Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Best and Worst States For Taxes (2000 Bush States Are Best, Gore States Are Worst!)
MSN | 2/11/03 | Phillip Harper

Posted on 02/11/2003 12:50:25 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Recovering_Democrat
Note also that the high-income states vote Gore, and the low income states vote Bush. Rich Democrats make me puke.

B.C., FARGO, ND! Yah!
21 posted on 02/11/2003 8:27:59 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Islamofascism sucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Something fishy about these lists. I find it hard to believe that Washington is second worst with no income tax.
22 posted on 02/11/2003 10:23:04 PM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
bump
23 posted on 02/11/2003 11:01:06 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
Not true, Washington is not heavily populated, has no income tax and low property taxes, but we are still #2 on the list of most heavily taxed states.
24 posted on 02/11/2003 11:12:01 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
I've seen better studies than this one indicating what a high-tax state Connecticut has become. I can honestly say that CT and NJ only look good taxwise when compared to New York CITY, although even that is not entirely true, as our property taxes here in the city (despite Bloomberg's recent hike) are still substantially lower than the suburbs.
25 posted on 02/12/2003 1:26:17 AM PST by Clemenza (East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Eva
So what's not true? Regardless of population or the presence of local taxes, if the majority of Washingtonians earn substantial salaries, the percentage burden will be necessarily higher than that of a state with lower average salaries.

Example: If average income in MS is $20k/year, their federal percentage burden falls in the 15% range. If WA averages $70k, the percentage burden is closer to 27%. So, a state with higher incomes (note NY, CT, and NJ) will by definition have a higher percentage burden.
26 posted on 02/12/2003 10:52:56 AM PST by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
It's all about per capita income. The progressive income tax structure automatically increases the percentage burden on states with high salaries (relative to others).

You can break it down even further, to show the silliness of the data here. I would wager that the percentage burden of taxes in Darien, CT blows Hartford, CT out of the water, simply because income levels in Darien are higher than Hartford.
27 posted on 02/12/2003 10:56:45 AM PST by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
The average family wage in the county where I live is $23,000/yr. There are counties in more rural areas where the family wage is considerably lower, where logging has been the tradition and families go on welfare and unemployment for five months out of every year.
28 posted on 02/13/2003 8:38:01 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson