Anyone want to move to VT?

prsboogie · Jun 5, 2018

The bottom line with this country as a whole is the youngest and the oldest are seen as non-contributing age groups and as suck receive the least amount of support. This is despite what many would consider considerable amounts of "tax money" going towards education. Everyone is so concerned with keeping up with the world Jones's in performance numbers but the reality is we should be spending even more on them.

Children need to have great educations, they are the ones who will be running the businesses, caring for us when we are sick and leading the country when we are old. This should not mean more money in the pockets of the administrators, it needs to be actually invested in inriching our children's minds.

The elderly have worked their whole lives and contributed into the system, of course assuming they did work, and deserve to be cared for in the waning years. Of course there are external drains on the SSI system, dumping millions of dollars on "disabled" people. And no I do not speak of those unfortunate individuals who are truly disabled, but the ones who are unwilling to put some effort in bettering themselves or have some quack doctor that signs off on bullshit disability paperwork leaving us to foot the bill.

sull1102 said:
Vermont is overall not doing well, I live here now and I see it first hand every single day. The bottom half here is on par if not worse than what you see in places like Arkansas, I know, I've also seen that first hand. It is silly to even have this argument when it is so obvious how serious the problems are here and a major part of that is people who don't live here and used to or have a vacation home here that say oh Vermont is so great, yeah Burlington and Chittenden County are doing well, that's great for them, but the bottom of the State has been deemed an economic disaster area by the Fed, jobs are scarce, folks with a good education are leaving in droves and many many people are leaving to get an education elsewhere. Come on up and put your kid in the public schools of some of these lower end towns like a Brattleboro, Bennington, Rutland.

Sent from my Pixel using AlpineZone mobile app

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

AdironRider · Jun 5, 2018

VTKilarney said:
Keep in mind that little, poor Vermont has the 5th highest per pupil spending rate in the country. Our education taxes are in the stratosphere. And yet I pay private school tuition on top of those taxes, as anyone in my town who can afford to does.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html

As I was fortunate to receive some scholarships, I went to a prep school as well despite living in one of the best school districts in NH. If you don't mind me asking, which school do you send your kids to? If we do buy a place in VT, we would be looking at that route.

VTKilarney · Jun 5, 2018

One problem with Vermont is that we spend TONS of money on K-12 education, but we spend NOTHING on higher education. This encourages native Vermonters to go to school out of state - most of whom will never return.

There's lots of discussion about how business-unfriendly Vermont is. But let's be honest. There are lots of states in the northeast that are business-unfriendly. (ME, NY, MA, NJ, CT, etc.) And yet New York and Boston are booming. Why? Because businesses are willing to suffer some pains in order to be located where the talent and opportunities are. And therein lies the problem for Vermont. Talent and opportunities are in much shorter supply here. This is why you are seeing the robust economic recovery in urban areas but stagnation in rural areas. America is changing and Vermont is on the unhappy side of the changes that are happening.

VTKilarney · Jun 5, 2018

AdironRider said:
If you don't mind me asking, which school do you send your kids to? If we do buy a place in VT, we would be looking at that route.

Shoot me a private message if you are interested. I pay tuition at two different private schools.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

sull1102 said:
You are 120% DEAD WRONG. In fact what you just said is the exact problem this state has. Retirees contribute, yes, but not nearly on the level as young couples and families bringing jobs and their incomes/education. This state has a major education problem with folks who went through the public school systems, things need to change badly. You need better schools to educate these kids to be more than their struggling parents and go do something with their lives and add to that state instead of have a kid at 16-18 to jump on welfare early and live off the system.

Correct on the retiree issue. Not correct on education.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

sull1102 said:
The second half of that is the problem, the well educated leave. Also the high end can drag those scores up, come check out some of these schools down here in Southern Vermont and talk to the kids, hear what the teacher are and are not teaching them, what their parents teach them, and I think you'll see how far behind they are compared to kids of the same age not just in America but more importantly worldwide. There are wide gaps, look at a Manchester with Burr and Burton which is a truly a wonderful school, then look at say Mount Anthony half an hour down the road, tis scary how big the divide is.

