vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

10.03.2007

Are you ready to revolt?

Tom Licata of Burlington launched a tax revolt this morning -- or at least he hopes he did. He has set up a Web site, appropriately found at http://www.vermonttaxrevolt.org/, where he provides a petition for like-minded Vermonters to sign to try to stir up some change in Montpelier. The petition is short -- none of those lengthy whereases and resolves. It says only:

Our unsustainable and oppressive tax burdens need to be addressed with a comprehensive, Long-Term Economic Plan. One that provides a road map of hope and opportunity through economic and productivity growth, leading to the kind of quality job growth and affordable living standards all Vermonters deserve.

Licata lays out the case for joining his petition drive/revolt in the section of the Web site entitled Vermont's Economic and Demographic Crisis. It's long, but references mushrooming increases in government spending, decreasing population and tax bases, and significant liabilities such as deteriorating roads and bridges.

Licata said in a telephone interview that political leaders are ducking the crisis, preferring to focus on issues that don't have a direct impact on Vermonters such as global warming. "There is no long term comprehensive plan," he said, meaning an economic development, government reform plan.

Many critics just complain, but Licata offers solutions on his Web site, too. First, he says, people need to see a sense of urgency to the discussion. Then start planning change. "We need to grow our economy," he said. Why not pre-permit selected areas for economic development?

He also suggests state government ought to be shrunk. He suggests the target should be 20 percent reduction in government spending. If programs can't be cut, he urges privatization. When asked where he would insert the knife, Licata said, "I don't know state government, but my gut tells me there is fat in there we could cut."

Licata is serious about trying to start a revolt. He has not only sent out batches of emails, he's buying advertising in newspapers across the state to draw attention to the movement.

"I just got mad and I really feel a calling. I feel really strongly about telling people of the state what is going on," Licata said.

Licata lives in Burlington and has made several runs for the city council. In those campaigns, he raised similar fiscal concerns. He runs marathons, coaches kids sports etc. In others words, he has a life beyond this cause. So while he said he's passionate about trying to stir up the public about the current state of affairs in Vermont, he's not giving his life to it.

"If nothing happens," he said, "I'll move on."

-- Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 12:58 PM |

Comments:

Privatization is definitely the answer. Look at Blackwater. We certainly need more of that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:48 PM, October 03, 2007

Same stuid arguments, different post.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:17 PM, October 03, 2007

He does alot of hand waving. Some good ideas, some bad ideas, some just plain unworkable ideas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:46 PM, October 03, 2007

What is it with all the numbnuts and taxes?

The best you could hope to reduce overall taxes is by an insignificant amount. Its not make or break you amounts of money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:54 PM, October 03, 2007

Wake up. We are the most taxed state in the country. The services we receive for it are abysmal. I can't believe you manage your personal finances this way. If you did, you would be bankrupt.

Sign the petition.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:07 PM, October 03, 2007

Numbnuts? You know, there are politically unsophisticated people out there who are really frustrated about taxes. They don't know what to do. They have some goofy ideas. But politicians had better take them seriously, because with some leadership, these people can form a powerful group. As a Republican, I hope the Democrats think they are all "numbnuts." They'll pay a political price eventually, if that is the case.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:10 PM, October 03, 2007

"We are the most taxed state in the country."

That's been discredited on this blog about 5 times in the past 2 days.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:18 PM, October 03, 2007

Well if you think its going to be all that better, get out your pocket calculator or slide rule and do some figuring.

What percent change is needed to give you a significant amount of money over the course of a year?

Make sure you base the calculation on a tax that includes all your tax refunds, rebates, prebates, and whatever else you get refunded.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:42 PM, October 03, 2007

Lets just get rid of the property tax and shift the education funding over to a new statewide tax on gas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:10 PM, October 03, 2007

I am shocked that so few of you are outraged about the amount of tax taken from you in the course of a year. Doesn't it register with you that it is outrageously high, you get nothing for it and the solution to all state issues is implement a tax to deal with it. I love the state. I have no issue paying my fair share. I do have an issue with the irresponsible financial behavior of our representatives in Montpelier. It's time for a change.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:29 PM, October 03, 2007

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:29 PM, October 03, 2007

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:29 PM, October 03, 2007

Get nothing for it???

Police protection.
Roads.
Bridges.
Snowplows.
Ambulance service.

I guess that's nothing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:43 PM, October 03, 2007

Governor Douglas has proposed more spending than any Governor in Vermont history.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:43 PM, October 03, 2007

"Governor Douglas has proposed more spending than any Governor in Vermont history."

But like everything else. its all talk and no action.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:50 PM, October 03, 2007

"Get nothing for it??? ...Police protection...Roads...Bridges...Snowplows...Ambulance service.

I guess that's nothing."

....and that is the frightening thing. You just don't get it. All states have these services. It's nothing special and they pay significantly less than us.

Couple that with the fact that our highway infrastructure and bridges are in disrepair with no available funds to repair them, our police are under paid, our educational system is struggling to keep up, we don't get much for the amount we pay!

It's a bit like buying a BMW. You pay a premium price and you expect(and get) a premium product. We are paying taxes at a BMW price but getting a Volkswagen-like product.

...sign the petition! Stop the insanity.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:18 AM, October 04, 2007

My health care costs are twice as much as my taxes. Taxes aren't killing us, the cost of health care is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:11 AM, October 04, 2007

"My health care costs are twice as much as my taxes. Taxes aren't killing us, the cost of health care is."

Healthcare is a problem but we are not paying a premium for healthcare in Vermont compared to the rest of the country. The point is Vermont can not come to grips with fiscal responsibility. The solution to most problems is to legislate it and raise a tax to pay for it. Its like with your personal finances, if you don't have the money you don't buy because you know you can't afford it. Commiting to state spending with no other way to pay for it than taking more taxes from us is the equivalent to that.

It's time for us to be responsible and do the right thing for the State. Make the tough choices and lower taxes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:24 AM, October 04, 2007

I could care less who writes the anonymous blogs but wouldn't it be interesting to know what each writer does for a living? Particularly the ones that don't think Vermonters are taxed that high.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:23 AM, October 04, 2007

I'm a teacher. And, yes, we are, in many instances, "getting nothing for it." Example: From 2001-2006, special education spending went up 33 percent in Vermont. During that time the number of special needs tenth graders meeting or exceeding the state standard on the NSRE test remained at 5 percent of the students in math concepts. It actually went down from 7 percent to 6 percent in writing effectiveness.

Nobody sees the "getting-nothing- for-it" phenomenon more than we teachers. It's just that very few of us ever admit it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:47 AM, October 04, 2007

Amen. One only has to look at the union schools in Washington, D.C. and what they turn out - the most taxpayer money spent anywhere in the U.S. We need to start paying good teachers more and firing the poor ones, but it will never happen in a democrat-controlled state where the politicians are lap-dogs for the union bosses.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:13 AM, October 04, 2007

I work in manufacturing. I make a lot of money. I have a lot of land. I have no problems with the taxes I pay.

No, I don't belong to a union.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:19 AM, October 04, 2007

Let's see - those who advocate for school choice and voucher system with our public schools say it will cost less and provide better education.

Where's the proof?

The classic "school choice" is college - yup, that tuition & fees are really low.

Let's see - St J Academy is a private school - among the highest per pupil cost in the state.

Also, there are approx 6000 Vt kids in private and religious schools, as well as another 2500 homeschooled - if we give each a voucher for say, $7500 (approx 3/4 of avg statewide per pupil cost) it will only cost the state ANOTHER $63.75 million.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:22 AM, October 04, 2007

St. J and Lyndon Institute are probably the two best schools in the state - both private.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:38 AM, October 04, 2007

So who has calculated how much the tax rates need to decrease in order to give you a decent amount of money?

Even according to the reports that claimed Vermont was the most taxed state, the difference between Vermont and median was at most 2-3%. Even though all those tax reports did not include refunds and local taxes, why not use that number.

How much money does a 3% savings give you.

Don't forget to include your prebate in your tax paid calculation.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:45 AM, October 04, 2007

I am the head of a technology company. The most common thing I hear as I recruit people is the incredibly high cost to live ("Taxes, energy costs, housing costs, and Taxes". It's not easy doing business here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:47 AM, October 04, 2007

Folks, change starts with a new legislature. Shumlington must go.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:05 AM, October 04, 2007

Is it that or are you just not paying them enough?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:07 AM, October 04, 2007

It's the teacher again. For me, it's not about the amount of taxes. It's about the return we're getting for our money. I don't like paying five dollars if it goes to nothing. And I'm not looking to anything as ambitious as vouchers as an answer. Just simple fiscal accountablility. Visit www.fcevt.com for some ideas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 AM, October 04, 2007

I expect that neither Shumlin or Symington are going anywhere. Unless Shumlin's really pissed off Windham folks, he'll still get elected. I doubt that has happened. Symington is a sure thing in the next election. If you don't believe me than you obviously don't have her on your ticket.

But all thats moot. because as long as Douglas is governor, it won't matter if you replace the legislative leaders.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:31 AM, October 04, 2007

Curtis - by aligning yourself last year with ultraconservative Wendy Wilton, you've lost credibility.

Most people in ontpelier know that Wendy Like Libby really wan tot see public schools destroyed in favor of vouchers.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:16 PM, October 04, 2007

"it will cost less and provide better education.

Where's the proof?

The classic "school choice" is college - yup, that tuition & fees are really low."

While college costs may be considered expensive, the cost to educate a college student in Vermont is about half of what it costs us to educate a first grader.

As for more proof, where vouchers are being experimented with, opponents are quick to point out that the voucher kids don't do much better in terms of results than the public school kids. Of course, this neglects the obvious point that voucher schools are acieving the same results at a fraction of the price.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:56 PM, October 04, 2007

I live in St J and don't believe the Academy tuition is abovethe level of the median per student cost for Vermont high schools.
You know what if I don't like the way the school operates or treats my kid I can vote with my feet.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:35 PM, October 04, 2007

I have to send my kids to private
school since the public school here in southern Vermont is so bad.
and dangerous)
It is not fair in Vermont that some kids can have a voucher and some can't.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:11 AM, October 05, 2007

Listening to this discussion on the quality of Vermont education sure makes me feel good that my proerty taxes went up again!

