New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#2City's so-called charm can't save it if it doesn't provide affordable and crime free urban housing. City officials should be held accountable for this on every election. Other topics can wait, this is most urgent
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#3The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#4The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.
>The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.
The downside being you have to spend at least half the year in TX or FL. I had such a choice and rejected it for that reason.
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#5City's so-called charm can't save it if it doesn't provide affordable and crime free urban housing. City officials should be held accountable for this on every election. Other topics can wait, this is most urgent
Yes, the housing being too expensive because too many people have too much money is a major problem to solve. You’d think people fleeing to Texas would lead to lower housing prices, but that isn’t really occurring. I guess that’s the difference between fleeing due to “it’s too crowded, so everyone is leaving” (ie San Francisco) in contrast to fleeing due to a lack of economic opportunities (ie Detroit).
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#6The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.
>The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling. The downside being you have to spend at least half the year in TX or FL. I had such a choice and rejected it for that reason.
How’s it work if you don’t spend half the year anywhere but spend the most time in FL or TX?
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling. The downside being you have to spend at least half the year in TX or FL. I had such a choice and rejected it for that reason.
How’s it work if you don’t spend half the year anywhere but spend the most time in FL or TX?
>How’s it work if you don’t spend half the year anywhere but spend the most time in FL or TX?
This site[0] should answer your question for the several states. In general:
Most U.S. states require residents to pay income taxes to the state as well
as to the federal government. The factors that determine residency vary by
state, but usually involve a person having established their domicile in that
state or having spent more than half the year there.
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#8The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.
>The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling. The downside being you have to spend at least half the year in TX or FL. I had such a choice and rejected it for that reason.
Sure, but clearly a lot of people are taking it. For me personally it means 25k in more discretionary spend, a lot of which I'm using to travel the world w/ my remote job. Also if this exodus continues taxes are just going to go up (they already are on the payroll side in NYC to fund the MTA) to make up the deficit.
Re: New York and California lost over $90B in income to low-tax states
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling. The downside being you have to spend at least half the year in TX or FL. I had such a choice and rejected it for that reason.
How’s it work if you don’t spend half the year anywhere but spend the most time in FL or TX?
In CA, “half a year” is 5 months. Also, there is a long list of factors the FTB uses to go after you to prove you still have significant contacts with CA to extract tax from you. A clean, permanent break is best. Worked well with tax attorney planning. Was great getting a free house in tax savings by leaving that state. Plus I can retire earlier. Nice state but no longer worth it unless you make little or no money.