Sent from my Pixel using AlpineZone mobile app

That's Vermont. No more middle class. Either the haves or the have-nots.

BenedictGomez · Jun 5, 2018

deadheadskier said:
This is reality in every state in the country. All states have good districts and bad districts, but the point is overall VT is doing well.

I see the stats, and I'm not really buying it. I'm not saying the stats are wrong, but my hypothesis is they're very misleading. Why?

Because Vermont is one of the only states in all of America that does not have a gigantic, urban, center dramatically pulling down the average that's used in those statistics. So while I'm not saying Vermont is doing poorly, my lifetime of observation and interaction with Vermonters does not suggest to me that the state is a bastion of educational excellence.

ShadyGrove said:
I don't understand what you guys are talking about when you say there is a lack of work in Vermont. Everyone I know has 2 or even three jobs! ;-)

That's funny right there!

VTKilarney said:
There's lots of discussion about how business-unfriendly Vermont is. But let's be honest. There are lots of states in the northeast that are business-unfriendly. (ME, NY, MA, NJ, CT, etc.) And yet New York and Boston are booming.

The only state on that list that isn't currently experiencing a net flight of taxable income, is Maine.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

x10003q said:
Nope.
"Vermont taxes all forms of retirement income at rates ranging from 3.55% to 8.95%. This includes Social Security retirement benefits and income from retirement accounts."

https://smartasset.com/retirement/vermont-retirement-taxes

They would also pay property taxes.

In NJ, every town is trying to add senior housing - they pay the same property taxes without adding any kids to the school system. The biggest part of every NJ property tax bill (up to 65%) is the school system. Kids in NJ can cost as much as $35k per year for K-12 (NJ avg about $21K). There are no seniors costing a town $21k/year. I doubt there are any seniors that cost the town what they pay in property taxes.

It might be smart for Vermont to figure out how to entice some of the people who live in the metro areas and love coming to Vermont on weekends and on vacations to retire in Vermont with their metro area retirement savings.

As to income, while retirement benefits are taxed, the revenue is FAR less than if that person was working full-time. And property taxes are capped for someone with low or no income. So what happens is that those on fixed incomes pay less property taxes and others have to pay the difference. The end result--everyone pays more.

And you miss the point as to the "services" argument. In suburban areas you have professional fire, EMT, police and roads that are paved. Thus, if someone needs emergency help, it is easy to get to them. In Vermont, the majority of towns have volunteer fire departments, no police, and professional or volunteer EMTs from a long ways off. Roads are still dirt. Folks retire to Vermont with the idea that these resources are five minutes away. They are wrong. Instead, they move to a remote farmhouse, demand that their road get paved, that there be a professional fire and police services, without realizing that there is NO TAX BASE to pay for those services. Therein lies the rub.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

BenedictGomez said:
I see the stats, and I'm not really buying it. I'm not saying the stats are wrong, but my hypothesis is they're very misleading. Why?

Because Vermont is one of the only states in all of America that does not have a gigantic, urban, center dramatically pulling down the average that's used in those statistics. So while I'm not saying Vermont is doing poorly, my lifetime of observation and interaction with Vermonters does not suggest to me that the state is a bastion of educational excellence.

The argument that somehow poor urban people are worse off then poor rural people is flawed. They are both poor and disenfranchised. I think that Vermont does have a fair number of "good" schools in good areas where people with opportunities are doing well. But there are a lot of smaller schools in poor rural areas that are struggling.

VTKilarney · Jun 5, 2018

thetrailboss said:
And property taxes are capped for someone with low or no income.

Don't get me started on that. When I purchased a home I asked myself, "Can I afford my mortgage and taxes?" But Vermont doesn't think that you should have to do that. Vermont expects people with higher incomes to subsidize people who buy more home than they can afford.

benski · Jun 5, 2018

BenedictGomez said:
Because Vermont is one of the only states in all of America that does not have a gigantic, urban, center dramatically pulling down the average that's used in those statistics. So while I'm not saying Vermont is doing poorly, my lifetime of observation and interaction with Vermonters does not suggest to me that the state is a bastion of educational excellence.