We all hate the oil companies for high prices but think skyrocketing school taxes are okay. Go figure what runs through the minds of all these liberals. Oh that's right we do it for the kids. Geesh.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:44 AM, October 05, 2007

Wendy Wilton is not an ultraconservative. And you don't have to worry about vouchers in Vermont anytime in your lifetime. She is a pragmatic person, and so am I.

Wendy is very bright. She's currently in the process of turning Rutland's finances around as city treasurer. Competence is more important than ideology. As the Chinese say: "It does not matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:51 AM, October 05, 2007

Wendy Wilton and ideology - especially conservative - go hand in hand.

And by the way, if you read last week's Rut Herald Editorial, they told her basically to stop pointing fingers and solve issues.

She is as partisan political as they come.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:56 AM, October 05, 2007

Don't confuse ultraconservativism with being passionate. Wendy's not afraid of mixing it up. She *is* solving issues. This week's Herald article, "Bond Counsel: City on Right Track", points to many of those.

As far as pointing fingers, there are people who should be held accountable. You can't lead if you don't sometimes ruffle some feathers.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:34 AM, October 05, 2007

For those who have blindly accepted the now common lament of the Right that VT has the highest tax "burden" in the country, I suggest you read the new Tax Study from the Joint Fiscal Office. It shows clearly that the per capita figures obscure the distribution of the tax "obligation" (sounds different then "burden" doesn't it?). In the end, VT has a much fairer tax system than most other states AND regular folks pay less than we would elsewhere.

Yes, the report is longer than these blog entries. But if you want to learn something - you know, facts - you have to do more than read three paragraph articles in the paper.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/Reports/2007-10%20Vermont%20Tax%20Study%20-%20Volume%202.pdf

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:13 AM, October 06, 2007

I hope everyone reads this "Tax Study" - it is a total FRAUD perpetuated on the citizens of Vermont by the very leftist legislators that have created this mess and now attempt to justify it with phony and misleading figures. For example ALL OF 24 INDIVIDUALS were "selected"! And only 11 states were used as comparisons! You can imagine which states were used: Ct., Maine, Mass., Minn., N.Y., Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, probably the 8 most left-wing states in the country! And to be "fair" they added N.H., FL, and N.C. In other words, they started with the results they wanted and fit "choice" states and individuals to fit the plan! Gee, does anyone think that Mr. Hoffer might have had some influence here? What an example of the old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure"!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:38 PM, October 06, 2007

The teachers union, the duplicated school boards and the excessive school districts are sinking the education ship in this state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:21 PM, October 06, 2007

You can argue all you want about how this statistic and that statistic shows our taxes aren't "really" that high. Guess what? My property taxes are high. And in terms of the services I'm getting for them (mostly public school education), I don't think I'm getting my money's worth.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:31 PM, October 06, 2007

Bubba

The report stated clearly that JFO used the same comparison states they did 10 years ago. The earlier study was requested by (among others) Republican State Sen. Barbara Snelling. Thus, "they" did not start with the results they wanted; they started with a request to do research and provide unbiased information. Period.

Second, they did not "select" individuals. They used 24 different hypothetical filers (families and individuals) representing different levels of income, different sources of income, marital status, age, renters, homeowners, etc. This is sound methodology, not a "fraud".

I understand that you may not be familiar with state tax law but while there are lots of minor differences between states, there are only so many basic approaches. The states chosen for the comparison represent all the major options, including those with no income tax. So even if they had done all 50 states, it wouldn't look much different.

Your knee jerk reaction to the study has blinded you to the findings. Of the states in the study, VT comes out looking pretty good for most of the 24 different filers (often families, not just individuals).

We can argue about whether our taxes are too high, too low, or just right. But what this study does is to expose the limitations of the "tax burden" arguments based on per capita figures. The study is not opinion or propaganda; just an honest way to evaluate a complicated subject. If you can suggest a better methodology, please share it with us.

No legislators (Left, Right, or otherwise) worked on this study; just staff, and I'm not one of them. I hate to disappoint you but I was not involved in the request for the study, the development of the methodology, or the choice of contractors or consultants (I was not one of them).

In any case, please point out any examples of "phony and misleading figures".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:01 PM, October 06, 2007

Misleading is the use of the most leftist states with the highest taxes to compare to Vermont. Why wasn't Georgia, New Mexico, Alaska, Tennessee, included for example? You leftists cannot justify why Vermont is so out of control with taxes that you have to try to dupe the poor suckers into believing that all is rosy and if we just keep stealing from the productive workers in the state, that all will be fine! I would like to know how much this "study" cost Vermont taxpayers. Do you have a convenient web-site that will tell us this?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:49 PM, October 06, 2007

Bubba

The whole world is viewed through your ideological lens. What you perceive to be "Leftist" states have very different tax laws. The only thing that matters is what someone who earns what you do would pay in each state. That's the point; not whether they are Red or Blue states. Please go back and read the study.

Aside from staff time, the study cost $30,000 (it's in the statute, which you also failed to read, even though it's the first page of the report). As far as I know, the money was used to pay an accountant to run 312 income tax returns (24 federal and 288 state - also in the report).

Exactly how do you know that JFO used "the most leftist states with the highest taxes to compare to Vermont"? Do you have data on the tax liabilities for these 24 hypothetical filers for Georgia, New Mexico, Alaska, and Tennessee? If not, why should we believe that they are higher or lower than Vermont?

Fun facts:
1. Georgia has a terrible state income tax. A key to understanding this issue is in the marginal tax rates. For example, in VT, you pay only 3.6% on the first $30,650 (2006 data). In Georgia, you pay 6% on everything over $7,000. So that sucks for low and moderate income filers. And even though VT has a high top marginal rate (9.5%), it doesn't kick in unless you make more than $336,000 (you pay a lower rate on the first $335,000). Likewise, Tennessee has a flat rate of 6%, which you pay starting with dollar one. New Mexico also has a lower top marginal rate (5.3%) but it kicks in for all income over $16,000. This is why it's essential to actually run the tax forms.

Note: The information above makes it clear that VT does not "steal from the productive workers in the state". Quite the contrary, our state income tax system is one of the most progressive in the country (meaning lower rates at the bottom and higher rates at the top). That's why VT came out looking so good in the report.

2. Alaska has a "spirits" tax of $12.80 per gallon of liquor; New Mexico is $6.06; Tennesse is $4.46; Georgia is $3.79; VT is $0.38.

3. Alaska charges $1.07 per gallon tax for beer, while VT charges $0.27 (New Mexico is $0.41).

3. Tennesse's sales tax is 7 cents; VT is 6.
And so on.

The point is that this has nothing to do with the perceived politics of a given state. It's complicated. And it's clear that you don't know anything about it. That's not surprising though. Why would you (or anyone else)?

But it's absurd for you to make assumptions based on nothing more than your gut feelings. You have to do better than that if you expect us to take you seriously. These issues are important and it's obvious that you are passionate about it. But we analysis, not slogans.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 PM, October 06, 2007

At the end of the day you can rationalize this all you want. The issue is simple we pay a lot of money in state and property taxes and get very little VALUE in return for it. The educational system is bloated with duplication and waste, the agricultural community lives on subsidies, the legislature is focused at things it can't control and chooses to legislate solutions rather than turn them back to the private sector for solutions based in the marketplace. Is there any one who really believes Vermont will effectively lead the country in such fashionable topics as global warming?

We need to get a real grip on where we are headed and focus at the basics just like you do with your household budget...only spend what you have, focus on the infrastructure (roads, bridges, efficient government services)and encourage the growth of the tax base by making Vermont a desirable place to do business. Many states have found it is easy to attract environmentally friendly technology-based businesses which bring higher paying jobs with good benefits(including healthcare). Goods jobs means people stay here, the state grows in a fiscally sound manner and ultimately everyones taxes decrease. Gov. Douglas understands this and has pushed for it against a legislature that ignores the simple facts.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:10 PM, October 06, 2007

Interesting. When presented with facts that challenge Bubba's belief about Vermont's so-called "tax burden", he attacks the integrity of the authors. Now "annonymous" characterizes the data as rationalizations and changes the subject to expenditures. You guys just can't face the truth so you change the subject.

Here's a question: If the "agricultural community lives on subsidies", how do you explain the loss of thousands of farms in the last few decades? In fact, there are very few state subsidies for farming. The big money is from the Feds and most of it goes to huge companies, not small family farms. Just ask a local farmer.

If you're concerned about subsidies, why not go after the ski areas? The state spends about $5 million every year to subsidize their advertising and marketing (and most of the jobs are low wage). I wonder how you would respond if the state subsidized the marketing for Ben & Jerry's? [And BTW - IDX got more money in tax credits in one year then all the farmers combined.]

And as for the legislature's efforts to "legislate solutions", that's their job. In some cases, they're trying to fix problems created by the private sector.

For example, the private sector has ignored the need for high speed telecom in rural areas because it can make more money investing in more populated areas. Although a rational decision, it does not meet the needs of Vermonters. Would you prefer that the Leg. just ignore the problem?

Don't you see the contradiction in your argument? We all want good high tech jobs. But we cannot have high tech businesses all over VT if we don't have high speed internet everywhere. That is one of the ways we can make "Vermont a desireable place to do business".

The market does a lot of things well, but gov't. needs to intervene when the market fails.

I couldn't agree more that the state should focus on infrastructure (including telecom).
But short of raising new taxes (and that would upset Bubba), we have to make better use of what we have.

Wasteful tax credits and subsidies for Killington & Stowe -- or more money for bridges and telecom? We know the Governor's position. What do you think?

I'm afraid your view of the Governor is very selective. His veto of the all fuels efficiency bill was terribly short sighted. Are you aware that the program would have saved VT businesses over $200 million in fuel costs? [That's net - after those pesky taxes he was so concerned about. See the GDS study commissioned by the Governor's own Dept. of Public Service.] Sounds pretty business friendly to me.

Rather than make long-term investments (just like a homeowner does when he fixes the roof or buys a more efficient boiler), the Gov. would rather pander to those who are fixated on taxes instead of solving real problems.

