Kansas’ Governor and G.O.P. Seek to End Income Tax
Source: NY Times
Kansas’ Governor and G.O.P. Seek to End Income Tax
By JOHN ELIGON
TOPEKA, Kan. — ..........................................
On Wednesday, lawmakers received a bill to inch the state closer to eliminating income taxes, a centerpiece of a broad legislative vision that many in the Republican Party here hope will serve as a model of conservative governance for other states, if not the nation, to follow.
While Republican principles of small government and low taxes have holds on large swaths of the country, Kansas provides perhaps the starkest view of the crimson ideology that could challenge Mr. Obama’s Inauguration Day rallying cry.
This month, the largest tax cut in Kansas history took effect, and most of its Medicaid system was handed over to private insurers. The bill introduced this week would pare taxes further, with the goal of eventually eliminating the state’s individual income tax. Mr. Brownback has already slashed the state’s welfare roll and its work force. He has merged government agencies and is proposing further consolidation. He is pushing for pension changes, to change the way judges are selected and for altering education financing formulas.
..............................
Many here, including the governor, have characterized the state’s legislative endeavors as an experiment. Mr. Brownback, elected in 2010, and his supporters are betting that their agenda will show the rest of the country that conservatism provides a path to economic prosperity.
“I think the unique thing is that we’re applying the principles on how you get your cost down and still provide a high-quality product,” Mr. Brownback said in an interview. “That’s been in the private sector, but it hasn’t been in the public sector for 50 years.”
Skeptics, meanwhile, contend that Mr. Brownback is leading Kansas toward economic devastation that will leave many of the state’s residents without basic services and its children without a proper education. “It kind of eliminates a large group of Kansans out of that pursuit of happiness,” Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, a Wichita Democrat, said of the governor’s proposals. “They will still struggle. They’ll pay the highest taxes. They are already working jobs with no benefits or very little benefits.”
...........................................
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/politics/gov-sam-brownback-seeks-to-end-kansas-income-tax.html?_r=0
The race to the bottom continues. Koch Industries is located in Wichita Kansas. I smell ALEC
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)than those with state income tax. We have no state income tax here in WA state and we are in better shape than CA which has the tax. OR is doing OK also because they have no sales tax.
The reason might be more businesses relocate to states with no state income tax which brings in
more sales tax, more construction, more property tax etc. WA state has relied on sales tax for many years.
cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)How State Taxes Put a Bigger Pinch on the Poor
By Bruce Watson
Posted 6:00AM 02/13/12
...................snip..........
Every State Puts More Burden on Low Income Workers
And the differences aren't minor: In the median state, Mississippi, the poorest 20% of workers pay almost twice as high a percentage of their income as the richest 1%. In Washington state, the worst, they pay 17.3% of their income -- more than six times as much as the top 1%. What's more, this is true in all states -- even those that don't have an income tax. In fact, states that rely on sales taxes to make ends meet tend to hit the poor even more harshly, as low-income workers spend most of their paychecks on necessities.
When state taxes are factored into our overall tax percentage, the results are striking. In Washington state, for example, adding 17.3% to the 4% effective income tax rate yields a whopping 21.3% tax on income. While still lower than the 27.7% total tax rate of a top income bracket worker, it's still pretty shocking.
The gap gets even wider when one considers the impact of historically low dividend and capital gains tax rates. For a Washington state billionaire like Bill Gates, most of whose income comes from investments, it's likely that his overall tax rate is lower than that of a bottom-tier worker.
