Live data from Hacker News

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

work.qz.com

61–70 of 196 posts

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

#61

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…

Can't you deduce state tax from federal income? It's really weird seeing the US get scared of a 8% tax. Those taxes are services after all.

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

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

#62

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…

> 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 my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere. While Vermont does rank high in K-12 (4th), it is ranked 36th in higher education. Vermont is also the 2nd least populated state in the country, so it remains to be seen how scale will impact the education system there.

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

#63

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…

> 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.

Agreed.

And income is one thing. Should those taxes add value, the actual difference in effective buying power, or ability to save may be marginal.

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

#64

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…

It doesn't seem like it's supposed to offset taxes, but rather to ease the financial burden of moving.

There are more reasons other than taxation to consider moving. When I moved countries, I didn't even consider taxation when I moved. I make enough money that I'm comfortable, a couple of grand here and there isn't going to upset me. When I moved, it was for lifestyle reasons, which I think is the only sensible reason to move. If you're moving to Vermont to work remotely as an attempt at saving/earning more money, you're going to have a miserable time.

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

#65
post #25

Vermont is a wonderful natural bucolic place to live. Unfortunately, I discovered the hard way that the problem they are trying to solve is likely far more intractable than that program. I co-founded a software/networking biz in VT some years ago. We really thought it was great, loved the lifestyle -- e.g., literally step out the door at lunch for a run or mtn bike in the woods, or walking meetings in the fields or w…

People are attracted to that lifestyle, unfortunately Vermont is missing a few pieces of the puzzle. Tons of people are moving to Denver and the surrounding cities where you get access to nature with the upside of still being close to major city.

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

#66

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…

Can't you deduce state tax from federal income? It's really weird seeing the US get scared of a 8% tax. Those taxes are services after all.

You can deduct it but that doesn’t reduce federal taxes by that amount. If you’re in the 25% federal tax bracket, being able to deduct that 8% state tax effectively turns it into 6% additional tax which is still a lot if you weren’t paying it before.

Edit: others pointed out that this deduction is now capped, which I didn’t realize.

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

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you deduce state tax from federal income? It's really weird seeing the US get scared of a 8% tax. Those taxes are services after all.

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 receiving any benefit?

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

#69
People seem to be taking for granted that this is a good thing. In the short term of course attracting highly paid people is a good thing. In the longer term it's only a benefit if you're the kind of person who looks at Boston and thinks it's a good, highly functional society.

Most of northern new England looks at Boston/MA and sees high cost of living, government that micromanages individuals and lots of crime. Having lived in various places in MA (including Boston) as well as NH, VT and ME I'm inclined to agree. Boston has jobs and nothing else.

Ask people who grew up in NH, VT, ME what kind of people make the place worse and they won't say baby boomers with backwards beliefs, blacks, or bigots, they'll say "Massholes."

Just from living among and talking to people in ME/VT/NH states you'll quickly get the sense that it's not the material difference that make them like the place but the cultural ones. Many people choose to live in ME, NH and VT specifically because they do not have the same busybody, sort of socialist culture (cut me some slack, it's a nebulous and hard to pin down difference) as MA.

Trying to be culturally like Boston will be the death of these states. Seriously, they're biggest industry is tourism and part of the selling point is culture and image. Part of the "branding" of northern New England is that it's a land of freedom compared to MA. You can buy beer at the grocery store, light off fireworks without cops showing up and park a project car on your lawn without your neighbors trying to get the town to bend an obscure and irreverent by law to harass you. Whether these differences are material or not doesn't matter, they're part of the branding. If people wanted to go vacation in the woods and wanted to do it in MA they could head west on I-90. If people wanted to go to the beach and do it in MA they could do it on the south-coast or cape cod.

I could go on and on and on about how to the people in NH/VT/ME the culture is more important than the money, sure they want money too but you'd be hard pressed to find someone from one of those states that thinks any amount of money or economic development is worth letting the place turn into MA.

Yes I know that a lot of you might not be able to relate to this sentiment at all but encouraging people from MA to move to NH/VT/ME is a very thorny subject for most people in NH/VT/ME

I get that ~30-something people per year isn't much but it's the sentiment of "we should be like Boston because money" (which is a prerequisite to "we should be an attractive place for people with money from Boston to relocate) is dangerous (yes I know there's nothing stopping people who are from northern New England but suffering through living in MA because that's where the jobs are from taking advantage of this program). I think the focus should be on retaining talent, not importing it.

To all the people mentioning that the CoL in Vermont is fairly high for how rural it is, well you can thank NY for that. Upstate NY and VT have their CoL inflated by all the NYC money that wants to have a vacation home or retire away from the problem. Pretty much any "tourist" destination that an upper middle class couple with kids can drive to for a weekend will have this issue. Look at housing land prices in ME and driving time to Boston for example.

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

#70
post #6

From the law: > (3) The Agency shall award grants under the Program on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to available funding, as follows: (A) not more than $125,000.00 in calendar year 2019... With such a small budget, it seems like the actual intent may have been to allocate up to $125K to generate advertising about their state. https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/B...

Northern Ireland had a no-cap for renewable heating, no one bother to ask for money for years until ppl close to the DUP figured how to exploit it and extract a billion pound or something.

Starting with a small sum makes sense, and for every remote worker they attract there might be a spouse, very likely children and suddenly you have two jobs generated on top for free.

Post reply on HN