It's so bad you have to pay people to move to Vermont

[Killingtime]

FWIW Vermont used to be a leader in manufacturing.
In the 1980's and 1990's two big things happened. On the micro scale, the State was headed by a liberal governor who put people into power at ANR and other agencies that took a punitive approach on environmental regulations. .

Yep, from 1985 regarding the ski industry: "The conflict over resort development was further exacerbated by an article in November's issue of the magazine Ski, which declared that Vermont was in a state of ''civil war'' between Governor Kunin and the resort owners. The ruling also effectively halts expansion at most of Vermont's other ski areas and has brought to a climax a long dispute over whether the resorts' growth in recent years benefits the state's economy or threatens its main attraction, the Green Mountains."

35 years ago they didn't want any new development and were worried about "Wealthy Flatlanders buying up second homes and driving up real estate prices". Here we are now and Vermont is offering $10,000 to anyone who is willing to move to the state. Pretty freaking funny. BTW just sold my second home in VT and will be looking at CO or UT next year.

 

[EPB]

No argument from me on those issues.

As I was saying, I can't think of any state that only checks the good boxes. Most are a mix of good and bad. Some are predominately bad.

Like most things in life, checking all boxes is a tough task. Texas is probably the closest I can think of. If you're into tech, San Antonio/Austin area seems booming and the state generally has its act together. Not my cup of tea though.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Hawk]

Wow. Lots of good opinions. Some educated some not. I did not grow up here, and as such my perspective is one of a second home owner. I pay high property taxes in Warren. I think if you want to make it in VT you have to work really hard and earn it. It's not going to come cheap or free. I think the best post on here is Flakey Dogs post. Of course he is the exception and not the rule. Whatever his niche is it sounds like it works very well. I envy him. But for me I think I have the best of both worlds. I commute up here to bike, ski, hike and enjoy everything that VT has to offer with people just like him. Back home north of Boston, I fish, boat, mountain bike out my door on some of the best terrain anywhere and generally enjoy culture, fine food, good pay and OK taxes. Unless something changes I can never see myself retiring there.

 

[HowieT2]

Like most things in life, checking all boxes is a tough task. Texas is probably the closest I can think of. If you're into tech, San Antonio/Austin area seems booming and the state generally has its act together. Not my cup of tea though.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

Its much easier for a state to have its "act together" when it reaps massive revenue from natural resources as is the case with texas. and furthermore, is growing. By that I mean, the northern states have legacy expenses (pensions, infrastructure, work force) commensurate with their size and populations from 50 years ago. The populations have shrunk considerably since then and so you have a smaller population paying taxes to cover the expenses. If the population is growing then you have more people dividing up the tax burden which is lower to begin with because there were fewer government employees/costs in the past because the population was smaller. Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly

 

[Orca]

Its much easier for a state to have its "act together" when it reaps massive revenue from natural resources as is the case with texas. and furthermore, is growing. By that I mean, the northern states have legacy expenses (pensions, infrastructure, work force) commensurate with their size and populations from 50 years ago. The populations have shrunk considerably since then and so you have a smaller population paying taxes to cover the expenses. If the population is growing then you have more people dividing up the tax burden which is lower to begin with because there were fewer government employees/costs in the past because the population was smaller. Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly

The problem is that Vermont is very effectively minimizing the number of taxpayers by driving them elsewhere and maximizing the tax burden on everyone left. It wants a first-rate welfare state funded by a third-rate economy. Reality doesn't permit that.

 

[1dog]

Legacy costs - thats the killer Howie. Whats changed dramatically is the size and cost of government.

in the 60's and even the 70's if you had a government job it didn't pay well, but you were relatively secure. Still secure, more so now because nothing gets you fired. But now, you get paid well, and you get 70-80% of your last three years pay for life ( which is a lot longer than 30 years ago - despite our terrible healthcare) and paid healthcare for that time period as well. Of course these are generalizations, but if you're not buying in, the three or four wealthiest counties are no longer in metro NY - they are in and around DC. Thats where the $$ is.

I have a number of family and friends in various government positions, some are teachers, some are admin and some in IT.

Its a great gig. And those private companies that offered too-good-to-be-true retirement packages failed or their pensions went bust ( think Polaroid or GM) - not state or federal government - they have the power to tax.


I am not saying if I was a teacher at $75K a year that I wouldn't coach a couple teams, get on this project or that one in my last couple years to increase my income - I would. Who wouldn't? Its just that its a long term unaffordable legacy cost.


I wouldn't move to Texas either. Like our 4 seasons. Like our oceans and mountains and lakes. Like everything about it. And we pay more for it, thats all.

