# Where You’ll Pay the Most in Electric Bills



## georgepds (Jul 17, 2017)

Well, my home state, Massachusetts, is 4th in terms of $/kwh  19.1¢/kWh, following Ct, Alaska and Hawaii .
Average use is 596 kwh/month. Lowest cost is Louisiana 9.1¢/kWh


Find your state here

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/where-ll-pay-most-electric-181315430.html


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 17, 2017)

If you look at the top ten, Alaska is mostly microgrids with no overall regional grids so they have to have a lot of spare generation. Up until recently there were few natural gas fired power plants and most plants were running on imported distillate as there are not refinerys in Alaska so the crude going down the lines need to be sent to continental 48 to be refined and shipped back in barges. Hawaii has no natural gas and a grid that is struggling to supply reliable power while integrating lots of intermittent renewables they to need to import distillates for their base load plants . They are definitely the guinea pigs for renewable integration and are paying for it. Many of the remainder of the top ten are New England States that are participating in the voluntary REGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative). This effectively means REGGI states cant burn much coal as the REGGI carbon fees make it very unattractive. The one good thing about REGGI states is that the REGGI carbon fees get pumped back into state energy efficiency efforts that reduce homeowner use if they care to participate. If you look at the top ten states many are in the lowest electric use category. This can be a consequence of energy efficiency upgrades or the radical concept that the higher the cost the less power someone will use.

It would be interesting to plot carbon output per MW for each state and see is there is negative correlation for cheap power. Coal is cheap to generate and sell and if there is no value included for the carbon emitted and long term coal ash issues, its the short term way to go especially if the plants are all ready built. That correlation would definitely be rocky as some states just have better opportunities for large renewables like hydro. The State of Maine has a very high renewable contribution but a very dispersed population and loss of industrial base means steep transmission and distribution costs to serve a very sparse population density.   

Texas is an outlier as ERCOT has been skating on the edge of system reliability issues for years by not having a forward capacity market. If not for politics, the FERC would have forced ERCOT to put in a forward capacity market several years ago which would have increased their costs significantly. Given the FERC currently lacks enough appointed members to have quorum and has so for awhile I don't seen them having much teeth.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 17, 2017)

"If you look at the top ten states many are in the lowest electric use category. This can be a consequence of energy efficiency upgrades or the radical concept that the higher the cost the less power someone will use."


I attributed it to cost.. do you have any info that might suggest energy efficiency upgrades  might have an effect?

 Anecdoteally, most upgrades that I see here are for insulation, which would affect heating ( mostly gas and oil)


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 17, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> Hawaii has no natural gas and a grid that is struggling to supply reliable power while integrating lots of intermittent renewables they to need to import distillates for their base load plants . They are definitely the guinea pigs for renewable integration and are paying for it.



Hawaiian's are the guinea pigs for renewable integration and are paying for it?

Actually the renewables being integrated in Hawaii (mostly photovoltaic) are driving DOWN the cost of electricity and saving the co-ops money. On Kauai, all electricity is supplied by ratepayer owned co-ops. I believe the other major islands have similar setups.


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 17, 2017)

I am not dumping on Hawaii, they were running mostly a distillate fleet and solar does drive down cost to consumers initially until solar percentage gets over small percentage of the load. Unfortunately once the percentage exceeds a certain amount, trying to maintain steady voltage and frequency is a nightmare and the grid wasn't designed for it nor was their rate structure. Someone needs to supply reliable power during the night and during stormy conditions where the solar resource isn't there and someone has to pay for it. Thus the moratorium on new PV in some areas that was in effect. They are slowly figuring it out and figuring out how to equitably fund the fundamental changes to the gird required to support higher amount of intermittent renewables. That's means putting lots of storage on line, modifying large commerical loads to ride through sags, modifying grid tied inverters to ride through short term voltage and amperage sags in excess of UL 1741 as well as remote control operation  and possible new power plants like recips that can run on distillate and respond rapidly to load shifts. The other thing that really helps is the price of distillate has dropped substantially than it was when PV was first being introduced.


