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

[kbroderick]

2017: 318,674 Vermont personal income tax returns filed with 64,333 of them owing no tax. (Additionally, 52,047 out-of-state returns filed with 8,047 owing no tax.)

https://tax.vermont.gov/research-and-reports/statistical-data/income-tax

So about 300k people paying income tax, plus 64k people who live in Vermont and have income but do not pay any state income taxes (who presumably are participating in the economy with the untaxed income and paying other taxes). By my math, that's 364k taxpayers, which isn't quite as many as I'd expect (I do wonder how many are paying non-income taxes without filing a return), but it's still 11% more than 320k. It's still not a lot of shoulders to spread the burden for 14k miles of roads, 255 municipalities, and however many school districts.

I feel like there is more interesting info in that filing data, but I don't have the time to look at it right now.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Right. Like having $2368 per capita coming back to NJ from the Federal govt would not help NJ.:-o

Your figure could be eleventy-billion, and it still wouldn't change the fact that your conflating completely disparate issues.

 

[Orca]

By my math, that's 364k taxpayers, which isn't quite as many as I'd expect (I do wonder how many are paying non-income taxes without filing a return), but it's still 11% more than 320k..

Vermont taxpayers: 318,674 - 64,333 = 254,342
Non-Vermont taxpayers: 52,047 - 8,047 = 44,000

Total taxpayers = 298,341, not 364k.

 

[Orca]

Your figure could be eleventy-billion, and it still wouldn't change the fact that your conflating completely disparate issues.

Exactly the same

 

[VTKilarney]

And now a bill has been introduced to lower the speed limit on 89 and 91 to 55 miles per hour.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0627/H-0627 As Introduced.pdf

 

[Orca]

And now a bill has been introduced to lower the speed limit on 89 and 91 to 55 miles per hour.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0627/H-0627 As Introduced.pdf

Aimed at carbon emissions and climate change. This would have an effect on climate change too small to even attempt to quantify. Yet, Vermont's legislature voted to close the 620 megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that had zero carbon emission.

 

[Not Sure]

Aimed at carbon emissions and climate change. This would have an effect on climate change too small to even attempt to quantify. Yet, Vermont's legislature voted to close the 620 megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that had zero carbon emission.

Silly person, they've trained drivers to drive 75mph ....Speeding ticket revenue $$$$$ !!!!

 

[BenedictGomez]

Aimed at carbon emissions and climate change. This would have an effect on climate change too small to even attempt to quantify.

It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.

Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.

 

[Orca]

It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.

Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.

Agree. Virtue signaling and grandstanding.

 

[thetrailboss]

And now a bill has been introduced to lower the speed limit on 89 and 91 to 55 miles per hour.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0627/H-0627 As Introduced.pdf

And on the WCAX FB page everyone hates the idea. So much for making real change to improve safety and improve gas efficiency. :lol:

 

[thetrailboss]

It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.

Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.

Bingo

 

[kbroderick]

Vermont taxpayers: 318,674 - 64,333 = 254,342
Non-Vermont taxpayers: 52,047 - 8,047 = 44,000

Total taxpayers = 298,341, not 364k.

Just call it legislative math

I would object to "non-Vermont taxpayers", though, as they clearly are paying taxes to Vermont. "Non-resident" is more accurate.

And on the WCAX FB page everyone hates the idea. So much for making real change to improve safety and improve gas efficiency. :lol:

You can have one or the other. Raise the limit to the 80 MPH it should be (or better yet go to no daytime limit) if you want better safety.

Of course, 80 MPH is really, really crummy for gas mileage, and "no daytime limit" is worse.

 

[VTKilarney]

I am glad that the bill was introduced. It shows that people love to tell others that they need to change their behavior to save the planet, but they aren’t willing to make any changes to their own behavior. If anything, this bill has shown that the climate emperors have no clothes.

The solution to climate change is to evolve and adapt, just as mankind has done since the dawn of history. This fanciful idea that people will be willing to go back to the pre-industrial age is ridiculous.

 

[Orca]

I am glad that the bill was introduced. It shows that people love to tell others that they need to change their behavior to save the planet, but they aren’t willing to make any changes to their own behavior. If anything, this bill has shown that the climate emperors have no clothes.

The solution to climate change is to evolve and adapt, just as mankind has done since the dawn of history. This fanciful idea that people will be willing to go back to the pre-industrial age is ridiculous.

Spot on.

 

[kancamagus]

If they really wanted to help the environment, they’d pass a law exempting electric cars from all state and local speeding tickets.

After 12, maybe 18 month tops, there wouldn’t be a single gasoline car traveling through Bridgewater or Plymouth. Bonus points for screwing over Maplefields.