Throughout its history, America's tax rate has been progressive -- the more you make, the greater a percentage you pay into the system. The main exception to that rule have been Social Security and Medicare: Since they're capped at a certain income level, the poor pay a larger percentage of their incomes into those programs than the rich. The political justification for this is that the poor take greater advantage of these programs than the rich, and should therefore pay more.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/13/how-state-taxes-put-a-bigger-pinch-on-the-poor/
From worst to best-Washington is the worst in the nation. Followed by mostly Red states. And they are a solid Blue state?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)to CA which admittedly is lot fairer in taxing.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)the unemployment rate for Washington fell 0.4 percentage points in November 2012 to 7.8%. The state unemployment rate was 0.0 percentage points lower than the national rate for the month.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/washington/
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)From your data posted, SC is a "very" Red state yet the SC State taxation burden seems to be the 3rd best (treating DC as a state of course). The red to purple state of NC isn't bad either for tax equity.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)WA's budget is in bad enough shape that the previous (D) gov tried to impose drastic cuts to long-term services and supports that keep people with disabilities out of nursing homes. Disability rights advocates fought the cuts in court and won. Then the gov considered appealing to SCOTUS -- which would have allowed the Roberts Court to review Olmstead v. L.C., the 1999 decision that states that living in the community (not an institution) is a civil right. 
Jerry Brown here in CA made similar cuts, which have also been blocked by the courts. So neither state is exactly setting the world on fire. Of course, the lack of an income tax isn't the only culprit. Microsoft managed to get WA's royalty tax slashed by two-thirds. Seems the head of the Senate budget committee is an ex-Microsoft manager who presumably owns bundles of MSFT stock. 
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Redmond is a superb town to live in. Very vibrant, lots of new construction, roads are well maintained, shopping malls are modern, and jobs are plenty. My dentist has a hard time finding employees! And he pays much more than his previous location in southern WA state.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The question is, what's life like for those on the other side of the tracks?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)and now live north of Seattle. I have not encountered any dilapidated, crime infested areas anywhere in my exploration of this state. Previously I spent many years in Chicagoland, and there were plenty of really bad areas there. Boarded up houses, shuttered plants were plenty in Chicago. Nothing like that exists in WA state. Our students are also doing better than average.
Overall this is a very good state, if you do not mind the drizzle 10 months of the year.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Oregons debt per person is $9,000 and Washington's is $11,000.
Oregon has an income tax which was recently raised on the rich last year but we have no sales tax.
We dont believe the unemployed and poor should be paying tax while the billionaires live tax free like in Washington state.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)When I lived in Vancouver, all shopping we did in Portland except groceries/food which are not taxed in WA.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)
I heard an economist on CNBC yesterday say that the whole world economy depends on the US economy which is 70% consumer based so he said our first priority must be to protect the US consumer.
A sales tax is not that. It punishes consumers. Washington state's millionaires and billionaires live tax-free. They import 90% of their retail purchases and their property tax is probably a tiny fraction of their income ...
while unemployed in Washington have to pay 10% sales tax with zero income. Doesnt seem fair.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Cuts are going on in almost all states, nationwide. Red state, blue state, does not matter. May be the Dakota's are an exception since they discovered shell oil production.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)that CA is in the same boat. The point is that neither state has much of an edge over the other, despite the very different tax structures.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)education here is an abysmal mess...has been for decades. It is also a right to work state, so wages and benefits are lower.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Nice place to visit in winter, but that is about it. I was sweating there in January in Miami airport!
Here in Seattle, only time I ever sweat is when exercising strenuously in summer. Florida has extreme distribution of wealth from what I gather. Very rich people have magnificent homes on the coast while many poor people live in ramshackle homes. Homes in WA state are no where that extreme, except for Bill Gates house being the major exception.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)where the super rich live cheek-by-jowl with the desperately poor...literally. The magnificent homes have moved inland as well...million dollar 'shacks' 6 and 7 miles from the coast. 
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Our unemployment rate is 5.2%.
Oregon, the state you're saying is doing okay? 8.4% - above the national average.
You can't just compare everything to California. They're not the only state with income taxes, don't you know.
Nevada is also another state with no income taxes and their unemployment rate is 10.2 - higher than California's.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)But they benefit from us neighbors shopping there with no sales tax. Otherwise Oregon would be
financial basket case like California.
Nevada is a special case similar to Florida. They had the biggest housing boom a few years
back. Bigger booms are always followed by the inevitable bigger bust. In spite of that
look into Nevada's financial situation versus Cali. You will see they are quite different.
California is blessed with enormous natural advantages. Lots of fertile land, magnificent ocean
frontage, and arguably the best climate along the coast in entire country. Nevada is just a
desert.