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 17, 2017)

georgepds said:


> "If you look at the top ten states many are in the lowest electric use category. This can be a consequence of energy efficiency upgrades or the radical concept that the higher the cost the less power someone will use."
> 
> 
> I attributed it to cost.. do you have any info that might suggest energy efficiency upgrades  might have an effect?
> ...



I have heard electric utility claims that they have flattened their demand curve by efficiency efforts. I know in Mass I have been involved in taking more than 10 MW of load off the grid and shifting it to CHP. Its amazing the amount of variable speed drives and LED lighting that the utilities pay for with efficiency money at institutions and manufacturers we walk through. I walk through huge warehouses formerly fully lit now they have occupancy sensors and remote dimmers, as I walk through the warehouse the lights turn on above me and turn off as soon as I am past. Compared to 24/7 lighting LEDs with controls save a lot of power( the manager also plays with the overall lighting level by turning it down ins some spots and turning it up at areas that need a bit more). Pretty much the utility will pay the extra cost to go with premium efficiency equipment or approaches on any new equipment.

One example is 300HP VF drive on a gas compressor. The gas utility had a gas line that normally runs over 50 psi. They are ultraconservative so they will only guarantee 10 psi. We have to design the compressor to run full load at 10 psi yet the real world is 40 to 50 psi. I could install a fixed speed compressor with slide valves to deal with the difference but its no match compared to a VF drive. With VF I can slow down the motor and pick the best operating point on the compressor curve. They gladly wrote the check. It also does away with the 3 to 4 time inrush current for a fixed speed motor and replaces it with a flat inrush.


----------



## Brian26 (Jul 17, 2017)

georgepds said:


> "If you look at the top ten states many are in the lowest electric use category. This can be a consequence of energy efficiency upgrades or the radical concept that the higher the cost the less power someone will use."
> 
> 
> I attributed it to cost.. do you have any info that might suggest energy efficiency upgrades  might have an effect?
> ...



Here in CT with most the expensive electricity in the lower 49 there is a ton of extremely generous electricity efficiency programs available. Huge instant rebates on heat pump hot water heaters, led bulbs, heat pumps, etc. I am sure these are having a massive effect on lowering usage.

I just put in solar panels in May as they make total sense here with a fast payback.

Here is what I have used at my house so far through the Energize CT fund.

$700 instant rebate on my heat pump hot water heater.
Around $1000 rebate on my high efficiency central air.
$100 rebate on a wifi thermostat.
$3000 on my solar panels.
Free whole house energy audit with vouchers for up to $1200 in work. The replaced every bulb with leds in my house for free. Sealed my ductwork and installed insulation in my basement.  (This was actually required to receive the solar incentive)

On the commercial end at my work all of our retail locations have been retrofitted to all led lighting and a sophisticated hvac control system with variable drives on the motors. This was all done for practically nothing.  My boss reported that some of the locations have been saving a few grand a month since the retrofits. Some of our locations in the summer have $10-15k a month electric bills!


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 18, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> Unfortunately once the percentage exceeds a certain amount, trying to maintain steady voltage and frequency is a nightmare and the grid wasn't designed for it nor was their rate structure. Someone needs to supply reliable power during the night and during stormy conditions where the solar resource isn't there and someone has to pay for it.



Hawaii is installing solar with battery storage. So, no, it's not driving up their rates, it's lowering the rates Hawaiian's pay for their electricity and they are forecasting continuing rate reductions as more solar with battery storage comes on line. Info to the contrary is probably misinformation disseminated by the fossil fuel industry. Make no mistake, decreasing prices and increasing acceptance of photovoltaic energy is a direct threat to the fossil fuel industry and they will do anything to slow it down. Where did you get your info about Hawaii? Because it appears to have no basis in reality. From fossil fuel interests?


----------



## jebatty (Jul 18, 2017)

Does anyone know whether the chart also includes in the rate the cost of fixed/distribution charges? For example, for MN the rate is $0.127/kWh and average usage is 756 kWh. Our co-op utility also has a $22/mo fixed charge. For the average user that equates to ((756 x $0.127) + $22) / 756 = $0.156 kWh. What about other states and utilities?