They also don’t have many suburbs bringing up that average. I am not sure the lack of big urban areas helps or hurts.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

VTKilarney said:
Don't get me started on that. When I purchased a home I asked myself, "Can I afford my mortgage and taxes?" But Vermont doesn't think that you should have to do that. Vermont expects people with higher incomes to subsidize people who buy more home than they can afford.

Exactly. I wondered if they were still capping property taxes based on income.

BenedictGomez · Jun 5, 2018

thetrailboss said:
The argument that somehow poor urban people are worse off then poor rural people is flawed. They are both poor and disenfranchised. I think that Vermont does have a fair number of "good" schools in good areas where people with opportunities are doing well. But there are a lot of smaller schools in poor rural areas that are struggling.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But we're dealing with averages when you see educational rankings by truly meaningful criteria like SAT scores, and the negative effect from just 1 large city (many states have several large cities) is really going to leave a mark. I don't think I've ever seen SAT scores presented this way, but I'd like to see the data ranked by median.

BenedictGomez · Jun 5, 2018

VTKilarney said:
Vermont expects people with higher incomes to subsidize people who buy more home than they can afford.

I had no idea Vermont property tax worked like that, that is positively shocking.

Especially after the housing crash of circa 2006-2007, you'd think someone would have suggested that encouraging people to buy more house than they can afford (or even should afford) is a really bad thing.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

BenedictGomez said:
I had no idea Vermont property tax worked like that, that is positively shocking.

Especially after the housing crash of circa 2006-2007, you'd think someone would have suggested that encouraging people to buy more house than they can afford (or even should afford) is a really bad thing.

Well, it is not surprising. One of the big problems with the federal tax code was that there were so many exceptions for special interests that the effective rate is higher. Same thing here. The legislature began making exceptions...for farms and "current uses" and then for poorer people. So that raises the tax rate for everyone else to cover the loss.

VTKilarney · Jun 5, 2018

thetrailboss said:
Well, it is not surprising. One of the big problems with the federal tax code was that there were so many exceptions for special interests that the effective rate is higher. Same thing here. The legislature began making exceptions...for farms and "current uses" and then for poorer people. So that raises the tax rate for everyone else to cover the loss.

I can accept progressive taxation. But I have a problem when I am subsidizing the property taxes of someone who owns a much more expensive house than I do.

thetrailboss · Jun 5, 2018

VTKilarney said:
I can accept progressive taxation. But I have a problem when I am subsidizing the property taxes of someone who owns a much more expensive house than I do.

Agreed.

HowieT2 · Jun 5, 2018

BenedictGomez said:
I see the stats, and I'm not really buying it. I'm not saying the stats are wrong, but my hypothesis is they're very misleading. Why?

Because Vermont is one of the only states in all of America that does not have a gigantic, urban, center dramatically pulling down the average that's used in those statistics. So while I'm not saying Vermont is doing poorly, my lifetime of observation and interaction with Vermonters does not suggest to me that the state is a bastion of educational excellence.

That's funny right there!

The only state on that list that isn't currently experiencing a net flight of taxable income, is Maine.

That is factually incorrect. At least for NY state which I just checked. Probably for Massachusetts and NJ as well.

speden · Jun 5, 2018

Reading this thread makes Vermont sound like the most expensive place to live, but I think it still must cost less than metro Boston. House prices here are sky high, so even if the property tax rate is less in MA, you still end up paying more money. And that's probably on a house that's smaller, older, and has less land than what you could get up in VT. I can see why people would consider retiring up there.

I agree that VT is not highly ranked for colleges, especially for engineering majors. When my kids were looking at colleges, nothing in VT was on the radar.

cdskier · Jun 5, 2018

speden said:
Reading this thread makes Vermont sound like the most expensive place to live, but I think it still must cost less than metro Boston. House prices here are sky high, so even if the property tax rate is less in MA, you still end up paying more money. And that's probably on a house that's smaller, older, and has less land than what you could get up in VT. I can see why people would consider retiring up there.

Agreed. I've made similar arguments before like this in other threads in the past when this topic came up. (Except I used the NYC/NJ area in my example instead of Boston).

Anyone want to move to VT?

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads