States with no income tax

[tryan]

weeelll, my parents are in NY with a 230k house paying 8k in property taxes. Then they have a sales tax and income tax to deal with ... makes NH look damn good.

 

[Gillette]

True NH has no sales tax or income tax. But, they make up for that with high property taxes.

I pay $5000 yearly on a house valued at $259K by the tax office. The vast majority of that is school tax.

NH actually comes up 49 out of 50 (1 being worst, 50 being best) for the tax friendliest state according to this article on CNN Money.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/10/pf/taxes/taxfriendly_states_2006/index.htm

 

[renferme]

States are going to get their money one way or another. If there are no income taxes, property taxes or sales taxes will be high, and if there is no sales tax, then income taxes or property taxes will be high, and so on.

I think it is most advantageous for retired people to choose states that specifically give retirees a break by not taxing social security and/or pensions. This might not be helpful immediately, if you don't qualify for either yet, but it will be helpful when you do. The reason why this is helpful is that most of the taxes are being extracted from other segments of the population and retirees are getting special privileges. So, the state is still getting their money from somewhere - - just not from us.

.
Here in Pa., state income tax is 3.07% flat, and property taxes are high,
especially here in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh's county). Plus the local
muni. charges a 1.0% wage tax.
But, the good news is that pensions are not taxable by the state or local muni.
Bad news, is property tax on my house, assessed at a bit under 200,000,
is $4800/year, ouch!

And our infamous governor wants to raise just about all taxes.
Rendell, as it turns out, is the worst governor this state has ever had.
When he was elected, he told everyone that he inherited a budget deficit,
but of course, that was a lie, as the state constitution requires a balance budget
every year. But, what do you expect from a politician, the truth, no way.

 

[ex_CFO_now_RVer]

We are Texas residents (a PO BOX) with our summer home in Ohio. Saves us about $7,000 per year in Ohio tax. Wewatch how many days we spend in Ohio.

Dave

 

[audreyh1]

When my monthly property taxes hit $500 on a $200k house, they not only seemed high, they were. I stayed in TX but moved from the city to an unincorporated area where taxes on a $200k house are around $350/month. That still seems high to me, and unlike your one-time diesel tax, it goes on and on and on.

I lived on the outskirts of Austin and paid a total about $4500 annual in property taxes ($375/month) on a $150K home. I can't help but think I would have paid a lot more than that if property tax rates were lower, but we also had a state income tax.

Audrey

 

[renferme]

I lived on the outskirts of Austin and paid a total about $4500 annual in property taxes ($375/month) on a $150K home. I can't help but think I would have paid a lot more than that if property tax rates were lower, but we also had a state income tax.

Audrey

Here in Pa., we have to worst of 2 worlds: high property taxes and a flat rate 3.07% state income tax, and a 1% local muni. wage tax - and a governor that wants to raise both the state sales tax (7% now in Allegheny County) and the state income tax.
I should point out that the sales tax is not on food or clothing, but if it goes up to 8%,
I'll never buy another auto.
Fortunately, my pension is not taxable by the state or the local muni.

 

[2B]

We are Texas residents (a PO BOX) with our summer home in Ohio. Saves us about $7,000 per year in Ohio tax. Wewatch how many days we spend in Ohio.

Dave

You're on my plan. I want to "move" somewhere else but maintain a Texas PO box. The key is not staying too long as you mention. The savings can be substantial.

 

[scrinch]

Can you tell me any other place that taxes are charged this way?

california.

I live in California. My next door neighbor bought his house in 1960 for $20K. I bought my house in 1985 for $110K (but upgraded the house so my cost basis is now $200K). The couple across the street bought their house last year for $700K. They're basically all the same houses, worth $650K-$750K in today's market. Next door neighbor pays $250/yr in property tax. I pay $2500/yr. Across the street they pay $8000/yr. All to live in the same neighborhood, drive the same roads, and support the same schools. This seems out of whack to me. Let's freeze property taxes at age 65, and before that everyone pays the same.