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 18, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Hawaii is installing solar with battery storage. So, no, it's not driving up their rates, it's lowering the rates Hawaiian's pay for their electricity and they are forecasting continuing rate reductions as more solar with battery storage comes on line. Info to the contrary is probably misinformation disseminated by the fossil fuel industry. Make no mistake, decreasing prices and increasing acceptance of photovoltaic energy is a direct threat to the fossil fuel industry and they will do anything to slow it down. Where did you get your info about Hawaii? Because it appears to have no basis in reality. From fossil fuel interests?



You obviously are looking for someone to argue with, feel free to find one.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 18, 2017)

Wind and solar make a great deal more sense on islands that do not have access to rail cars which bring fuels to the power plant.  The payback is much better even without subsidy.
They also have much more sun than, say the east coast, and wind is more consistent.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 18, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> You obviously are looking for someone to argue with, feel free to find one.



Not looking to argue, just correcting your erroneous statement that Hawaiian's are the guinea pigs for solar and the ratepayers are paying for it. The conversion to solar is actually making electricity cheaper.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 19, 2017)

jebatty said:


> Does anyone know whether the chart also includes in the rate the cost of fixed/distribution charges? For example, for MN the rate is $0.127/kWh and average usage is 756 kWh. Our co-op utility also has a $22/mo fixed charge. For the average user that equates to ((756 x $0.127) + $22) / 756 = $0.156 kWh. What about other states and utilities?




I don't think so.. Massachusetts is quoted at $0.19/kwh.. but I'm pretty sure that's the summer rate.. Also it doesn't include the $5/ month connect fee


G


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 21, 2017)

Mass doesn't have anything on NY.   Our fee for the privilege to connect to the grid kills us.  Case in point is my cabin.   It's primarily used on the weekends.  The fridge and water heater are the only draws.  37kwh of usage for... $22.06.

The house is better per kWh as I spread the use out over something around 170kwh.


Of course insulation is the primary upgrade here!  This is a forum centered around heating!

It'll also help with cooling costs though.

There's a good chance people aren't writing as many posts about installing LED light bulbs too.

I do find it interesting that LEDs will basicly light a house for pennies worth of electricity, yet the average monthly use of electricity has gone up.


----------



## blades (Jul 25, 2017)

Years ago ( mid seventies)  big push to conserve energy, so Like good little lemons we all did. So much so that our reward was increased rates. Reason given was the rate hike was need to pay the guaranteed return rates to investors. Catch 22.  Seeing as I can be rather volital at times that particular letter just about blew the roof off the house.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 26, 2017)

Boggles the mind how perverse electric utility governance is. Let the investors assume risk like we all do in the marketplace

Here we have a public good, energy conservation, that's being discouraged by a rule favoring utility investors

Time for the utilities to change their business model, which is roughly sell more to make more, or whine and grumble and pick our pockets if it doesn't work out that way


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 26, 2017)

Massachusetts changed their rate structure several years ago to decouple profit from amount of power sold. They effectively get paid a low fixed profit to supply power and much higher profit to reduce power demand. Thus they pump a lot of money into local generation like PV farms (they are everywhere) with very generous subsidies. They also have a very generous industrial and institutional efficiency program which encourage local combined heat and power installations. These plants are some of the most efficient and low carbon ways to use fuels (usually natural gas) to generate thermal and electric power. There are also generous home energy audit and upgrade programs. The big trade off is that many of those programs are paid for out of surcharges on the power rate. If a homeowner, business or institution can take advantage of these incentives they win by buying far less power but if they cant they are subsidizing others.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 26, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> If a homeowner, business or institution can take advantage of these incentives they win by buying far less power but if they cant they are subsidizing others.



And that's the way it should be in a world that makes sense. Because global warming is expensive.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 26, 2017)

Just heard on the radio the utility wants to raise rates $17/month.  So, my cabin will be paying about a dollar per kWh.