Finally, the Gov. is not so concerned about raising taxes as long as they're not called taxes. Check out the increases in fees (just another form of taxes) since he took office. It may surprise you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:06 AM, October 07, 2007

Just a few short comments - Hoffer not only thinks cherry-picking states is fine, but also cherry-picks "bad" taxes in the states not mentioned - for example, Tennessee has a 7% sales tax, but NO income tax at all! Georgia exempts $15,000 for retired people, and the top Republicans in the state are trying to ELIMINATE ALL property taxes for education! There is NO WAY the report can be considered anything but "figures" to be used to justify a pre-conceived conclusion by a bunch of sleezy politicians who are terrified that a tax revolt may be stirring!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:47 AM, October 07, 2007

Bubba

You mentioned four states that you thought should have been in the study. I provided info. about several of them, most of which you conveniently ignored.

1. Both Georgia and New Mexico's state income taxes are worse for low and middle income working people than VT. You failed to acknowledge that. And the fact that Georgia exempts $15,000 for retired folks is good but does nothing for working people - you know, the productive ones you mentioned in the earlier post.
2. Tennesse does have an income tax but it only applies to interest and dividends.
3. You seem to think Tennesse's 7% sales tax is no big deal. However, are you aware that the tax applies to everything, including food and clothing, which are exempted in VT? In addition, Tennessee also has local sales taxes that add 2% - 3% in virtually every town in the state. That means the sales tax is actually 9% - 10% so when you buy a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes for your kid you have to add 10% on top.

Vermont's use of a progressive income tax (and the sales tax exemptions) is a much fairer way to raise money.

The study included several states that don't have an income tax. To my knowledge, there are only 5 or 6 in the whole country, A few are very unusual, like Alaska (oil), Florida (tourism), and Nevada (gambling) and are not suitable for this type of analysis.

I'm sorry that you see Liberal / Leftist bogey men around every corner but sometimes things are a lot less conspiratorial then you think. If you would just take a breath and allow the facts to seep in, you might see that we agree on many of these issues. I want a fair tax system for working families. So do you. VT has one of the fairest systems in the country. Is it perfect? Of course not.

As for the tax revolt, I'm afraid that it's less than meets the eye. For one thing, those "sleezy politicians" already provided income sensitivity for our education property taxes. Maybe not the best or simplest solution but it saves you and me a lot of money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:55 AM, October 07, 2007

Middle and upper class people often provide the jobs for lower-income people but are driven out of state by your "progressive" taxes (i.e., welfare). As a result, Vermont tries to emphasize "entitlements" rather than a favorable business environment. John Kennedy (the good one) said "a rising tide lifts all boats". He would turn over in his grave if he saw the present-day democrat party.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:36 AM, October 07, 2007

Bubba, Bubba, Bubba

"Middle and upper class people often provide the jobs for lower-income people but are driven out of state by your "progressive" taxes".

Please provide data to support your assertion that "middle and upper class people arec driven out of state" by taxes.

In fact, VT benefits from a very significant inflow of middle aged people who have successful professional careers and choose to come here for the quality of life (check the Census data).

And since we know state taxes are tiny for the vast majority of busineses, please define (or explain) what you mean by the "business climate".

Are you aware that hundreds of VT businesses are very happy here and don't complain about the "business climate"? Check with VT Businesses for Social Responsibility (unless you think these happy capitalists are just commies in disguise).

As for the old saw about a "rising tide lifts all boats", it was true in the 50s and 60s when ALL income classes gained ground. But the data is very clear - it's not true anymore because most of the new wealth goes to the top 5% of the population.

Yes, JFK would probably turn over in his grave today. But not because the Dems have screwed things up (although they are sometimes complicit). The incredible shift began during the Reagan years and has gotten worse recently. This is not propaganda - it's a fact.

I'm not surprised that you are so misinformed because the mainstream media does a very poor job of providing good information. If you would stop accepting everything you hear from Rush and friends as gospel and look at the facts you might be surprised.

And once again you managed to ignore the data I provided after you attempted to slam me for (supposedly) tricking people with "phony" figures. Your ability to ignore and avoid inconvenient facts is really quite amazing.

I'm afraid I will have to stop responding to your posts. Your anger prevents you from a reasoned discussion and you are stuck in a bad rut. I hope you find some peace.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:12 PM, October 07, 2007

Rush? Coulter? (You forgot to throw in Hannity and O'Reilly) Guess my figures are correct inasmuch as you, like most leftists, have to always blame some right-wing conspiracy. Hey, this "study" is about like the "gay marriage panel" - stacked to make sure the politically correct outcome is arrived at!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:03 PM, October 07, 2007

Thanks Bubba. Once again you are on target and it makes the Left Wing element uncomfortable.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:47 PM, October 07, 2007

It's interesting. I have lived many places in my life and nowhere have I seen so many people so adamant about wanting to pay (more) taxes and thinking it is a good thing.

Clearly individuals have a social obligation to pay their fair share but our legislators have an equal and offsetting obligation to act as good stewards of our resources. I suspect the legislature has less commitment to their responsibility than all you Dems have towards yours.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:52 AM, October 08, 2007

Anybody in Vermont with any brains
is not a Democrat any more. That is why so called "independents" are such a big percentage here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:28 AM, October 08, 2007

The reality is that Vermonters don't know they have it so good.

Funny how the right would want to compare VT to Alaska, New Mexico, Tennesse, and Georgia.

Not a single New England State?? Why wouldn't you compare against states within the same geography where people have similar requirements for things like heat?

How or why would you even compare Alaska given the fact that its twice the size of Texas and has tax offsets due to big oil?

Why would you compare the southern states that have high poverty rates against Vermont which has one of the best. NM has nearly 20% of its population living in poverty. That's about twice the rate of Vermont.

If the "rising tide lifts all boats" then why are so many boats sunk in these supposedly low tax states?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:36 AM, October 08, 2007

Yeah, Vermonters sure have it good - 2006 average wage stats: GA-$39,967 ALABAMA-$35,448 TN-$36,829 and of course, VT-$34,714! But the good news is that you're still ahead of Mississippi ($30,676)! By the way, the costs of living in these states are but a small fraction of Vermont's.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:04 PM, October 08, 2007

Funny how the U.S. Department of Labor has different numbers than you. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm

Only Georgia has a greater mean salary.

Even so, in 2005-2006 Vermont median household income was $4000 more than Georgia, $11k more than Tennessee, $14,000 more than Alabama, and a whopping $18,000 more than Mississippi. Vermont's median household income is $12k more than that of NM.

This is just more evidence that there is merit to the fact that the rising tide doesn't lift all boats.

It's not correct to say "the costs of living in these states are but a small fraction of Vermont's". For one, there is no data set that captures the true difference in cost of living between the states. All estimates are based upon comparison of urban areas and disregard rural areas. Secondly, that implies cost of living in these other states might be 10% of Vermont. Even using the incomplete data, its easy to see that is not true. The reality is that cost of living has much to do with population and geography. Ironically, cost of living should be less in the south. High poverty reflects the absence of decent wages, the climate provides a longer growing season and a reduced cost in the cost of building and heating housing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:40 PM, October 08, 2007

I got my stats from the federal government - did you get yours from Doug Hoffer?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:05 PM, October 08, 2007

I would like to thank the previous writer for providing median household income data. Average wages are not the best measure because averages are easily skewed by a small number of high wage earners. Median (and this is for Bubba) is the mid point -- half above and half below. For this discussion, it is much better than the average (which is why Census uses it).

Note: I prefer occupational wages because they allow us to compare the median wage for specific jobs (e.g., secretaries, engineers, nurses, child care workers, carpenters, etc.).

In any case, the best data set for median household income is the three year rolling average (Census / Current Population Survey, March Supplement) because the sample size for each state is not sufficient to avoid occasional single year anomalies. BTW - The CPS is the source of unemployment data so it's not some flaky survey.

Using the three year rolling average, the latest figures show
VT = $48,508
Georgia = $44,439
Tenn. = $39,524
Alabama = $38,180
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08b.html

As for average wage, Bubba is mistaken (shocking). According to the VT Dept. of Labor, the 2006 avg. wage was $35,535, not $34,714 as he said.
http://www.vtlmi.info/indareanaics.cfm

For the latest avg. wage data (May 2006), the last writer is correct that Georgia (thanks to the Atlanta area) is the only one of the states mentioned that is higher than VT.

Georgia = $37,150
VT = $36,350
Tenn = $34,240
Alabama = $33,440
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm
choose a state and look at "all ocupations"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:52 AM, October 09, 2007

Once again, you can come up with any result you want if you can manipulate data to fit your "model". For example, a three year rolling average would help states in decline, like Vermont, and hurt thriving states like Georgia. I don't believe Vermont taxpayers are fooled by this chicanery; they have friends, relatives that have moved to greener economic pastures and know how little they pay to live in North Carolina, Georgia, TN, compared to Vermont; not to mention better jobs and less taxes. (What do you think Vermont would do if Toyota offered to build a new plant in Vermont, like it did in Tupelo, MS, with average wages, excluding benefits over $40,000? Answer: they would do like they do to WalMart, and that's why thousands of Mississippians have new jobs!)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:19 AM, October 09, 2007

I promised myself I wouldn't respond to Bubba but I'll make an exception because it's about data rather than opinions.

The 3-year rolling average figures are a standard measure used by analysts all over the country. You clearly do not understand this stuff. There's no reason you should because it's not your profession. But suggesting (again) that I am "manipulating" the data reflects your inability to accept facts that don't fit your perspective. That's the sign of a closed mind. I am not looking for data to fit my "model", just reporting what Census & BLS have published.

As for North Carolina, the Tax Study shows clearly that Vermonters are much better here than there. For example, here are the tax liabilities for a few filers by Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)

$24,500 (single renter):
NC = $1,954
VT = $1,183

$50,372 (married filing jointly; renter)
NC = $3,162
VT = $1,951

$63,894 (single, owner)
NC = $4,508
VT = $3,266

$80,743 (MFJ; owner)
NC = $4,638
VT = $2,749

And so on. These substantial savings in taxes will go a long way in helping offset some of the higher costs of living here. And BTW - The median household income for NC in 2005 was $41,869 -- almost $7,000 lower than VT. You call that "greener pastures"?

As for all those jobs in Mississippi, here are the percent increases in total jobs since 2000.

Miss. = 1.4%
VT = 3.3%

Although much better than Miss., the VT numbers are weak compared to the 90s. But it's obvious that you are mistaken in your assumption about job growth.