While Bill Gates and his ilk in Medina and Mercer Island relax on their billions in their 60,000 SF "houses," you may have noticed that the infrastructure is falling apart, the state is $1 billion short on basic education funding and the usual laundry list of other failings. The biggest potential "sales tax" item in the state - Boeing airplanes -- are "delivered" over the ocean to avoid paying anything.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Both my kids received excellent high school education in WA. UW had 23,000 applicants and
under 6000 received admission. Both my kids got admitted.
So I have zero complains about education in WA. In the meanwhile I am saving several
thousand dollars each year in taxes which helps us pay the college tuition.
PSPS
(13,599 posts)I'm happy for your kids, but we've still got a big problem with the horribly regressive tax system in Washington and the third-world infrastructure that accompanies it.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:52 PM - Edit history (2)
I spent 35 years living in and around Chicago. Terrible pot holes on numerous streets,
especially the poor neighborhoods, snow plowing is also horrible in poor neighborhoods.
I used to work near 93rd street & Kenwood and driving in winter was a nightmare.
There were shuttered factories galore and whole neighborhoods full of boarded up homes.
The cops in Chicago are the most corrupt anywhere. When stopped for a traffic violation,
they will let you off if you bribe them. They have stopped me twice for 100% wrong
reasons trying to shake me down. When I refused to bribe them, they wrote me a
ticket and lied in court. They used to stop me routinely since I did not have a city sticker
on my car because I was then living in a suburb. You should see the disappointment on
their face when they saw my address on the driver's license from a nearby suburb so I did
not need the Chicago city sticker on my windshield. No chance to get a bribe.
Compared to that, Seattle is a breath of fresh air. Streets are well maintained, traffic lights
work, and I have never been stopped by traffic cops. We have Waste Management company
pick up garbage, always punctual. My wife and I love living near Seattle. Oh, OK it drizzles
a lot, but no snow to shovel.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)as has been in headlines for the last two weeks...
bunnies
(15,859 posts)and unemployment is 5.7%. Maybe we are an exception. 
cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)
JPK
(651 posts)Sounds like Kansas and Kansans wants to return to a simpler time. Not like life is all that complex in Kansas to begin with. A return to a time where it's thought people commingled playfully with the dinosaurs. Where you can work your minimum wage job with no benefits serving travelers passing through the state heading for anywhere civilized but where you are. A place where you have to have a vegetable garden in the back yard of your hut owned by your land baron so you can feed your family. Returning home after a six day week with 12 hour work days with no overtime pay. A place where the morality police make their rounds to make sure you comply with quasi state/civil moral regulations. A place where medical services can only be afforded and used by those who are worthy of being healed because they are critical to the state government and the corporate oligarchy. You have arrived in the perfect utopian republican state where the fruits of your labor enrich the wealthy and their state government cronies. Leaving your existence as barren as the vast flat brown Kansas landscape. Your only escape and glimmer of hope is placed in a magical being that promises to take you to a heavanly place after your broken body has been used up and buried in the dirt.
EYUP.....I want to move to Kansas, the sun flower state.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)gone!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)If so, doesn't that make them a "welfare state"?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Booby Jindal in LA has come up with a similar plan which would likely raise LA's salex tax to 7 percent -- except in those parishes (counties) that have local sales taxes, like Orleans (New Orleans), where the sales tax would be 12 percent.
yardwork
(61,622 posts)Our new Republa-Bagger governor is pushing to eliminate the state income tax and replace it with a higher sales tax. The ALEC-robots who now run the state legislature are keen.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)the next election cycle or two. When education dollars are cut off it takes quite some time before the full effect is felt. Conversely, it will take quite a while to overcome the effects of a few years of lower educational standards. Hopefully some of the shorter term victims will be enough to turn the state around. I know the state supreme court overturned an earlier education budget. They said the cuts were too drastic.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Interesting that nobody had a comment on my thread but this one is blowing up.