 

[Orca]

I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've rarely seen such quality discourse in an open forum like this. I appreciate the candid, well-considered, and very educated viewpoints that have been so thoughtfully put in to words here. Thank you for your contributions. Each voice matters. Keep articulating your good sense in any and all forums and, please, influence politics as you can. You are the voices of reason, and it falls to each individual the responsibility to advocate for better paths forward. Thank you all.

 

[1dog]

I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've rarely seen such quality discourse in an open forum like this. I appreciate the candid, well-considered, and very educated viewpoints that have been so thoughtfully put in to words here. Thank you for your contributions. Each voice matters. Keep articulating your good sense in any and all forums and, please, influence politics as you can. You are the voices of reason, and it falls to each individual the responsibility to advocate for better paths forward. Thank you all.

Agree Orca, just really well-thought out responses to a multi-tiered subject. And respectful diagreement is a welcome ( and much needed) attribute.

Doing my morning due diligence to stay abreast of the news I came across these questions and thought many of you would agree with Cal Thomas:

Politicians, including the president, should be asked serious questions during this year's election campaign, instead of the media's fixation on impeachment, polls and the horse race. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. Government is bigger than ever, far larger and more intrusive than our Founders anticipated and warned us about. Nonpartisan organizations have come up with proposals to rid government of programs that have outlived their usefulness, or don't work, or never worked. Would you be willing to identify them and if elected (or re-elected) terminate them?

2. The national debt is $23 trillion and the deficit is at record highs. Everyone knows Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs are mainly responsible. There have been serious reform proposals, but politicians won't touch them for fear they will be smeared as anti-senior citizen. Do you have the courage to lead on this issue?

You can find the entire column here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011420.php3

 

[NYDB]

Agree Orca, just really well-thought out responses to a multi-tiered subject. And respectful diagreement is a welcome ( and much needed) attribute.

Doing my morning due diligence to stay abreast of the news I came across these questions and thought many of you would agree with Cal Thomas:

Politicians, including the president, should be asked serious questions during this year's election campaign, instead of the media's fixation on impeachment, polls and the horse race. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. Government is bigger than ever, far larger and more intrusive than our Founders anticipated and warned us about. Nonpartisan organizations have come up with proposals to rid government of programs that have outlived their usefulness, or don't work, or never worked. Would you be willing to identify them and if elected (or re-elected) terminate them?

2. The national debt is $23 trillion and the deficit is at record highs. Everyone knows Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs are mainly responsible. There have been serious reform proposals, but politicians won't touch them for fear they will be smeared as anti-senior citizen. Do you have the courage to lead on this issue?

You can find the entire column here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011420.php3

I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.

Of course, I agree medicare needs to be dealt with, but Social Security is not a problem. Just needs a few minor tweaks to remain viable for 100's of years.

 

[mister moose]

I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.

Bloated military? Maybe, but they are coming off a recent period of severe austerity,(sequestration) so much so I was reading articles on how the Airforce was scavenging engine parts from boneyards. No doubt there's a few $10,000 hammers out there. Wars haven't exactly been endless, although Afghanistan is an outlier. But I'm here for that last comment.

Tax breaks, especially those for corporations, are designed for a reason. It isn't dollars from heaven. It's to be competitive with other countries, so jobs don't go to Ireland or so investment and risk taking is encouraged and taxes are deferred, not eliminated. I read a FB post recently that asked why Chevron, among other companies, didn't pay any taxes in 2018. So I looked up their annual report, and listed as the prime reason was accelerated depreciation on exploration expenses. That means that with the high risk of looking for oil, (because frequently you don't find it where you drill) you can deduct those costs faster than other capital assets that need to be expensed over 5 to 20 years. This encourages more exploration, increases production, and gets you a dependable flow of 87 octane so you can drive north to go skiing on the weekend. You benefit. Chevron will still pay taxes on their profits, they just get to recognize and deduct the huge checks they wrote for drill rigs in 2018 - that's hard cash that went out of their checkbook. You would rather we had much less drilling, much less oil, more dependency on the Middle East, $5.00/gal gas and less profits down the road by domestic oil production to provide tax revenue?

It's easy to demonize an evil corporation for making money, for taking advantage of incentives, especially when big companies measure profits in Billions. They also provide huge output. Look at profit per gallon, or profit per share. It isn't very much.

Sure, I question some high salaries and bonuses. I question "too big to fail". I question the lack of anti-trust regulation in many industries. But you can't demonize success. You can't demonize risk taking. You can't encourage investment through tax policy, and then demonize the tax deferred results.

 

[VTKilarney]

Our military spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than average, but far from the highest. We are roughly 25th.