Bubba - It's great that you're interested in the numbers. We need a common base to have a good discussion. But you are clearly flailing around looking for something to support your position (and still making assumptions without checking the facts). Just accept that while things are not great here, they are better than in many other places.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:02 AM, October 09, 2007

"a three year rolling average would help states in decline, like Vermont, and hurt thriving states like Georgia."

Actually, Vermont hasn't been in decline.

Two year averages are given to provide detail with regard to the three year average.

Here again Atlanta, I mean Georgia, was the only state that faired better than VT. TN was flat. Miss saw a 3.5% decrease in median household income when comparing 2004-2005 to 2005-2006. NM a 3% decrease. AL a 1.5% decrease.

Frankly, if you actually lived or spent some time in these states, I don't think you'd be so willing to use them for VT comparison.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:14 AM, October 09, 2007

"I got my stats from the federal government - did you get yours from Doug Hoffer? "

Apparently, you just made up the numbers.

I gave you the link to the U.S. Department of Labor before. Here it is again:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 AM, October 09, 2007

I DO live in GA, 15 miles from TN, and lived in NC for 2 years as well as Vermont for over 50. My property taxes in GA are roughly 1/3 of what I paid in Vermont for a comparable house; friends in TN pay about the same. Total utilities for a 2,000 sq. foot house are about $1,400 a year (all electric). This of course includes heat and air. There is NO income tax in TN, a much smaller than Vt's in GA; My property in Vermont consists of a rough camp with no central heat or water, and my taxes are 3 times what my HOUSE is here. A gallon of gas this morning was $2.52. And although I am not sure why, 8 oz. of Cabot Cheddar is $1.85 here and I paid nearly $3.00 in Vermont for the same! Now these are real figures and not some contrived "study". I admit that if I was on welfare, or wanted my neighbor to pay my property taxes, I would be better off in Vermont, but for ordinary working people, there is no comparison.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:07 PM, October 09, 2007

Too funny. I pegged you for a second home owner. They are really the only ones complaining about taxes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:56 PM, October 09, 2007

Forget "second" homes - I'm talking about what WORKING (not trustfunders or welfare)Vermonters have to pay for taxes to support the lazy and the education gravy train!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:26 PM, October 09, 2007

Too bad the facts don't support any of your accusations.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:48 PM, October 09, 2007

Then tell me what the difference is between "prebate", "rebate", and "welfare".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:58 PM, October 09, 2007

OK. More facts.

Georgia's Standard Deduction is $2,300 and the Personal Exemption is $2,700. Vermont's are $5,150 and $3,300.

If you were single and earned $30,000, you would pay about $437 in state income tax in VT. In Georgia, you would pay about $1,300 (three times as much). In addition to the differences in the deduction & exemption, this is because Georgia's rate is 6% on every dollar earned above $7,000 while VT's rate is 3.6% up to $30,000.

The grass isn't always greener...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:23 PM, October 09, 2007

And BTW - Georgia's taxes for gasoline, beer, spirits & wine are much higher than VT.

Of course property tax is another matter. But states raise money in different ways. VT chooses to raise most of its General Fund money from the income tax and we have a very progressive system. And while we raise a lot for education from the property tax, it is income sensitive (although not for 2nd home owners like Bubba). Georgia seems to prefer raising its money from a very regressive income tax and fees (with less on the property tax). To each his own. But for low- and moderate-income folks, Georgia's system is NOT cheaper than VT.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:33 PM, October 09, 2007

Why?

It's quite obvious that you are the type that falls into the "no taxes, ever" camp.

It's also quite obvious that Vermont's tax situation is nothing like how you claim. The facts just don't support any arguments you make. Plain and simple, numbers don't lie.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:34 PM, October 09, 2007

Bubba is right. I moved to VT from Florida. My property taxes tripled...no state income tax turned into a significant tax....heating utilities nearly doubled and food costs are much higher- a weekly grocery bill went up nearly 40% for a poorer selection of foods available.

Find all the studies you want but when I compare $ for $ what it costs to live here to there, it is significantly higher acrossed the board. VT is no bargain affordability-wise but I am sure someone will find some obscure survey that proves this wrong too!

Get back to the basic point, it's not so much about what you pay but what you get for it and what you can do about it when the value isn't there. As a group, you all seem to feel overpaying for government mandated goods and services is a some kind of badge of courage. I don't get it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:47 PM, October 09, 2007

Hoffer, sadly is a liar, or else someone else is using his name. As I stated earlier, Georgia's gas tax is 7.5 cents per gallon plus 4%. I paid $2.52 this week for gas - what did you pay in Vermont? I don't want to get in to personal taxes, but just let me say, Hoffer's tax figures are about 1/3 of what we really paid. Once again, he cherry-picks, and usually he uses minimum-wage workers as examples - I might add "progressive" attitudes in Vermont have created a LOT of examples for Doug to use. The Vermont economy is now so fragile, that if IBM were to move, the state would become a ward of the federal government, much like New Orleans.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:49 PM, October 09, 2007

Again, I'll respond because it's about data.

First, a min. wage worker does not earn $30,000. Min. wage in VT is $7.53/hr. For a full-time worker, that's $15,662 per year, half of the $30,000 example I offered. Nice try.

But no mind. Let's look at a single person earning $60,000. In VT, he would pay about $2,272 in state income taxes (and this is for a renter without the mortgage interest deduction). In Georgia, the same person would pay about $3,110. Don't trust me? Do the math.

As for fuel tax, I made an error. I guess Bubba has never done that. Errors are different than lies (you are pretty free with that word). See, it's not so hard to admit a mistake.

In any case, in Georgia it's 7.5 cents per gallon plus 4% of the retail cost. If a gallon of gas costs $2.50 before taxes, the total tax in Georgia would be 17.5 cents, while VT is 20 cents. Pretty close (and I guess that 4% thing threw Bubba a loop). Every penny counts, but I hardly think an extra 2.5 cents per gallon is worth fighting about. Indeed, if you drive 15,000 miles and get 25 MPG, the difference is $15 per year. Big deal.

But wait, Vermonters are saving hundreds of dollars on the state income tax so we're still ahead. And BTW - My brother has lived in Georgia for over 30 years so I do know something about it.

To: Guy from Florida: While you had no income tax in Fla., your sales, fuel, and booze taxes were much higher than in VT (sales because of local option taxes and because it coves more purchases). State fuel tax was lower but adding county & local is a big hit. In the end, it puts you closer to VT than you might think.

For example, the Tax Study shows that a family with adjusted gross income of $50,372 would pay $1,399 in Fla. for sales and "other" taxes. For the same family in VT, the figure would be $1,951 including the income tax. Doesn't seem possible that the difference would be so small since Fla. doesn't have an income tax, but it's true.

Perhaps more important is that the median household income in Fla. in 2005 was $42,079 compared to $48,508 in VT. I don't know what you earn, but this suggests that for many families, the higher wages in VT compensate for the higher costs. [I'm not saying life is great here only that these comparisons are not as simple as they may appear at first glance.]

In any case, I certainly agree that we should be vigilant about insisting that we get value for the taxes we pay. Having spent a good deal of time in Fla., however (I lived there in the 70s and my father has been there for decades), I'm not sure we can say they do a better job than VT.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:49 PM, October 09, 2007

Bubba is right about at least one thing: IBM significantly reduces its workforce and the entire Vermont economy will go into a serious recession.

It's a ridiculous position to be in.

But, hey, we HATE business in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:58 PM, October 09, 2007

When one business represents such a significant portion of the economy, it's prudent to make plans for the inevitable. IBM brought a lot of goods jobs to this community but nothing is forever.

In my view, we should have been seeding a "decommissioning" fund for decades. And IBM should have been contributing because a responsible company of that size should never leave a host community without some resources for the transition.

Together we could have built up a substantial fund that would help us deal with the immediate impacts and move on to what's next. It is irresponsible for the state and the communities not to have prepared contingency plans.

An analogy is VT Yankee, which is required to have a decommissiong fund (which we've all paid for through rates). While the risks are different, the principle is the same.

Lots of other communities have been through it so it's not as if there's no history to learn from (e.g., Buffalo - Bethelehem Steel). It's not too late to start the conversation.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:36 PM, October 09, 2007

I have heard it all now. IBM should pay to leave Vermont should the environment be such that it no longer makes sense to be here!

Doug you are an interesting guy. You have missed the point entirely. You are so focused on finding the exact right gov't survey to debunk Bubba, you don't see the basic point.

No matter how you slice it, VT is an extremely expensive state to live in. It's not about the tax rate (entirely) or salaries. Facts are facts when I moved here I was faced with a ridiculously high state tax, significantly higher property and school taxes, utility bills that were 50% higher than where I lived before, higher gasoline bills and higher food costs. With no change in life style I pay somewhere between 33% and 50% more for the basics. Real facts based on real experience... no cheating surveys to argue about just my personal checkbook.

Here's the point. We accept these premium costs right across the board and are so numb to it at this point we just don't seem to care. Think about it.

Taxes are at the high end of the range but we get no premium services for it versus other states. Heck half the roads in Vt are still dirt!

Utilities all buy the same basic fuels on the open market. My Green Mountain Power bill is 50% higher than my old utility bills. This is the only place I have lived where people spend a large part of their summer cutting firewood to save on their utility bills.

My Property tax is 3 times what I used to pay and the best I can tell no one seems all that thrilled with the quality of the VT school system.

Shaws and Hannefords are riduclous priced when compared to other areas (Publix, Wegmans, Winn Dixie, et.al.). The quality of their product is nothing special.

The list can go on and on.

IBM will leave the state because VT has isolated itself from the rest of the world with a poor infrastructure, unfriendly business climate and inadequate work force to draw from. We look at them as this behemouth that should exercise social responsibility and then do our bet to chase them out. They will leave becasue they can't make monry here.

I like VT alot but a rational person has to admit it has significant problems that it can not or will not accept exist. Condoning the irresponsible behavior in Montpelier that perpetuates this only allows it to continue. Take a stand. Support fiscal responsiblity. We owe it to our kids to leave them a state that isn't bankrupt.

and as an aside, Buffalo is in terrible shape today. They are probably not a good model to learn from.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:36 AM, October 10, 2007

Amen, brother! You have hit the nail on the head, and anyone that has moved to, or lived in almost ANY other state in the union has found all of this to be true. As for Hoffer's assertion that rather than do all we can to keep IBM, we should merely prepare for "conversion". To what? A bunch of trustfunder "organic" gardeners, or maybe some taxpayer-funded "weatherization" program where workers make the minimum wage? Maybe some little tourist shoppes where the natives sell glazed moose-turd earrings to the flatlanders? Lyndon lost NE Tool to North Carolina thanks to Dean, Brattleboro the same with CS Wholesalers, EHV Weidmann has already stated that they will never expand in Vermont, and on and on! Do you think it might be time for a change in direction?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:42 AM, October 10, 2007

Change means expanding our horizons...letting go of the past. I wonder if our legislators have the ability to do that.