 

[73ss454]

Amazing, I thought Fla. was the only place with a tax burden that made no sense.

 

[dumpster56]

Taxes. Nutty around the usa. Seems to me after my living and paying big taxes in NJ that almost anyplace else was a good place. But alas, the country is filling up fast now over 300 million people and everyplace will look like NJ in time along with the taxes to have stuff done, like schools and roads and social services.

That said I still get a shiver when I think of how much more the people who bought my old house in NJ are paying for their property taxes on the house that I was paying almost 8,000 a year. They are paying 11,000 a year!! On top of a 400,000 mortgage.

Here in North Carolina they seem to nickle and dime you BUT my property taxes are in the 3,000 dollar range for a 350,000 dollar house and when they talk of increasing taxes as they are doing this year the possible increas is 2 cents per 100 or 60 dollars a year! Not 15 cents or 20 cents like happened this year in my old town!

 

[farmerEd]

Let's freeze property taxes at age 65, and before that everyone pays the same.

Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...that would presume that all folks that are 65 or older, are struggling...which is sometimes, but not always, the case. Property taxes, imo, if they are going to be frozen or discounted, should be based on income, not age...why tax a young couple with kids who are struggling to get by on 25K per year started more than a very wealthy 65 year-old drawing a 6 figure income from their investments?

 

[mickeyd]

Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...

Here is my take on that subject (Not researched or even thought out through).

Senior citizens have paid property taxes for say, 40 years. They paid for infastructure, schools, police/fire etc over that period of time. If local governments say to them "OK, your taxes have brought us this far so were giving you a break now and will not charge you for any "future growth" in your property taxes" This encourages them to continue to pay the reduced taxes until they die or sell and the new taxes will be paid by the next owner of the property.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I live in California. My next door neighbor bought his house in 1960 for $20K. I bought my house in 1985 for $110K (but upgraded the house so my cost basis is now $200K). The couple across the street bought their house last year for $700K. They're basically all the same houses, worth $650K-$750K in today's market. Next door neighbor pays $250/yr in property tax. I pay $2500/yr. Across the street they pay $8000/yr. All to live in the same neighborhood, drive the same roads, and support the same schools. This seems out of whack to me. Let's freeze property taxes at age 65, and before that everyone pays the same.

Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...that would presume that all folks that are 65 or older, are struggling...which is sometimes, but not always, the case. Property taxes, imo, if they are going to be frozen or discounted, should be based on income, not age...why tax a young couple with kids who are struggling to get by on 25K per year started more than a very wealthy 65 year-old drawing a 6 figure income from their investments?

why stop at basing taxes on ability to pay? why protect people from being forced out of a house they've lived in for 40 years? why not base the taxes on services used? i've never called the police or the fire department (not that i'm superstitious but knock wood). i've never had kids in public school. most of my water use comes from my well but lots of my taxes go to building new water treatment plants. etc.

not that i'd want to live in a town that doesn't have clean water or educated children.

so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

 

[farmerEd]

>>so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

A. I guarantee you you are not paying to educate my children
B. I don't care if you get to stay in your house or not.

Not sure why you all of a sudden went on a rant...especially if its directed at me. I simply stated I see no legitimate reason to reduce taxes on someone simply because they are 65 or older...IF you are going to reduce them, IMO, the reduction should be on ability to pay...not age.

 

[chinaco]

>>I simply stated I see no legitimate reason to reduce taxes on someone simply because they are 65 or older...

Sorry OldMcD... But I cannot resist.

If you feel so strongly about no reduction in taxes @ 65, you have our permission to pay the additional amount. Send the Treasury an additional personal check each year for the difference. I am sure will spend it.

Now for a serious comment. We have a progressive tax system. Trust me, anyone of middle class means retired or not are paying their full share. Probably more than their full share!

 

[wabmester]

I never liked the idea of property taxes when there's no transaction and no income associated with the property. I don't mind paying taxes, but just tax me on income.

Apparently, people in the UK didn't like the idea either.

