however, the same people—who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so—offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.
I certainly understand if you want to keep this uncomfortable subject out of the blog.
Hess342
Excellent post, thank you.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I was not aware that Grant's Memoirs were in the pubic domain and free to download on the iPad. Incredible. I am convinced I never have to buy another book, there is so much great free stuff to read and re-read. But I do love the feel of holding the book in my hands, and, thus, my favorite bookstore remains the Half-Price Discount chain of stores here in the south.
Your selection from the Memoirs is how I remembered Grant: he wrote very, very clearly. He was also able to encapsulate decades of history in a few sentences. I doubt things were quite so clear-cut as Grant would make them out to be, but it is what it is, as they say. What I enjoy most about such memoirs is that we are reading what a participant in the events actually observed.
A similar book to Grant's Memoirs is the history of the Five Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri by E. T. Denig, ("uncomfortable subject"). It is, most likely, "banned" by current colleges that teach Native American history, because it is so politically incorrect.
By the way, as a substitute teacher here in San Antonio, I am quite impressed with how honestly they teach Texas history. The classes are full of children of Hispanic heritage -- indeed, San Antonio, for all intents and purposes is 50/50 Caucasian and Hispanic -- and Texas history is handled very nicely for middle school students. Somehow, the history of Texas seems to have worked out quite well.
By the way, Texas students (at least in the schools where I teach) pledge allegiance to two flags: the US flag and the Texas flag. Ya gotta love it. A few "transplanted" students sit down when the Texas pledge is said, but that's fine. We all get along. Smile.
With regard to "...these states receive far more back from the federal government than they pay..." there's an interesting controversy in the "Boston Globe (November 21, 2010) regarding the largesse large corporations, such as GE, receive from the federal government. Most recently GE is holding hostage 150 jobs for a $25 million tax credit from the US ($40K/person/four years). I believe General Motors will carry forward $45 billion in debt. That plus other carry-forward obligations means that GM will probably not pay federal income taxes for 20 years. It bothers me not the least that a) ND farmers receive the subsidies they get; and, b) the fact that "some states" receive more from the federal government than their citizens pay in.
ReplyDelete