Not trying to take "cheap shots" I wonder how much of our inability to make real progress at the state level has to do with the background of our representatives. A while ago I received a listing from the Better Business Bureau listing the state reps and their occupations. I was surprised how many are farmers, beauty shop operators, shopkeepers and retirees. There were very few that appeared to have significant professional backgrounds. Nothing wrong with farmers, shopkeepers, etc but it occured to me most probably don't have the necessary strong educational or professional backgrounds really needed for this job. In other states, much of the legislative bodies are businessmen, lawyers, etc. that had big business experience. Much less so in VT.

Fixing the problems requires having the right people in place with the right experience to do it. We probably need to recognize that, try as they might, there is a clear lack of those required skills and experience in the legislature and they probably can never fix it.

Just to rub against all things we hold dear, I wonder if there shouldn't be minimum professional requirements to be able to hold office. The Legislature is tackling complex issues that confront all of us. Perhaps we should require those who want to hold office to meet some minimum skill level? We have professional licensing standards in VT for Cosmotologist, Auctioneers and Tattoo Artists, relatively mundane occupations. Why wouldn't we set minimum standards for those dealing with far more substantial issues that effect all of us?

Just a thought.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:34 AM, October 10, 2007

Sorry guys. You've done it again.

We were talking about taxes and it morphed into the general cost of living. Are you seriously suggesting that the state of VT is responsible for the prices at Shaw's or the cost of heating fuel? Get serious.

And you dismiss the fact that wages are higher here (not great, but higher than Fla.) as if it doesn't matter.

You may see higher taxes in some areas but sales taxes are sneaky because in Fla. you don't get a bill every quarter to see the full amount. The data doesn't lie, Fla. taxes are not that much lower than VT (and Bubba is no longer touting how low they are in Georgia because he was wrong so we act like we never had the discussion).

Your unwillingness to accept official data from respected gov't. sources ("cheating surveys") is disturbing. I don't look for the "exact right gov't. survey to debunk Bubba", I look for reliable data to address his unfounded assumptions. That's called research.

As for Florida, I can't believe you would want to compare the school systems. I wager that by any measure of performance VT is better than Fla.

Could the state be more efficient in the use of our money? Probably. Do you have any suggestions or is complaining all you can do?

And as for IBM, if you don't think it's responsible to plan, then I hope you don't live in Essex or Essex Jct.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:41 AM, October 10, 2007

To justify taxes by saying another states are higher is not a good enough reason to have them this high. We are not getting enough bang for our buck - especially when it comes to schools.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:17 AM, October 10, 2007

"We are not getting enough bang for our buck "

Ok, then what exactly is "enough bang for the buck"?

According to the reports that cast Vermont as the worst sate for taxes, The amount of tax burden in Vermont is 3% from median of all states.

So if we had 3% improvement, is that "enough bang for the buck"?

I bet your answer is no. I also bet that it doesn't matter what taxes are in VT or anywhere. There are some people who just plain do not like taxes in any form despite the benefits.

"IBM will leave the state because VT has isolated itself from the rest of the world with a poor infrastructure, unfriendly business climate and inadequate work force to draw from"

This is so far from being accurate that its funny. The situation is complicated, but it has nothing to do with taxes, business climate, or even the quality of the workforce. You must work at UVM or some other public sector job.

"anyone that has moved to, or lived in almost ANY other state in the union has found all of this to be true."

And here's Bubba again, or is it self proclaimed Green Mountain Patriot that haunts or rather trolls the BFP story boards? Wouldn't that be ironic to find he's actually a flatlander from Georgia. Whatever the case, Bubba once again is completely devoid of any facts, just anecdotal rantings.

Doug is right on the money. Every single piece of evidence shows that the situation in VT is not as bad as what the hysterical "no tax, no government" crowd is claiming. The evidence shows that VT is comparitive to other similar states. There has not been one person on this board who has provided any proof otherwise.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:38 AM, October 10, 2007

Amazing what political hacks can come up with! EVERY tax I pay in Georgia is much lower than what I paid in Vermont, with the sole exception of auto registration. We estimated that it would cost us $5,000 - $7,500 a year to move back. I know a lot of people that did move back for family reasons, or because they missed something or other, but I can guarantee Mr. Hoffer that regardless of his tainted and outright phony manipulations of data to satisfy the Vermont progressives that lower taxes were never the reason! I will admit, though, that welfare is more generous in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:13 AM, October 10, 2007

Just to set the record straight, I again looked at tax comparisons between states through another source. Limited to Vt. and Georgia, The Federation of Tax Administrators in Wash. DC showed (1) Income tax range: Vt. 3.6 - 9.5% (6800 married ded.) GA 1 - 6% (5400 married ded) (2) Same source, sales tax for Vt. 6% and for Georgia, 4% (3) Real estate trsf. tax, Vt 1.25% Georgia $1 first 1,000 then .10 cents per 100 addit. (4) Median Real Estate tax rate per $1000, this from Nat. Association of Home Bldrs, Vt. $16.35 and Georgia $7.12. Any more doubts about who's cooking the books?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 PM, October 10, 2007

Bubba

You just won't go the extra mile. As I pointed out days ago, the 6% rate in Georgia applies to every dollar earned over $7,000 while VT's 3.6% rate applies up to $30,000. I know it's complicated but you can't get to the truth unless you understand the graduated income tax and when the marginal rates kick in. Georgia income taxes cost more than in VT for most filers. Period.

Furthermore, Georgia state sales tax is lower than VT but every county adds its own local tax so it's a wash. AND - here's the kicker, some food items are taxed in Georgia but not in VT.

As I said before, you are so angry all the time that you can't / won't just take a breath and see the truth. What you call "tainted and outright phony manipulations of data" are actual facts. Since you will never understand or accept what the facts say, I am through with this absurd exchange.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:59 PM, October 10, 2007

Here's Georgia's sales tax rates

http://www.dor.ga.gov/salestax/salestaxrates/LGS_2007_Oct_Rate_Chart_Food_rates_07.pdf

For the most part Georgia taxes at 7% and food at 3%. If you live in one of the incorporated towns that compose Atlanta then you face another 1% on both regular goods and food.

At least overall Georgia is not as bad as Tennessee which taxes at 7% sales tax on regular goods and 6% on food.

Its interesting that so many of the southern states that have poverty rates above 10% also tax food.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:53 PM, October 10, 2007

As was stated before, the problem with all the property tax comparisons, including the AHB one, is that they never include income sensitivity. So a direct comparison of rates is meaningless.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:22 PM, October 10, 2007

Forget the surveys and look at the real world.

Is the Vermont economy growing and competitive with the remainder of the country? Do we have a growing state revenue base sufficient to generate the revenue needed to support the existing legislated programs? Do more businesses move in or move out of the state?
Do our kids stay in state after high school and college to find meaningful employment?

I suspect if we were honest, we are not viewed as having a robust competitive state economy; the revenue base does not support the existing approved spending programs; more businesses of substance move out than move in and; more of our kids move out of state for more available and better paying jobs than those in VT.

VT is at a crossroads. We can either address it and maintain our beautiful state or hand a problem over to our kids.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:52 PM, October 10, 2007

Here is the real world. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks job creation month to month all over the country. Each state uses the same methodology and surveys businesses to get employment and wage data. This is the data used by EVERYONE who follows the economy (Federal Reserve Board, Wall Street, "Lefties", Art Woolf, everyone.

Here are the figures for the % change in private sector jobs from July 2000 to July 2007 (I use private sector because economic development policies are not intended to and have little impact on public sector jobs). Ready?

-1.3% Maine
-0.5% Mississippi
0.3% Conn.
1.3% Maine
2.3% Kansas
2.5% Tenn.
2.7% Vermont
3.4% Georgia
3.5% Alabama
3.6% New Hampshire
3.8% Colorado
6.8% Oregon
7.8% Washington

There was no method to my choices; I just took a few to make a point. Notice that there is no apparent relationship to the "Red" state "Blue" state divisions.

Do you really think that Mississippi and Tenn. are less business friendly than VT or Oregon? Or that Washington is that much more "friendly" then New Hampshire? Not likely.

The point is that there are many many reasons for changes in employment; some of which have little or nothing to do with state policies. The bottom line is that the entire "competitiveness" argument is waaay exagerated.

For example, the previous writer assumed that more businesses move out of VT than move in. As I've said, there is NO public data on this one way or the other - for VT or any other state.

I've looked at private data (as have analysts in Calif.) and it's basically a wash. And note that the numbers show little difference even for states perceived to be more "friendly".

Moreover, the data I've seen shows that the jobs impact of such business movement is a very small percentage of the total number of jobs created & destroyed each year. That is, the real action is from existing businesses either expanding or declining.

Do some businesses move around? Sure. Do you have any reliable data on the numbers for other states? No. Therefore, on what basis can you say that we are more or less "competitive" than other states?

Much more job loss results from jobs going overseas, which has NOTHING to do with state policies (friendly or otherwise). Note that this data is reported annually by the U.S. Dept. Labor (not some "cheating survey").

I realize it is difficult to accept information that challenges your world view, but these are facts, not opinions.

Bottom line: We are being hammered by forces beyond our control and many states are suffering. It is just not accurate to say that VT is somehow an outlier.

Would it surprise you to know that people just like you are saying exactly the same things in other states? And most of those other states cannot fairly be characterized as "Leftist".

I agree that we need to make changes. But we must first define the problem. The incessant complaints about how VT sucks and is anti-business are just not true. Are all those states with weaker job creation also anti-business? Hardly.

It's not VT that's at a crossroad; it's the entire U.S. economy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 PM, October 10, 2007

Doug I hope this table formats properly. Here are
the net job creation stats of the BLS site since 2003. I don't see anything close to your reported 2.7% rate. Only proves there is a fact or figure for all points.