I guess nobody likes me
mike_c
(36,281 posts)
Could not resist.
judesedit
(4,438 posts)buy, you pay taxes on. You buy big things, you pay big taxes. You buy little things, you pay little taxes. I hope it comes to this personally. The poor will not have to suffer as much.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)The income tax is what saved the nation in the 1930's.
Half the people during the depression were making zero or very little income while we had 1000's of very rich still making a lot of money. They were forced to raise the top rate income tax from 20% to 63% in 1932 because the US revenue had dried up. That revenue made the New Deal possible which helped cut unemployment to 12% and raised the GDP from -15% in 1932 to to 8% by 1936.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, you have to understand how the Income Tax came about, England was fighting the Napoleonic Wars and needed money. The English traditional source of revenue, raiding Spanish Gold shipments from the New World were used, but found NOT to be enough to raise the money needed. High Tariff;s were adopted, but encouraged smuggling which undermined the whole Tariff's effort AND permitted the Enemies of France to continue to trade for English Goods even while they were in all out war with England. The landed aristocracy fought against any tax on land, thus England turned to the Income Tax to raise the revenue they needed to defeat Napoleon.
After the Napoleonic Wars, the Tariff was dropped in favor of Free Trade (and leading to the death of Smuggling in England), land taxes were still opposed, and sales taxes were found NOT to bring in the money needed (In fact without the sales of Automobiles in the 20th Century, Sales Taxes tend NOT to bring in the money needed). Thus the Income Tax was retained, for it was the only reliable way to raise revenue. The US adopted an Income Tax in 1862, which lasted till 1874 when the GOP congress repealed it after paying down the Civil War Debt (a pay-down that lead to the economic problems of the 1870s and 1880s including the General Strike of 1877, the closest thing to a Marxist revolt the US ever had, extended from Baltimore to St, Louis, including Chicago and Pittsburgh).
The "Long Depression" lasted longer then the Great Depression of the 1930s (and was called the "Great Depression" by writers who wrote before the 1930s), the reason for the Depression, the Government insistence that debt be paid back and the gold standard restored. Since you did not need an Income tax to do both, Income taxation was opposed, but Tariff's were supported in the US (and would remain high through WWII, when it became apparent that such tariff were hampering the growth of industry in Europe and thus helping the Soviets Spread Communism).
Notice, without auto sales, Sales taxes do NOT bring in the revenue needed, In fact one of the problems in recent years is more and more lower income people are keeping their cars longer, and as such paying less sales tax. That along with reduction in driving due to high Gasoline prices have affected the States when it comes to revenues.
We have to remember Taxation reduces money available for other things, but also that Governments need Revenue from taxation to pay for services provided by the Government. Thus taxes are needed, the real question is what to tax for the maximum amount of revenue AND the least affect on the economy?
Sales, taxes as long as it remains a nuisance tax, is generally paid, but once you go over certain thresholds people start to avoid paying it (i.e. cheat). The threshold appears to be about 10%, under 10% no great cheating for the savings is not that much, over 10%, the amount of money saves starts to become significant enough for people to cheat. Thus most States try to keep their Sales tax below 10%, but most states are close to that cut off and thus increase Sales tax will NOT bring in more revenue due to the effect of increase cheating to avoid the Sales tax.
States can NOT do Tariff's and taxes on personal property has the effect of people hiding what they own. Again not a great source of revenue.
The above are similar to the problems England faces around 1800 and the US faced in 1862, and in both cases the solution was the Income Tax. It brought in the revenue needed and if you exclude people making less then median income ($50,000 today) you do not waste time auditing low income people. In fact the early income taxes were aimed at the 1%, for then you can hire the accountants to check on those people's income (In fact the present Federal Income Tax was designed in the early 1930s under Hoover to include low income people, on the theory that if you exclude them, low income people would demand income taxes to be raised, for they did not pay them). With Computers, if you use 1040A or 1040EZ your income tax is audited by Computer (in fact one proposal about 10 years ago was to abolish 1040A and 1040 EZ and just leave the Federal Government fill out the forms, for the Government Computers can and do, do those forms to check if they are correct, the proposal was lobbied against by those agencies that do people's income Taxes).