There is currently no ad valorem tax on residential property. Two former systems were dropped because of their extreme unpopularity

wiki link

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

>>so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

A. I guarantee you you are not paying to educate my children
B. I don't care if you get to stay in your house or not.

Not sure why you all of a sudden went on a rant...especially if its directed at me. I simply stated I see no legitimate reason to reduce taxes on someone simply because they are 65 or older...IF you are going to reduce them, IMO, the reduction should be on ability to pay...not age.

not a rant. was kidding or at best, trying to point out that any and all of the arguments can be a bit silly. bummer though that you don't care if someone is kicked out of their house. so it goes.

 

[scrinch]

so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

You'll notice that there was no complaint in my post. I'm just pointing out that one neighbor pays 32x as much tax as the other, though they live in equivalent houses 150 feet apart. I think I said that it seems out of whack to me. I'm all for all of us supporting government services whether we use them or not. Heck, even the development of ports for sailor bums!

I think that it is more fair for everyone's property taxes to be generally similar and increase at the rate of spending growth rather than have huge discrepancies like those in my neighborhood which are arbitrarily based on the year of home purchase. And I don't mind fixing the property tax level of people at some arbitrary age like 65 because the vast majority go on a fixed or declining income around then. As OldMcDonald points out, that's not completely fair because then the well-to-do get a tax break also. Yep, just like in the Social Security system. I still think it would be a reasonable and fairly simple approach, although my (and your) property taxes would probably go up as a result.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

i really think that this is somewhat dependent upon where people live. different areas deal with different issues. florida didn't vote in "save our home" taxing when property prices went crazy across the country. we did it about 12 or 14 years ago when we saw property diminishing, density increasing and the threat of people losing their houses looming. and it wasn't voted in by a huge majority of people who would benefit. if i remember right it made it by a slim margin. this wasn't a conspiracy against new residents as personally as some of them seem to be taking it. it was simply a lifeline to existing residents.

my little area was pretty much just 5 square miles of a crack den. we did a lot to restore the area over 12 years and it has become a very desirable place to live. at one point of the housing madness my area was the top percentage gainer in the entire country. an area no one had ever heard of before made the front page of the new york times. i can even walk to a freaking starbucks now, as if that isn't the usa definition of desirable. now if we didn't have the soh amendment protecting us, i don't know the facts but i'd imagine more than 1/2 this area's residents would have to sell their homes. on top of that, because this area was so lower class on the economic scale only 10 years ago, we have many older residents. and so on top of soh statewide, this city recently voted in another $25k exemption for them. because locally that's what we needed to do to protect our residents.

 

[renferme]

Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...that would presume that all folks that are 65 or older, are struggling...which is sometimes, but not always, the case. Property taxes, imo, if they are going to be frozen or discounted, should be based on income, not age...why tax a young couple with kids who are struggling to get by on 25K per year started more than a very wealthy 65 year-old drawing a 6 figure income from their investments?

How about this: most 65 year olds (and older) are on a fixed income. Keep increasing their property taxes and soon they will have to move. Why do you assume that most if not all 65 year olds are wealthy. They're not!
Young couples with kids (I used to be in that category) have the opportunity to make more money as they proceed down their chosen career; very few seniors have that opportunity.

 

[farmerEd]

If they are 65 and older, and are struggling...then they would qualify for any "low-income" tax breaks...I actually think the property tax sucks, personally. Its my number one expenses after groceries. I am all for eliminating it, reducing it, locking it down or even changing to an income tax etc...but if discounts are to be given, they should be given to people that are having a hard time paying them...not based on age. (in my opinion). A 66 year old person with a million dollar salary shouldn't get a break on the property taxes at the expense of the younger person living next door trying to get by on $24K....which is the kind of things that happen when you give breaks based on age alone...65 an older, and income under a certain level...OK (with me)....just my opinion whcih comes with a full money-back guarantee.

 

[renferme]

people 65 and older can be struggling or just getting by and still not quality for assistance. Really.