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Year to Year Net Job Growth

March June Sept Dec
2003 -0.6% 0.0% -0.2% 0.8%
2004 0.1% 1.0% -0.3% 0.5%
2005 -0.3% 0.4% -0.4% 0.9%
2006 -0.6% 0.7% -0.7% 0.3%

The point remains do we get good value for what we pay into government programs in VT? I think not when I compare it to other States I have lived in.

You do repeat a good "talking point" ..first we must define the problem. That is the first line of defense of all politicians to not offend and to buy time. True leaders get beyond the rhetoric and put an executable plan on the table. When all other things are unclear, the first rule of financial management is to control your spending. Spend wisely. Spend everything you need to be successful but demand you get value for your money. I don't see that mindset here. We adamantly defend waste and inefficency in the name of the public good.

Things need to change.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:07 PM, October 10, 2007

You didn't see the 2.7% figure because you didn't look at the same time period -- and, more importantly, you didn't look at the total. You only looked at the quarterly figures rather than the overall growth for the period.

FYI: I started in 2000 to show the change from before the last recession. Not sure why you picked 2003. And I picked July because the most recent month (August) is still considered preliminary data until adjusted next month.

It doesn't matter what period you select, you'll find that there are states with better and worse job growth than VT; which was my point.

For those who think VT is some island of crap surrounded by states that know what they're doing, it's just not so. In truth, states have very little control over job creation.

I'm curious which gov't. programs you think don't provide good value compared to other states. I'm not suggesting there aren't any, only that you can't just say that without looking at the related outcomes (health, public safety, environment, education, etc,).

And while I have many complaints about our state gov't., I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that "we adamantly defend waste and inefficency in the name of the public good". Can you provide some examples?

Finally, the need to accurately define a problem is not rhetoric, it's the necessary predicate for solving problems. If you misdiagnose a problem, you will surely waste time and money on the wrong treatment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:40 PM, October 10, 2007

....rhetoric

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:03 AM, October 11, 2007

You have to get Something for all the taxes!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:08 AM, October 11, 2007

You can't talk about tax burdens and not include property tax. I pay twice in property tax what I pay in state income tax. The JFO ignores property tax. The JFO is biased.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:36 AM, October 11, 2007

Read Art Woolf's commentary on Vermont Tiger. He pokes all kinds of holes in the JFO study.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:38 AM, October 11, 2007

"I pay twice in property tax what I pay in state income tax."

You must be a trustfunder.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:53 AM, October 11, 2007

Well, it's not exactly twice, but it's quite a bit more.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:41 PM, October 11, 2007

Art Woolf's commentary is predictable and not terribly helpful.

1. Not doing 50 states is not a big deal because the states included represent most (if not all) of the major approaches to state tax policy. Moreover, as was noted, they simply used the same 12 states from the 1997 study. And had they done 50 states, some would have complained it was too expensive.

2. Not including property taxes is too bad. However, Art is ignoring the fact that a) VT is one of only a few states that uses a property tax at the state level (which means in other states it would be a local tax and not counted in this analysis; but you still have to pay it), and b) VT has income sensitivity for the educ. property tax so we would still look pretty good compared to everyone else.

Art: "The real question is how an entrepreneur views these taxes, and where she'd rather live. Given those numbers, New Hampshire looks, and is, awfully inviting to businesses."

This is classic. New Hampshire "looks" inviting. So where is the data to answer the question whether it actually matters? That is, how many businesses and high income entrepreneurs make a conscious choice based on these factors. He doesn't know; none of us do. Inferences are not the same as facts.

In addition, he conveniently ignored the report's findings on the corporate income tax. For the larger business case study, NH taxes would be $33,785 and VT $25,875.

And I am continually amused by the fact that Art and others ignore the fact that there are lots of wealthy Vermonters - some of whom own and operate substantial businesses - that find VT a perfectly nice place to grow a business. How do we account for that? It doesn't fit his model.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:55 PM, October 11, 2007

Doug, you're blowing off the whole property tax thing. I recognize that it wasn't practical to include, but it still means the study can't tell us much. Income sensitivity or not, we still raise over one billion dollars from it. It adds to our burden.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:30 PM, October 11, 2007

Put all of the rhetoric and funny data aside and travel first to St. Johnsbury, where a group of leftist flatlanders raised such a stink about a new WalMart that they went to Littleton, N.H., and then visit Littleton itself. The downtown of St. Johnsbury is depressed, with small businesses like second-hand clothing stores constantly going out of business whereas Littleton has a vibrant downtown, thriving side-by-side with WalMart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc. I could not think of a better example of how destructive liberal pinheads can be. The two towns say it all.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:31 PM, October 11, 2007

Yeah, all VT Ski towns do fairly well too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:03 PM, October 11, 2007

I'm not blowing off the property tax thing at all. It's there, we pay. But this report looks at state taxes, not state & local. Since the educ. piece would be local in other states, you would have to do a study to cover both. That's the only way to do apples to apples. And when we do that (if ever) the income sensitivity will show that VT's system is much fairer than the others for most households.

Is the total too much? I don't know but that's a separate question that should be tackled. In fact, I have been a strong advocate of rigorous performance measurement in state gov't. for many years. We can't answer the question about whether the money spent is used efficiently without this type of information. And it wouldn't hurt to gather data on outcomes in other states since there seems to be a perception that VT does not stack up well. I think otherwise but we'll never know without the data.

Re. Wal-Mart: If VT is so bad, why did Wal-Mart choose St J first? As for the loss of local small businesses, that is sad history of Wal-Mart everywhere. They take all the retail air out of the room and many small businesses go down.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:31 PM, October 11, 2007

For all you VT apologists....from the Free Press. Please debunk this too.

Vt. ranked 44th in 'friendliness'

Published: Thursday, October 11, 2007
Vermont is No. 44 in a ranking that seeks to measure how "business friendly" states are.

The state has ranked in the bottom 10 in each of the five years the study has been conducted.

Vermont slipped one position in the 2008 State Business Tax Climate Index, compared to last year's ranking. The ranking is produced by the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit research group.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:06 PM, October 11, 2007

Doug as for WalMart...it souunds like one more liberal talking point.

Walmart has learned how to be competitive in the free market. Consumers vote with their feet. The best prices win. The real "culprit" to the small retailer isn't so much Walmart but the shoppers who chose to save money shopping there... Shame on them.

Once again, as this whole thread has been, its about people not wanting to pay a premium to the market without receiving value.

Why can't the liberals get it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:14 PM, October 11, 2007

Wow! Vermont now 44th "friendliest" state towards business. (Not my data, either) Can hardly wait to see how Hoffer spins this! (Guess he's earning his money trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:50 PM, October 11, 2007

It's great the way you guys claim that the media is a "Liberal" cesspool and then take everything they say as if it were true.

The Free Press article is about a deeply flawed report from a very biased organization (the same guys who brought you the useless per capita tax burden crap). They may be "non-profit", but they are not unbiased. I'm very familiar with their stuff.

If you are willing to read something, check out this excellent report that examines the methodologies used by a number of well known "business climate" rankings. It's called "Grading Places". See pages 17 - 28; it's a PDF file.
http://www.epinet.org/books/grading_places/grading_places_(full_text).pdf

Why do you automatically assume that the report from the Tax Foundation is accurate or reliable? Do you know how they determined the rankings? What were the criteria? And so on. Are you guys at all intellectually curious? You're so quick to challenge everything I say but show no such skepticism about other information. You're being played.

You're so quick to assume that "Leftists" are trying to pull the wool over your eyes that you refuse to see how you're being used by those who could care less about regular working people.

For example, the Tax Foundation loves flat taxes. That means you would pay at the same rate at Bill Gates. Is that fair? Who do you think would benefit from that? And more importantly, do you have any idea what that would mean in terms of revenues?

And BTW - Here's an example of how the per capita stuff does not reflect reality. VT per capita income in 2006 was $34,264. If that was representative, your neighbors with a family of four would have an income of $137,056. To show you how unrepresentative that is, the Tax Dept. reports that only 11% of all "married filing jointly" filers (those most likely to have a 4 person household) had income over $125,000. So what does that tell you about whether per capita income (or "tax burden") represents the experiences of the majority of Vermonters.

So you might ask yourself why the Tax Foundation uses this methodology. THINK ABOIT IT!

To the guy who champions WAl-Mart: It's you who doesn't get it. The only way Wal-Mart manages to be "competitive" is by paying dirt cheap wages; no benefits; and buying most of the product from China (which means American workers lose jobs). Moreover, Wal-Mart costs you money in taxes whether you shop there or not. About 20 states have calculated the cost of providing health care to Wal-Mart workers and it's millions & millions of dollars. Wal-Mart wants it's employees to work part-time so they won't have to pay any benefits. Then they tell them how to apply for publicly assisted health care. Thus, the price at the cash register is not the full price of the goods. Plus, Wal-Mart has received almost a billion dollars mationally in property tax exemptions and other scams over the years. See this report from Good Jobs First (another PDF file).
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Finally, VT (like a number of other states) had to actually change it's tax code two years ago because companies like Wal-Mart were avoiding state taxes (again, costing you money). Even Gov. Douglas understood we were being stiffed and willingly signed the bill. [Note: I remind you again, that the State Tax Dept. reported that in 2003, 46% of the largest multi-state and multi-national companies operating in VT paid only $250 in corp. taxes. Nice.

Stop spouting tired slogans about "Liberals" and learn something.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:01 PM, October 11, 2007

"its about people not wanting to pay a premium to the market without receiving value."

That's such a crock. This argument is an attempt to reason for lowering taxes. But, you have yet to define value.

By all measures, VT is between 0 and 3% off from median with regard to taxes. We don't know for sure since we can't compare tax numbers to other states in a correct manner due to local taxes.

So tell me, if we decrease VT taxes by 3%, does that provide the cost to value that you seek?

And while your at it tell me what a 3% reduction in your taxes would be.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:06 PM, October 11, 2007

A 3% reduction would be nearly a 25% reduction in my tax rate.

Its interesting. This doesn't bother you but I suspect a 9 cent (a 2.5% increase) in gas prices would really tick you off (oh yeah..that's Big Oil sticking it to us. How do they expect me to keep my big block Pick-up full?). A ridiculous tax burden on the other hand is perceived as little VT doing what it needs to do for the greater good even if it kills the little guy.