The real test for modern Income Tax is the 1040 which is more complicated due to the demand that it reflect non-earned income (i.e. income from investments). There 1040 is complicated due to the efforts to make the Income Tax fairer And to encourage various efforts to improve this country via the Income Tax system.
The real problem with the Federal Income Tax system is that under Reagan, the top rate was reduced from 70% to 25% and the 50% income disregard for long term Capital Gain was eliminated. Prior to that change, the 70% top tax rate ended up discouraging speculators, for the simple reason any gain, 70% went to the Federal Government. Now if you held an investment for five years or longer, then the gain was reduced by the 50% long term capital gain exception, then taxed at 70% (i.e. 70% of 50% or 35% real rate). The pre-Reagan system encouraged long term investments and discouraged speculation. His elimination of the Long Term Capital Gain exception AND the Reduction of the top rate to 35% lead to the increasing speculation in stocks, which we are paying for today. FDR's solution, gain due to speculations goes to the Government was the better way to handle the economy then the system today, when speculators get to kept almost all of their gain.
If a state has a graduated Income Tax, and excludes most people and just go after the Rich (For that is where the money is), income taxes work, they are fair and they produce the revenue needed by the State. Thus Income Taxes tend to be the fairest tax, if they are concentrated on the 1%, for that is where the money is.
Now. Henry George advocated the use of taxes on Real Estate, taxes NOT on the improvements on the Real Estate (i.e. housing or a business) but the land itself and its value based on what is around it, including where it is. Henry George called such taxes the "Fairest" taxes in the world, for it gave to the state the revenue from the land, independent of the use of that land. i.e. if a piece of land is at the corner of two intersections, its value is high for who ever owns that land can have a business that produces a lot a revenue. The Value of the land is NOT based on what someone does independent of the land, but the location itself. George asked "Who should get that value, given the community was the one who paid for the roads and thus the intersections?".
Henry George advocated taxes on land, based on its value independent of what was built on it. George viewed any improvements as something someone did and should get any value of that improvement, on the other hand improvements done by others, namely the state in regards to the road, if that increased value of the land, that increase value should go to the State. i.e. whoever did the improvement should get any increase in value, not some speculator who happens to be the title holder of some property.
In fact one of the main problem with the Third World is the concept of the Rentier, someone who gets money from owning land, but does nothing to improve the land or even use the land. George was NOT the first to oppose the Rentier, other economists before him also attacked those Rentiers.
Now Marx attacked Rentiers, but so did Adam Smith, thus George attacked a group that had been attacked for over 200 years before he did it. The best way to attack such Rentiers is to tax income or property, for as income goes up, how much people invest in property goes up. This was one of the reason England could NOT raise property taxes in the early 1800, the property owning classes control Parliament and refused to increase such taxes, ending up opting for the Income Tax for Birmingham and its industry would pay income taxes, even while they land taxes stayed low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
His Book: Progress and poverty:
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm
More on Rentiers:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/who-are-the-rentiers/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=0
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I really hope you're 14 years old or something, because TLDR coming from an adult with even basic education is beyond sad...
daleo
(21,317 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)so if they stash, no spend no tax. The middle class, working poor and poor spend all or most of their money, taxes on 100% of their income.
This sales tax only thing is a GREAT BIG SCAM by the 1/100% of money holders. Remember, if the gop endorses it, it's a pile of steaming shi*.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Components of formerly USSR and satellites have seen the light of punishing the most
productive and gone into reverse.
Amazing fact: China now has 150 Billionaires and ONE MILLION new millionaires. China
used to be dirt poor during Mao's rule. There is nothing more progressive than
communism. Everybody is guaranteed a job or welfare. Now they are going the opposite
direction and on route to becoming the biggest economy in the world. Middle class has
exploded in China compared to Mao's regime.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)The poor and middle class spend a far greater percentage of their total income on consumable items than do the very rich, who invest or save a huge amount of their income.
In other words, the poor and middle class get taxed on a higher percentage of their income with a consumption tax. A progressive income tax means the effective tax rate is fair.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)My wife quit her job because our combined income meant so much more higher income tax.
