Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely • Hacker News Board

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#101

Post by rhcom2 » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

swebs wrote: post #91

jimhefferon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... ). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here.

And yet the neighboring state of New Hampshire, which has some of the lowest taxes in the country (0% sales tax, 0% state income tax), beats Vermont handily in SAT scores. https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-s... What does Vermont have to show for its higher spending? Why do you see higher spending as an automatically good thing if it doesn't have any evidence of having a beneficial effect?

Possibly because until recently NH had all high schoolers take the SATs to be used in statewide assessments. It would follow teachers would then spend classroom time preparing their students for it.

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#102

Post by leetcrew » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #90

leetcrew wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more cynical view is that this was done on purpose to harm blue states that tend to have higher state income taxes this could very well be true, but it does seem unfair in the first place to be able to deduct state income tax. it's great that some states have decided to increase their income taxes to offer more services to their citizens, but why should tax payers in other states have to subsidize them without…

Generally those states pay more than they receive in federal funds.

not exactly, only about 15 states pay more federal tax than they receive back, and they're not all the ones you would expect. [0]

still, this is a valid point. the net flow of cash is certainly an important thing to consider, but i do think it is worth making the distinction between federal and state taxes. i happen to live in a (very blue) state that receives more federal dollars than we pay in taxes. if i lived in a creditor state, i would certainly not be thrilled with the situation, but i would accept that the tax is raised (at least ostensibly) for the national interest and may not be spent evenly among the states. state taxes, on the other hand, are raised exclusively for the benefit of that state. we can argue about how to allocate federal dollars most fairly, but i really feel that state taxes should not be directly subsidized by citizens of other states.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#103

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #67

mrguyorama wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not (as much, see below) anymore. That was specifically removed by the recent tax overhaul The more cynical view is that this was done on purpose to harm blue states that tend to have higher state income taxes

> The more cynical view is that this was done on purpose to harm blue states that tend to have higher state income taxes this could very well be true, but it does seem unfair in the first place to be able to deduct state income tax. it's great that some states have decided to increase their income taxes to offer more services to their citizens, but why should tax payers in other states have to subsidize them without…

Nobody subsidizes many blue states, which in fact subsidize many poorer states (as Texas does as well).

I'm not sure how I feel about the concept, but one rationalization is that if a basic need, like road funding, is suitably taken care of at the state level by high state income taxes, then the state needs less federal funding. It's sort of a usage qualifier I guess.

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#104

Post by 0xfeba » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

jimmy1 wrote: post #62

jimhefferon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... ). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here.

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... ). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here. It's a little more nuanced than that, and not necessarily an either/or as you have described it. More than likely in…

> More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient [...] spender

The government is made up of people. In my experience, it isn't the funding amount that correlates with inefficiencies, it's the distance from accountability that does.

So one can reduce the taxes all one likes, a 30% wasteful department is still going to waste 30%. I'd rather target the inefficiencies themselves.

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#105

Post by antonvs » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

verelo wrote: post #55

ainiriand wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they plan to give a grant of 10k from a total of 125k do you know if they intend to give it to 12.5 persons willing to relocate? Strange figures.

Given it's "up to $10k" it could easily be 125 people at $1k each.

Good news everyone! The State of Vermont will buy you a one-way train ticket to come and live there.

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#106

Post by amichal » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

jackhack wrote: post #19

For many, this won't even begin to offset the increase in income and property taxes from this notoriously high-tax state. Individual or business, you're likely to pay more. http://money.cnn.com/gallery/smallbusiness/2012/10/15/state-... >>The income tax has a top rate of 8.95%. This ranks as the sixth-highest in the U.S., although it only applies to taxpayers making over $413,350 per year. Meanwhile, total state and…

High yes but 8.95% is the marginal rate for incomes over 413,350/yr. The median income (according to recent census data) is 57k/yr. On a 100k you would pay something like 5% to Vermont.

$0 - $37,650 3.55% $37,650 - $91,150 6.80% $91,150 - $190,150 7.80% $190,150 - $413,350 8.80% $413,350+ 8.95%

https://smartasset.com/taxes/vermont-tax-calculator

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#107

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

saudioger wrote: post #81

beauzero wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are looking for warmer I would suggest Carrollton, GA, Montgomery, AL or Chattanooga, TN. AL has the second lowest property taxes in the USA and while not 2015 Detroit cheap it does have 2018 Detroit cheap housing prices.

Unfortunately all of these places are in the south.

[deleted]

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#108

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #102

Redoubts wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally those states pay more than they receive in federal funds.

not exactly, only about 15 states pay more federal tax than they receive back, and they're not all the ones you would expect. [0] still, this is a valid point. the net flow of cash is certainly an important thing to consider, but i do think it is worth making the distinction between federal and state taxes. i happen to live in a (very blue) state that receives more federal dollars than we pay in taxes. if i lived in…

[deleted]

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#109

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

eertami wrote: post #58

lotsofpulp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, proportionally, more smart young people who have the skills for tech work prefer living in cities with other like minded people. So if you want to hire them, you have to be there otherwise someone else will employ them.

Then have the office in the city and allow remote work as an option, best of both? I've done both, a lot for those smart young people you mention, often lack hobbies, and those ones are extremely boring. I'd rather remote in from a mountain town where I can ski, mountain bike and hike than suffer year round with decreased QoL of a city.

One man's decrease in QoL is another man's increase, when it comes to the rural/urban distinction.

Re: Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely

#110

Post by josefresco » Thu, May 31, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

Reading through these comments, especially about Burlington reminds me that everything is relative.

Coming from a relatively rural area, Burlington appears to be thriving, tech savvy and a wonderful place for a young person. I went to school there in the late 90's and just recently visited with my kids and was blown away by the growth outside the city downtown. My wife and I both were intrigued at the idea of living there and wondered if the town/city could support our small business.

However, reading comments from those used to Boston, San Fran or even those who have lived IN Burlington paints a very different picture.

I think if you're coming from a rural area, Burlington is a massive upgrade. However don't expect big-city tech infrastructure or any sort of comparable startup scene if your benchmark are the East/West tech hubs.