I work pretty hard for my money. I would some of it left for me to decide how I want to spend it.

It's time to apply a little common sense. Do you really believe all these independent research reports are biased and targeted against Vermont? How paranoid can we get?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:37 PM, October 11, 2007

You STILL don't get it. There is only one report on the "tax burden" and it all comes from the Tax Foundation. They may be independent, but they are not unbiased. They've been at it for years. They are not biased against VT. They just have a goal. It is to get rid of any and all progressive tax laws. That would screw you and help wealthy people.

The idea that VT has a "ridiculous" tax burden compared to other states has just been punctured. Yet you keep saying it. The level of denial is really quite remarkable.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:35 PM, October 11, 2007

likewise.. I find this ponderous

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 PM, October 11, 2007

Hoffer should stop beating the dead horse that is the fraudulent report created by the lefties in Montpelier showing just how "tax-friendly" Vermont REALLY is (leaving out property taxes)! Doug, you might want to MOVEON to say, Venezuela or Zimbabwe and try to justify their policies. And you don't have to worry about critics there, as they will soon "disappear".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:31 AM, October 12, 2007

If our tax burden is so light, just how have we been able to pay for our schools, which have doubled their spending since Act 60 was created?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:30 AM, October 12, 2007

If anyone likes having more of their paycheck continually more obligated to taxes let me know. I have some you can pay for me. Personally, I actually like being able to decide where and how I spend my money. I don't need state agencies deciding it for me.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:08 AM, October 12, 2007

"A 3% reduction would be nearly a 25% reduction in my tax rate. "

That's possible, but what are the real dollars?

The issue is at what rate do most filers file at and what does a 3% decrease give to these people. The 3% is based upon the Tax Foundation rankings which says nothing about how many people are filing at the various rates. No where does it address the fact that 60% of Vermonters pay property tax based on income and 25% of all education property taxes are refunded. Additionally, the study uses property tax rates that include taxes levied on out of state home owners. These are not Vermonters and the vast majority of Vermonters do not pay these rates. The result is that the property tax figures used by the study to rank Vermont are incorrect and that for a typical Vermont taxpayer, the difference between Vermont and the median state is actually much less than 3%.

Which brings me back to the original point, that changing the rates by a small amount results in insignificant dollars in one's pocket.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:04 AM, October 12, 2007

The JFO study doesn't use property tax at all. And, by the way, most of the nonresidential property is owned by Vermonters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:36 PM, October 12, 2007

"most of the nonresidential property is owned by Vermonters."

Sure, but the vast majority of Vermonter's don't own non-residential property and don't pay these rates.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:30 PM, October 12, 2007

I think some folks are confusing two issues. The study does not comment on whether our taxes are too high, too low, or just right. It simply gives information about what different households pay here vs. other places (i.e., how the "burden" is distributed).

And even if they were to include property taxes (which would require looking at local taxes in other states), it would not significantly change the rankings because - to my knowledge - no other states (or municipalities) have income sensitive property tax systems.

Lots of people complain about Acts 60 & 68, but I'm not sure they realize how much it saves them: the educ. tax liability for 100,000 households is capped as a % of income. Compare this to your municipal (non-educ.) taxes and you'll see what I mean. For municipal taxes, wealthy families pay a tiny % of income while most folks pay a much higher %. Do Acts 60/68 shift a larger part of the "burden" to the wealthy? Yes, that was the point because the old system was so unfair (based on property value instead of ability to pay).

Bottom line: We may all complain about how much we pay (I certainly do), but it's clear that Vermont's system is fairer than most. That is, the total "burden" is roughly distributed based on your income. People all over the country would be grateful to have such a system.

Now, if you want to talk about the total amount raised and spent in VT, that's a good discussion. But that's NOT what this study was about.

And for those who missed it, please go back and read my earlier post about the misleading nature of the per capita approach. THAT is the key to the whole thing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:52 PM, October 12, 2007

Original statement: IBM will leave the state because VT has isolated itself from the rest of the world with a poor infrastructure, unfriendly business climate and inadequate work force to draw from.

Somebody's reponse: "This is so far from being accurate that its funny. The situation is complicated, but it has nothing to do with taxes, business climate, or even the quality of the workforce. You must work at UVM or some other public sector job."

Point: No, the original statement is true. You say that the situation has nothing to do with taxes, business climate, or the quality of the workforce, and then you end there. You offer nothing but your unsupported, smirking negation of the original statement.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:08 PM, October 12, 2007

Anyone who disagrees with Doug Hoffer is: stupid, uninformed, evil, or reading biased reports, or all of the above. Any report that doesn't support Mr. Hoffer's view is biased and created by an evil, corporate organization.

No matter how many reports show that Vermont is high tax and unfriendly to business -- a fact that everyone who lives here already knows instinctively -- they are ALL BIASED AND EVIL AND UNTRUE!!!

Even Art Woolf is either biased or a fool!!!!

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, PEOPLE? VERMONT IS "IN REALITY" A LOW TAX STATE THAT IS FRIENDLY TO BUSINESS AND ALL BUSINESSES ACTUALLY WANT TO MOVE HERE.

ANY REPORTS YOU READ OF VERMONT BUSINESSES MOVING JOBS TO OTHER STATES ARE ACTUALLY FRAUDULENT REPORTS. THOSE JOBS DIDN'T ACTUALLY MOVE.

Signed, Doug Hoffer.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:15 PM, October 12, 2007

Doug, you are a true socialist. Your theory is people should pay based on how much they can afford to pay. I would suggest people should pay based on what they consume in the system. What I earn has should have zero impact on what I pay. What I choose to consume and use in the system should have everything to do with it. If I demand and use more, I should pay for it. Shifting the burden to those who have worked hard to earn money simply to incent others to not achieve more is wrong.

I like sales taxes and other consumption-based taxes for a couple reasons but mainly because you pay as you use and, by the way, in a tourist-based economy it shares the burden with visitors to our state that use our services. How much more fair can you get?

Taxes should be used to incent performance and action not merely serve as a means to re-allocate income.

The solution for VT is to permanently grow its revenue base not by permanently increasing its taxes. You do that encouraging business to move to the state (we just lost another business in Rutland yesterday-240 jobs- 240 less people and 1 company in the state revenue base), helping them grow their profitability (and subsequentially the taxes they pay) and encouraging tourist to visit the state (higher sales, fuel and other taxes as well as raw dollars spent in the state).

As a state we all need to understand the fundamentals of financial manangement...you can't tax yourself to prosperity. You do it by encouraging a robust,competitive market-based environment. The free market rules. Legislatively-driven income re-allocation and social policy fails everytime.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:22 PM, October 12, 2007

It's really quite simple. I actually read all those reports and determine for myself whether they are accurate or reliable. What do you do?

BTW - The business that just left Rutland had nothing to do with the "business climate". Read the article in the Herald. Both the company spokesperson and an official from the state said as much. The company consolidated operations in Nebraska & Iowa. It's unfortunate, but it happens all the time.

For those who worship the market, how can you ignore the reality of such things. Businesses do what makes sense for them (whether we like it or not). And it usually has nothing to do with state taxes. Why not ask the company how much they paid in VT taxes before we assume anything. Oh wait, that info. is confidential. So how can we make any judgments on such matters without hard data? Doesn't seem to bother some of you.

I will say it again, the Tax Dept. reported that 46% of the largest multi-state and multi-national businesses operating in VT in 2003 paid $250 in corp. income taxes. That's not some "cheating survey", it's just a fact (there really are such things).

Re. "Socialist" taxes: VT has had its own progressive tax system for over half a century. Does that make all those governors (mostly Republican) and legislators Socialists?

And finally, I never called anyone stupid or evil (you guys are much more likely to use such language). I just suggested that you think for yourself.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:52 PM, October 12, 2007

VT has a low tax burden and the business climate here is delightful! High-paying jobs are springing up everywhere and out-of-state businesses are absolutely clamoring to relocate to Vermont.

Thanks for helping me see the obvious.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:21 PM, October 12, 2007

Do you have any idea what's going on in other states? This is a national problem. Sure, a few states are growing fast and creating lots of jobs. But what kind of jobs? Things have changed. It's not just Vermont. Are you prepared to say that all the states experiencing these problems have a bad "business climate" or is just VT? Take a look around.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:44 PM, October 12, 2007

I've lived in other states and travel frequently to other states. Business in Mass. is booming. And in NY. And in New Hampshire.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:49 PM, October 12, 2007

I too have lived in othe states and travel frequently througout the US and the world.

If you have talked to others outside here, you would know they view VT today as an undesirable place to do business. Like it or not perception is reality.

As for the company leaving VT to re-trench in Neb and Iowa, I did read the article and in fact you said it in your own post "businesses do what's in their best interest". If they were making money in VT they would have stayed. Businesses don't move to make less money.

but Doug you are right... we are in Paradise. there is a conspiracy of research institutes, agencies et.al. to gang up on little VT to keep us open-minded folks in our place. Geesh!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:59 PM, October 12, 2007

"Business in Mass. is booming. And in NY. And in New Hampshire."

Unemployment in NY is 4.9%; Mass. is 4.5%; NH is 3.6%; VT is 4.0%. I don't think any of those are great numbers but only one is better than VT.

But unemployment doesn't measure the number or types of jobs being created.

For example, here are the numbers for private sector job creation since before the last recession:

NH 3.4%
VT 2.8%
NY 0.1%
MA -1.6%

That is, while all these numbers suck compared to job growth in the 90s, only NH has exceeded VT during that period. And MA (which you say is "booming") has not even replaced all the jobs it lost (and NY is not much better).

Now I would be the first to admit that VT's recent performance is quite poor. But a quick check finds that CT, KY, ME, MI, NJ, OH, OR, and TN have all had growth of less than 1% in the last year (like VT).

Of course some states are doing better. But if you think VT is somehow an outlier run by crazies who are scaring business away, this data shows clearly that it's just not true (or that those states suffer from the same disease).

These are difficult times and these problems go way beyond state policy here in VT.

And BTW - A study by the state Dept. of Economic Development (hardly a nest of "Leftists") a few years back found that most CEOs in other states had no idea what was going on in VT (contrary to your assertion that people view VT as an undesirable place to do business).

I wonder if those who do have that view got it from the Gov. and the Chamber because they are the ones who say it all the time. Nice marketing technique.

