I've heard my mom say the same thing on many occasions when presented with the idea that MN taxes are too high.

I'm actually the other way around! I'd like to live in a state where I can keep the most of my money and have the opportunity to make more (meaning less regulatory burden) because while money can buy equality practically speaking, equality cannot buy food. That a big part of the reason why I am more focused on economic issues than social ones, despite being a minority. Luckily, Federalism allows us both to enjoy our divergent preferences.

Pink Elephant,

An yet Minnesota has a higher personal income and lower percent of people living in poverty than most low-tax red states.

So your logic doesn't hold up. I don't mind paying a higher percentage of a higher wage in taxes. A paying a lower percentage of a much lower wage = less money real money in the pocket, and worse civil life in most of the cases.

Don't forget to account for REAL wage not just nominal wage. If the average income in my low tax state is lower than your high tax state then likely the cost of living in my state is also lower. That means my wage minus fewer taxes will buy more GOODS (regardless of the dollar amount attached to them), which is really what matters at the end of the day.

Hi Pink Elephant,

Welcome to my blog, and I'm glad you stuck around.

Low income states tend to have a much higher percentage of people living in poverty, so you still have a greater statistical risk of being below the poverty line in such a state, but if you are lucky enough to have recieved training or education for a valuable trade or profession, you are probably immune.

You have a very real point about the cost of living. When we lived in a no-income-tax state we saved some money on taxes, and paid about 1/3 less for housing, although this was partly because I worked for the apartment complex where we lived, and I got a substantial employee discount. Also, we were essentially living on Minnesota wages as we had been "forced" to move and the company could not very well force us to move all the way across the company and then cut my husband's pay. A wage that had been barely subsistance in Minnesota felt like a king's ransom down there.

We also did better because we were chhildless at the time. We noticed that it was commonly considered necessary for people in the middle class to send their children to private schools and a surprising munber of them felt more comfortable living in gated communities...and in the end, the cost of being middle and upper-middle class was quite high. We lived in a suburb that still had pretty low rents, but the local sales and property taxes were very high to support the decent school system. A few miles down the road was an urbal school district that was third from the bottom of the national ranking at the time Those kids came to our neighborhood selling magazine subscriptions for basic school maintenance and text books. I would not buy the magazines, as I thought it was a racket (The businesses that provide the fundraiser materials end up with more than 90% of the money)so instead I contributed directly to the school.

It is surprisingly costly for a state to have an unhealthy and uneducated labor force it is more of a drag on the economy than regulatory burdon for the most part (although, I have to admit that there are a number of areas where regulation could be simplified, and the reporting compliance, and inspection processes streamlined. When the inspectors can't even learn the whole code or consistantly apply the requirements, you have a problem.)

I'm being informed that I need to get going now to go to a movie with the family. I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion.

Pink Elephant,

I could have sworn that I mentioned the high cost of food and clothing down there, which were noticably higher than here in Minnesota. They had local sales taxes on food and clothing and other essentials, which are not taxed in Minnesota for humanitarian reasons. In the no-income-tax state they also had a much higher rate of "Sin" taxes - taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, for instance which we have, but they were much higher. And if you wanted to go out for a drink, you had to pay a "fee" because there were no bars allowed...only private clubs, so the bars charged a "membership fee" to get around the ordinance.

Really, the cost of living was not THAT much lower...not enough to negate the difference in wages, at least to us.

But, as you say, people's milage does vary and it is good to have a place to live that is in line with your values.