Wanted to retire in Portsmouth NH - can't afford it. Wifes likes beaches and I can get to hills in 2 hours or less. I keep telling her a double-wide allows us to travel anywhere anytime, and we can keep the heat as high as she wants in winter. . .she ain't buying it. It would be in NH though.

And that seems to be slipping into higher costs eventually too.

 

[HowieT2]

Legacy costs - thats the killer Howie. Whats changed dramatically is the size and cost of government.

in the 60's and even the 70's if you had a government job it didn't pay well, but you were relatively secure. Still secure, more so now because nothing gets you fired. But now, you get paid well, and you get 70-80% of your last three years pay for life ( which is a lot longer than 30 years ago - despite our terrible healthcare) and paid healthcare for that time period as well. Of course these are generalizations, but if you're not buying in, the three or four wealthiest counties are no longer in metro NY - they are in and around DC. Thats where the $$ is.

I have a number of family and friends in various government positions, some are teachers, some are admin and some in IT.

Its a great gig. And those private companies that offered too-good-to-be-true retirement packages failed or their pensions went bust ( think Polaroid or GM) - not state or federal government - they have the power to tax.


I am not saying if I was a teacher at $75K a year that I wouldn't coach a couple teams, get on this project or that one in my last couple years to increase my income - I would. Who wouldn't? Its just that its a long term unaffordable legacy cost.


I wouldn't move to Texas either. Like our 4 seasons. Like our oceans and mountains and lakes. Like everything about it. And we pay more for it, thats all.

Wanted to retire in Portsmouth NH - can't afford it. Wifes likes beaches and I can get to hills in 2 hours or less. I keep telling her a double-wide allows us to travel anywhere anytime, and we can keep the heat as high as she wants in winter. . .she ain't buying it. It would be in NH though.

And that seems to be slipping into higher costs eventually too.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I dont think teachers or govt workers in Texas or Utah make any less than their counterparts in VT. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet they have similar pension benefits as well. I think they are simply costing less because they didnt have as many teachers police officers firefighters clerks who are now collecting benefits because their populations were so much smaller in the past.

 

[EPB]

Its much easier for a state to have its "act together" when it reaps massive revenue from natural resources as is the case with texas. and furthermore, is growing. By that I mean, the northern states have legacy expenses (pensions, infrastructure, work force) commensurate with their size and populations from 50 years ago. The populations have shrunk considerably since then and so you have a smaller population paying taxes to cover the expenses. If the population is growing then you have more people dividing up the tax burden which is lower to begin with because there were fewer government employees/costs in the past because the population was smaller. Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly

You've hit on why population growth is so important. Just ask the Detroit city fire fighters. On the flip side, Texas needs to build lots of schools and other municipal buildings as it grows, so it has its own challenges.

Oil is very volatile, so you can't just count on it for the next X years to be around a certain level. It's also not that large a part of the budget. TX generated $5bn of royalties and 4.1% of sales tax revenue ($1.2bn) from oil and natural resources in 2018. The state took in $165.8bn and spent $140.3bn per it's annual report. Oil related tariffs comprised 3.7% of revenue. Nice to have, but not great. I suspect they'd prefer to continue to poach more tech companies from CA than hope for more oil revenue.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[abc]

Back home north of Boston, I fish, boat, mountain bike out my door on some of the best terrain anywhere and generally enjoy culture, fine food, good pay and OK taxes. Unless something changes I can never see myself retiring there.

Some things are location specific. Beaches are by the ocean, ski mountains in the north, cold part of the country.

Cities are for jobs and "culture, fine food". Though once retired, only "culture, fine food" remains. For many, that's important enough they stay. Others, they move to the warm part of the country. Maybe by the beaches.

What does Vermont attracts? People who like the cold. Skiers. Beach lovers? Not so much. Only a much smaller percentage of retirees move NORTH to the colder, snowier part of the country.

You can pretty much mountain bike most places. NJ, for example, has some kick ass trails. You can fish there too.

So, Vermont is at a disadvantage in terms of attracting people for the sake of its location, with the exception of skiers. As for jobs, I guess that's covered for now. Until that changes, VT is in a losing battle in keeping its population number.

 

[HowieT2]

You've hit on why population growth is so important. Just ask the Detroit city fire fighters. On the flip side, Texas needs to build lots of schools and other municipal buildings as it grows, so it has its own challenges.

Oil is very volatile, so you can't just count on it for the next X years to be around a certain level. It's also not that large a part of the budget. TX generated $5bn of royalties and 4.1% of sales tax revenue ($1.2bn) from oil and natural resources in 2018. The state took in $165.8bn and spent $140.3bn per it's annual report. Oil related tariffs comprised 3.7% of revenue. Nice to have, but not great. I suspect they'd prefer to continue to poach more tech companies from CA than hope for more oil revenue.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

so they get 6.2b a year directly from oil and that doesnt include all the industry jobs paying taxes and employees spending, the secondary and tertiary benefits to the economy. Its a big advantage.