By quitting her job, we saved on her car expense, her clothing expense, day care expense,
and more time to exercise and keep better health.
People should be rewarded for working hard, and produce something useful. Not punished.
Sales tax makes perfect sense. If you buy a luxury car, you should pay more tax. If you buy
a basic car, you should be rewarded by paying less percentage tax.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...toward eradicating deep deficits and revitalizing the state's economy, using public sector solutions. Personally, I think Kansas is going to end up being a model for the worst ways to run a state and an economy. I'm glad I live in California, rather than Kansas.
patrice
(47,992 posts)seeing staffers hire in in-experienced staffing recruiters right off of the streets. Apparently there's enough mark-up on the bodies the recruiters place that the actual HR "talent" that runs these places can hang out at the mall, or the athletic club, or wherever, while newbie recruiters do the mass-marketing almost-cold calling, get some bodies for around the federal minimum, $7.15 hr? or less even if they can make that happen under the table, and everyone, except the persons who do the actual work without benefits and without job security let alone opportunity for advancement as anything but one of those green recruiters, walks away happy.
finecraft
(1,213 posts)Coincidence? I hardly think so. I smell ALEC hard at work. Any one know of any other states with Republican Governors in the process of doing this?
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)I live in NC. This no income tax crap is also a platform of the Koch brothers Americans for Prosperity. Our newly appointed budget director is a founding member and Brownback and Jindal are also members.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)They said industry will relocate to these States and leave the other States with no jobs..
That was their plan.... 
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)turn out the lights. The rest of the moldering imbeciles can sit and shit in their soon-to-be-darkened hovels. Much in the fashion of the peasantry of the Dark Ages. Which is exactly what they are turning themselves into. 
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)It's a grinch-state now, steal from the 99%, so the 1/100% can have it all. WTF is the matter with Kansas? Neo-conservatism.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)Don't the counties usually provide the bulk of educational funding? Maybe that is a way to go - counties change income property tax based on home value... higher home value equals higher tax rate? Of course localities would have to set their own tier levels because property prices vary widely.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)If property taxes are too high people on fixed incomes or out of work that own homes wont be able to pay their property taxes and then lose them. Thats what happened in the 1930's when the states depended mostly just on prop tax. Millions lost their homes from tax default and the states went broke requiring the Feds to bail them out which blew the national debt out of control.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Is that high?
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)NC property taxes are generally much. much lower. Generally in the county, outside of city limits your property tax usually is 0.8-1.0%, in the cities it ranges around 1.2%-1.5%. Plano, TX has a 2.2% tax rate. However Texas has Homestead Deductions, which NC does not.
My taxes are based on a property tax value of $94,800 and a Guilford County & Fire District 13 combined tax rate of 0.8842%.
But then my NC income tax assessment for 2011 was about $4200.
Texas can afford not to assess income tax because they tax oil and natural gas production, about 4% of market price for oil, 7.5% for natural gas. North Carolina doesn't tax this, most likely because we don't produce much oil or natural gas. That's the big difference between NC and TX as far as taxes go.
Joel thakkar
(363 posts)I mean there should be no income tax (state level) till 400k-500k (couples)...after that they can charge...
MADem
(135,425 posts)Classic "rich get richer, poor get poorer" scenario.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)& our unemployment is 5.7%. Property taxes are through the roof though
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)I thought their motto live free or die? haha THeir unemployment might be so low because half NH people are probably living "off the grid" you might say and not even file with the IRS every year. I know a guy like that. He's never filed in his life and so cant get food stamps, which he qualifies for, or wont be able to get SS or anything. He's paranoid of the gubmint.
Most states used to get most revenue from just property tax. This became a huge problem in the 1930's when unemployment skyrocketed to 30% and millions lost their homes from property tax default. That meant the states quickly went broke and the US had to bail them out which caused the US to go broke. So in 1932 Hoover and congress had to raise the income tax top marginal rate from 20% to 63% because the top 1% were the only people making any significant money.