And and as I said before), how do you explain all the successful businesses in VT who say proudly that they love being here? These folks meet big payrolls and pay taxes. Have they just been duped?

Finally, I never said VT is paradise. We have a lot of problems. But the data says that we are not alone.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:57 PM, October 12, 2007

According to Hoffer, we're all living in The Matrix, except for him: none of our perceptions that we're highly taxed and that Vt. is anti-business is real. None of the voluminous reports and studies showing that Vt. has a bad business claimate is real. None of our feelings that we're not getting our money's worth for the highest per-pupil education spending in the nation is real. We're all deluded. Hoffer is Morpheus: he's the only one who sees that in reality we're undertaxed and the Vermont economy is wonderful.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:42 PM, October 13, 2007

Nice try. I never said any of those things.

I certainly never said that the "Vermont economy is wondeful" or that we're undertaxed. I complain regularly about the VT economy. We just disagree about how to fix it.

The "voluminous reports" about VT's business climate use methodologies intended to reach that conclusion. If you actually read them, you might see that.

And did you even read my last post? How do you explain the fact that lots of other states are struggling? Are they "anti-business" too? C'mon, answer the question.

And are you aware that there are people all over the country (not just in "Leftist" VT) that make the same argument? [do a Lexis Nexus search of major newspapers for "business climate" and see what I mean] Is it really possible that most of America is anti-business?

As for whether we're too highly taxed, you still don't get it. The issue - as stated by the Gov. and others - is whether VT is more highly taxed than other states. The facts are in. Not so. You remain obsessed with the per capita data, which is terribly misleading.

Look, this is not a "partisan" issue. It's about the data. Is the per capita approach representative? No.

And I dare say that your peceptions are greatly influenced by repeated media reports that highlight the "anti-business" mantra. Just because some people say something over and over doesn't make it true.

I agree that the question of what we get for the money is worth investigating. I think it's important to examine the data (social, economic, and enironmental indicators). Without the data, they are just "feelings", which are real and worthy of respect, but certainly not determinative.

Would you agree that public policy should not be based on feelings?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:07 PM, October 13, 2007

"Nice try. I never said any of those things."

Wrong. You have said exactly those things. You certainly HAVE stated that we are not highly taxed in Vermont and that Vt. is NOT anti-business. You certainly HAVE dismissed all the reports finding that Vt. is a high tax and anti-business state as flawed or the product of biased sponsorship. And you certainly have dismissed Art Woolf as a right wing economist.

Why, oh lonely-but-wise Mr. Hoffer, do I and so many Vermonters feel that the Vt. tax burden is huge and that Vt. is anti-business? Do you accuse me, with a college and two post-college professional degrees, of just being stupid? Why do we all feel that Vermont has few high-paying private sector jobs and is doing its level best not only not to keep whatever jobs we have here, but to drive those jobs out and to erect tax and regulatory barriers to the entry of new businesses? Am I and all the others just fools?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:54 PM, October 13, 2007

The JFO study addressed the issue of distribution, which the Tax Foundation conveniently ignores.

If you select an adjusted gross income and family configuration, we can look to the case studies and compare the VT "tax burden" with those in other states. In almost every case, VT's "tax burden" was lower than most of the other states. Are you suggesting that the data in the report is inaccurate? If so, please explain.

As for the "anti-business" label, I have asked repeatedly whether you think other struggling states are also anti-business. I have yet to hear an answer.

Exactly what "tax barriers" has VT erected to impede business growth?

You referred also to the entry of new businesses and suggested that VT is lagging. Please provide data to support this claim.

I don't deny that you feel this way. Only that you have not persuaded me that it's true.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:37 PM, October 13, 2007

We can certainly name several large employers that have moved jobs to other states recently, but name a new business that has come to VT recently with significant jobs . . .

Regulatory barriers: Act 250 (which no other state has), difficult local zoning, difficult statewide permitting, private anti-development lawsuits, the Conservation Law Foundation . . .

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:58 AM, October 14, 2007

I asked you to provide support for your statement that there are "tax and regulatory barriers" to the entry of new businesses. You mentioned Act 250 but offered nothing about taxes.

I asked about "business growth" and you assumed that means businesses & jobs from out of state. In fact, of the jobs created and lost over the course of a year, over 95% occur instate. [Note: There is no public data for this but I purchased private data and ran the numbers. The findings were very similar to a study done in Calif. with the same data; see http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/op/OP_606DNOP.pdf.]

The idea that large numbers of businesses are moving around - and that that translates into a large # of jobs - is not supported by the evidence. And I believe that's true for most states in the U.S. We see articles about businesses that close but rarely hear about the business with 40 employees that adds 20 more.

Accoding to the state Dept. of Labor, from the 1st quarter of 2005 to the 1st quarter of 2006, 1,748 new businesses were established in VT and they created 5,524 jobs (and 1,380 closures that resulted in 3,913 jobs lost). They don't tell us how many of the new businesses were VT start-ups or came from outside.

There were 6,376 businesses with job gains (20,773 jobs) and 6,386 businesses with job losses (19,452). Again, we don't know how many of those businesses are owned by instate or out of state firms.

That's all we know from official state data. More recently, the press reported on jobs lost at Capital City Press, OMYA, and the catalog distribution company in Rutlans. To my knowledge, none of those businesses closed or shifted jobs due to "tax or regulatory barriers". More importantly, together, these represent about 1% - 2% of all jobs lost in VT during the period I just described.

BTW - As I think I mentioned earlier, the # of jobs lost to foreign competition is much greater than from intestate business movement (see Trade Adjustment Assistance Act data). That's about cheap labor and has nothing to do with the tiny tax differences between states.

Losing those jobs sucks. But it's really a question of how we allocate resources. In my view, Vermont should focus its efforts on helping instate businesses, rather than looking to those outside to save us.

As for Act 250, the data is clear, something like 98% of all Act 250 applications sail through the process. Not surprisingly, some of the large ones (not all) take longer. That's probably as it should be. And if you are advocating for repeal of ACT 250 then we just disagree. BTW - I believe Oregon has something very similar to Act 250.

It's interesting that you note private anti-development lawsuits and CLF as barriers. Recently, local folks have effectively stopped several wind farm developments around the state. If it's OK for them to use the system to slow or halt development, shouldn't others have the same opportunity?

In the end, each situation must be judged either on the merits (if it's a regulatory proceeding) or face the voters of a given town. Isn't that how it should be?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:26 AM, October 14, 2007

Wow. We're gaining a lot of jobs. Vote to reelect Douglas. Jim=Jobs!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:11 AM, October 15, 2007

Actually no, we're not.

You're only looking at one year. Net private sector job growth since the last recession has been much lower then before the recession. In the `90s, we routinely gained gained 4,000 - 5,000 jobs per year. In the last two years, it's been about half that. Unfortunately for VT workers, Jim does not = jobs. And of course you have to look at the wages of the new jobs vs. the jobs we've lost. Overall, that's not a pretty picture either.

Of course it's not just VT. Lots of states are struggling. It's the "jobless recovery".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:18 AM, October 15, 2007

"Point: No, the original statement is true. You say that the situation has nothing to do with taxes, business climate, or the quality of the workforce, and then you end there. You offer nothing but your unsupported, smirking negation of the original statement."

And where is the evidence that the original statement is true?

Even when IBM first came to VT, VT was not competitive with regard to taxes, VT didn't have a good business climate, and VT didn't have any workers.

Yet, IBM came to VT.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:46 AM, October 15, 2007

Well, Doug, you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Is our economy in good shape or not?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 AM, October 15, 2007

I don't recall saying it was in good shape. Like the tax debate, some try to suggest that VT is doing poorly while others do well. I simply pointed out that what we are experiencing is not unique to VT.

In my view, the economy is not healthy. Job growth is weak and many of the new jobs pay poorly. The causes have little, if anything, to do with state policies. The forces at work are much bigger than VT. If that's so, than much of our economic development policy is misguided and we should e-evaluate and reprioritize resources.

We all want the same things. But if something's not working, we should admit it and try something else.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:46 AM, October 15, 2007

I find this whole conversation irrelevant. "VT is a great place...no, no, no it's bad." Doug apparently has a fact to support or debunk any particular statement and enough free time to respone to each and every posting. What he doesn't accept is perception is reality. If people believe something is bad, it may as well be bad. The real question is how do you address and change perception. The seemingly mind-numbing recitation of the facts clearly doesn't do it.

What I don't hear except from an early-on poster is anything that sounds like a recommendation of what needs to be done to improve from where we are today(good or bad) or do we settle for the status quo?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:08 AM, October 15, 2007

I find your response to the presentation of facts really sad ("irrelevant"?). Open minded people interested in solving problems should welcome information. How can you understand the nature or extent of a problem or fashion solutions without it?

And your inference that I manipulate data is unfounded. More importantly, your unwillingness to actually consider or respond to the data suggests a closed mind.

As for negative perceptions, the obvious way to change them is to stop saying the things that create and nurture them, especially if they're not true.

The reason I don't accept that "perception is reality" is because its not. Reality is reality; hence, all those pesky and "mind-numbing" facts. That's how I choose to respond.

And I use the facts to try and persuade policy makers that we need to make changes. I would offer them here but I certainly don't want to bore you.

Good luck.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 PM, October 15, 2007

"In my view, the economy is not healthy. Job growth is weak and many of the new jobs pay poorly. The causes have little, if anything, to do with state policies."

The last statement is so clearly wrong. Gaye and Peter have told the business community in no uncertain terms:

"We hate you. You suck. Get out. And give us all your money before you go. We are reshaping Vermont into the playground of the idle wealthy and second home owners. We won't let you build anything except fancy restaurants and gourmet coffee shops, where we can hang out."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:29 PM, October 15, 2007

Yikes. For the 10th time, if it's Gaye & Peter's fault, how do you explain why other states have the same problems?

Your anger is really clouding your judgment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:39 PM, October 15, 2007

You avoid the truth about Gaye and Peter's anti-business attitude.

Other states may have problems, but they do not tell businesses that they hate them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:24 PM, October 15, 2007

The sky is falling!

The sky is falling!

The sky is falling!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:44 AM, October 16, 2007

Exactly, that's what the Dems say!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:42 PM, October 16, 2007

says chicken douglas little.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:05 AM, October 17, 2007