 

[HowieT2]

You've hit on why population growth is so important. Just ask the Detroit city fire fighters. On the flip side, Texas needs to build lots of schools and other municipal buildings as it grows, so it has its own challenges.

Oil is very volatile, so you can't just count on it for the next X years to be around a certain level. It's also not that large a part of the budget. TX generated $5bn of royalties and 4.1% of sales tax revenue ($1.2bn) from oil and natural resources in 2018. The state took in $165.8bn and spent $140.3bn per it's annual report. Oil related tariffs comprised 3.7% of revenue. Nice to have, but not great. I suspect they'd prefer to continue to poach more tech companies from CA than hope for more oil revenue.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

also, the people building those schools and municipal infrastructure get paid and pay taxes from that. When population is declining, you dont have that, but you still have the maintenance costs of the infrastructure.

 

[EPB]

so they get 6.2b a year directly from oil and that doesnt include all the industry jobs paying taxes and employees spending, the secondary and tertiary benefits to the economy. Its a big advantage.

TX is trying to diversify away from oil. You can read what I've written in this earlier. Of course, people work in the industry, but I isolated the extra money TX gets from natural resource activites above and beyond what it would charge other industries. It's a fair representation. Not nearly as much as you'd think.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[EPB]

also, the people building those schools and municipal infrastructure get paid and pay taxes from that. When population is declining, you dont have that, but you still have the maintenance costs of the infrastructure.

This is not a good argument. Pay $100 and get a small fraction of it back in taxes is a losing strategy. Don't over think it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[HowieT2]

This is not a good argument. Pay $100 and get a small fraction of it back in taxes is a losing strategy. Don't over think it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

my only point was that the state of texas makes significant revenue from the oil industry. Unless you are arguing that 6b/year in direct revenues is insignificant, I'd say we agree. Ya know, 6b here, 6b there and all of a sudden, we're talking about real money.

 

[Orca]

my only point was that the state of texas makes significant revenue from the oil industry. Unless you are arguing that 6b/year in direct revenues is insignificant, I'd say we agree. Ya know, 6b here, 6b there and all of a sudden, we're talking about real money.

And even more so Alaska and Norway and Saudi Arabia. But, most economies are not propped up by oil or any other mineral extraction. So there's not much point in contrasting the exceptional cases with Vermont. A better comparison is, say, New Hampshire.

 

[Orca]

Vermont's government simply spends too much and the resulting tax burden is directly harming its economy in almost countless ways. (Though we've been been doing a semi-credible counting the ways in this forum!)

 

[thetrailboss]

The problem is that Vermont is very effectively minimizing the number of taxpayers by driving them elsewhere and maximizing the tax burden on everyone left. It wants a first-rate welfare state funded by a third-rate economy. Reality doesn't permit that.

Exactly

 

[EPB]

my only point was that the state of texas makes significant revenue from the oil industry. Unless you are arguing that 6b/year in direct revenues is insignificant, I'd say we agree. Ya know, 6b here, 6b there and all of a sudden, we're talking about real money.

This is also silly. Percentages of the budget are what really matter, which is why I presented them. TX splits the $6bn over a population of 29mm. That's ~$200 a head. Is it nice to have, sure? But the state took in $25.5 billion more than it spent in 2018.

The story is much bigger than oil. As I mentioned earlier, nobody is envious of resource based economies in the developed world.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[HowieT2]

This is also silly. Percentages of the budget are what really matter, which is why I presented them. TX splits the $6bn over a population of 29mm. That's ~$200 a head. Is it nice to have, sure? But the state took in $25.5 billion more than it spent in 2018.

The story is much bigger than oil. As I mentioned earlier, nobody is envious of resource based economies in the developed world.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

not sure why youre trying to make an argument here where there isnt any. like you said, its sure nice to have.
where do you get that they had a 25.5b surplus last year?

 

[EPB]

not sure why youre trying to make an argument here where there isnt any. like you said, its sure nice to have.
where do you get that they had a 25.5b surplus last year?

I took exception with the notion that $6bn is a lot of money when it's spread out so many ways. Would you rather $6bn cut 29mm ways, or $1000 split in half? Using a blanket "$6bn is a lot of money" claim isn't always instructive. That's all.

$25.5bn comes directly from their annual report - chart on page 23. Search Texas CAFR 2018 in Google if you want to check it out. It should show right up.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app