Weather forcing people to move?

[dave1949]

Good post...Vermont is not a business friendly state...school enrollment is declining and younger folks are leaving the state.

"Business Friendly" has become a euphemism for corporate welfare. It usually amounts to an unfair shift of the tax burden to others, and lowering environmental standards which also imposes a cost on others.

Businesses have successfully pitted towns, states and countries against each other, bidding for them to locate or re-locate. Even if State and US corporate taxes were eliminated, lowered or restructured, businesses would still look for an advantage or edge somewhere else, such as environmental regulations. That is too often the nature of business these days, hands out for whatever they can get.

JD Irving of Canada is doing that now in Maine, seeking to do open-pit mining on some land they own in Aroostook County. Without a "business friendly" re-write of the mining regulations lowering environmental protections, it isn't possible.

 

[check]

OK, so back on topic, If weather is the issue, move to Hawaii, where the weather is sunny and warm but not too hot - all year round!

 

[riptides]

What about humidity? What states say are in the 70-90F temp range with humidity that is moderate? Anyplace on the east coast like this? The Florida keys? maybe?

 

[Parkanzky]

What about humidity? What states say are in the 70-90F temp range with humidity that is moderate? Anyplace on the east coast like this? The Florida keys? maybe?

I really dislike humidity, so that has always ruled Florida out for me. I'm thinking that we'll retire to Las Vegas, Scottsdale, or somewhere in Southern California.

 

[vtsnowedin]

I really dislike humidity, so that has always ruled Florida out for me. I'm thinking that we'll retire to Las Vegas, Scottsdale, or somewhere in Southern California.

You might visit Tempe Arizona in your search. I have family that snowbirded to there for decades.

 

[dave1949]

Don't worry Vermont will do it's best to get ahead of New York and regain the lead. I don't know how accurate these tables are as tax laws vary so much between states it's hard to get apples to apples comparisons. Might be better to compare total state and local spending on a per capita basis and not worry about how they extracted the money from the tax payers.
Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 | Tax Foundation
On a per capita basis I get using a couple of sources New York at $15,038 VT at $11,875 Maine at $8862 and New Hampshire at $8203.
HotReport - State & Local Government Finance - Historical Data
List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out-sized differences in state and local tax burdens would be reflected in people's choices of where to locate no doubt. I doubt if marginal differences play that much of a role.

For example, comparing Maine to New Hampshire:

2011 total state, local and out-of-state taxes.
Maine: Rank 32, $3,836
New Hampshire: Rank 9, $3,769

Or, your figures for per capita total spending:
Maine at $8862 and New Hampshire at $8203

There are many factors behind state tax burdens. In-state DoD spending and how effectively states capture federal spending (off-loaded tax burdens to other states) are two major items. Maine has the oldest average age resident of all states, resulting in more spending. Many people in Maine's southern-most county (York) do considerable shopping in New Hampshire to avoid sales tax. Northern states with snow removal budgets will spend a lot more on local roads which have to be plowed and have shorter service lives due to freezing and thawing and the corrosive effects of salt on concrete and steel bridge structures.

Some states have natural advantages such as Texas. I would assume Texas being the oil capital, gets a wee slice of income on every gallon of fuel sold in most places. California's fruits, nuts, veggies and high tech products are similar. By comparison Maine exports lobster, an ever declining value of paper products, some potatoes and blueberries.

Tax burdens are never going to be equal when the underlying conditions in the various states are far from equal to begin with.

 

[Bird]

The idea of weather making people move reminds me of what my parents did. They grew up, got married, etc. in south central Oklahoma. They moved to Baltimore, MD, when I was a baby and Dad took a job with the Social Security Administration. You have to remember, in the early '40s folks didn't have air-conditioning in their homes or offices. Dad said they told him that they closed the office and sent everyone home when the temperature got to 90. Dad, having been raised on a farm, thought that was silly; said he'd baled hay when it was 100 degrees. But he learned about the humidity difference. They did not like living in Baltimore, so they returned to Oklahoma.

Now Dad always hated cold weather, preferred the heat of the summer, even without air-conditioning, and definitely hated snow.

And then in 1965, after we'd moved to Texas in 1956, he sold the service station, auto parts store, and Greyhound & Trailways bus station that he'd built up. He and Mother took off in a little pickup camper to see a little of the west, planning to start a new auto parts store in eastern Oklahoma or western Arkansas after a little vacation and sight seeing.

They got to Seattle, noticed a sign in the window of a travel agency, went in, flew to Anchorage, rode the train to Fairbanks and back, flew back to Seattle, came straight home to get Mother's car, and load what they could in the car and pickup, moved to Anchorage, and loved it.:shocked:

It was hard for me to imagine my Dad enjoying hunting moose, caribou, & showshoe hares in the snow.

 

[vtsnowedin]

Out-sized differences in state and local tax burdens would be reflected in people's choices of where to locate no doubt. I doubt if marginal differences play that much of a role.

For example, comparing Maine to New Hampshire:

2011 total state, local and out-of-state taxes.
Maine: Rank 32, $3,836
New Hampshire: Rank 9, $3,769

Or, your figures for per capita total spending:
Maine at $8862 and New Hampshire at $8203

There are many factors behind state tax burdens. In-state DoD spending and how effectively states capture federal spending (off-loaded tax burdens to other states) are two major items. Maine has the oldest average age resident of all states, resulting in more spending. Many people in Maine's southern-most county (York) do considerable shopping in New Hampshire to avoid sales tax. Northern states with snow removal budgets will spend a lot more on local roads which have to be plowed and have shorter service lives due to freezing and thawing and the corrosive effects of salt on concrete and steel bridge structures.

Some states have natural advantages such as Texas. I would assume Texas being the oil capital, gets a wee slice of income on every gallon of fuel sold in most places. California's fruits, nuts, veggies and high tech products are similar. By comparison Maine exports lobster, an ever declining value of paper products, some potatoes and blueberries.

Tax burdens are never going to be equal when the underlying conditions in the various states are far from equal to begin with.

You have a lot of valid points there but to move a step further I think that the level of spending is less important then what the government spends the money on. A government that builds infrastructure in a cost effective way will return profits to taxpayers in the usefulness of that infrastructure where a bureaucracy that spends it's money on high salaries and circular impact studies and fraudulent welfare payments is just poring money down a rat hole.

 

[dave1949]

You have a lot of valid points there but to move a step further I think that the level of spending is less important then what the government spends the money on. A government that builds infrastructure in a cost effective way will return profits to taxpayers in the usefulness of that infrastructure where a bureaucracy that spends it's money on high salaries and circular impact studies and fraudulent welfare payments is just poring money down a rat hole.

Sure, we would all like smart and efficient government. One major impediment to that is the lack of a long-term coherent strategy aimed at useful goals. The real goals are usually the last thing a politician is going to state publicly. There is an awful lot of outright bald-faced lies told in pursuit of ideology which is really a sad thing. If the majority of voters willingly play the Emperor's New Clothes game, I don't know how basic honesty can be brought back.

 

[RoyJackson]

"Business Friendly" has become a euphemism for corporate welfare. It usually amounts to an unfair shift of the tax burden to others, and lowering environmental standards which also imposes a cost on others.

Businesses have successfully pitted towns, states and countries against each other, bidding for them to locate or re-locate. Even if State and US corporate taxes were eliminated, lowered or restructured, businesses would still look for an advantage or edge somewhere else, such as environmental regulations. That is too often the nature of business these days, hands out for whatever they can get.

JD Irving of Canada is doing that now in Maine, seeking to do open-pit mining on some land they own in Aroostook County. Without a "business friendly" re-write of the mining regulations lowering environmental protections, it isn't possible.

I disagree with most of your post...and there's a good probability that many of the regulations you write about are onerous or unnecessary.
People do need jobs...and jobs pay money that pays taxes and the economy chugging along. Granted, there always has to be a balancing act and, IMHO, that balancing act has swung way too far against business.