*fist pump*


----------



## KarenLo (Jul 27, 2017)

Thankfully I am from Texas which is one the places with lowest energy bill. I guess it's the climate here that is one of the reasons for the lower energy bills. And I am a native of Canada, London to be more specific.The energy bills there are much higher. So when I received my first electric bill here, I was pretty surprised. 
There we had installed energy efficient windows there in London to lower the bills and it had worked to a large extent. We are planning to do that here also to reduce the bills even further.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 27, 2017)

KarenLo said:


> Thankfully I am from Texas which is one the places with lowest energy bill. I guess it's the climate here that is one of the reasons for the lower energy bills.



According to this data:

https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

Texas is nowhere near the least expensive. My home state of Washington is around 17% less and there are 19 other states that have cheaper electricity vs. Texas (based on the first three months of 2017).

According to this data:

http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/texas/

Texan's have the 5th most expensive monthly residential electrical bill in the entire country.

If you ask a native Texan about their State they will tell you many great things, most of which are either greatly exaggerated or simply false. At least that has been my experience. I'm not sure where this disconnect from reality comes from.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 27, 2017)

Are taxes included in this comparison?  When I lived in CT, taxes were $40-50/month of my $150-250 bill.  It sucked.

It could be that Texas has an average rate but lower taxes...and making the overall bill less.  

Texas GDP is up 3%.  They are doing a great job attracting businesses.  California had no growth during the same period.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 27, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Are taxes included in this comparison?  When I lived in CT, taxes were $40-50/month of my $150-250 bill.  It sucked.
> 
> It could be that Texas has an average rate but lower taxes...and making the overall bill less.



The second link I provided says "The average monthly residential electricity bill in Texas is *$128*, which ranks *5th in the U.S."* I assume they include taxes.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jul 27, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> The second link I provided says "The average monthly residential electricity bill in Texas is *$128*, which ranks *5th in the U.S."* I assume they include taxes.



Can't always compare "monthly bill", apples to oranges. I have friends in Texas who all have total home energy use as electric. Here in NY few fit that category. At my home we use Nat gas for hot water and dying clothes; helps lower my electric bill lots.

Many of the "rates" published as comparison figures also neglect local taxes (about 10%), the monthly meter charge, and a pleasantly labeled "system improvement charge of 1.3%".

You almost have to lay the two bills side by side to get the true picture.


----------



## Brian26 (Jul 28, 2017)

You get absolutely crushed in CT with taxes, delivery charges, surcharges, etc. This was a bill from a few months ago.
	

		
			
		

		
	










I bought solar panels in May and completely eliminated all of these ridiculous delivery charges. My bill is now just the $19.25 service charge.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 28, 2017)

Its hard for me to get too upset about any of this.  My rates in PA for local wind power are still 20% less **in nominal terms** than they were when I was a student in Chicago...20 years ago.  So I am paying 50% less after inflation, and most of my appliances probably use 50-70% less juice to provide the same 'energy service' as they did then.

Everyone everywhere agrees they pay too much in taxes and for energy.  But if you look at what you get for for both, in detail, and compare to the deal in other countries, we are not.

The folks in the EU are appalled when they realize we send our power through neighborhoods on the top of wooden poles!  Why not put them in an underground conduit next to the water and sewer?  Don't the wires break all the time, etc?  they ask.  Yup...they do....outage rates in the US are WAY higher than over there.  But our power costs half as much on average as theirs.  You get what you pay for.

In an unrelated note, in round numbers their broadband is 2x as fast as ours, and costs half as much.  My cable bill is often in excess of my electricity bill, and that is a bad joke.  Don't rail at the (regulated) monopolies selling you kWh when they jack your rate a buck here or there....get out some torches and pitchforks for the (essentially unregulated!) monopolies selling you bandwidth.  

Why should a year of effing bandwidth in my suburban home cost more than a year of electric heating and cooling (renewable to boot)??


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 28, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Its hard for me to get too upset about any of this.  My rates in PA for local wind power are still 20% less **in nominal terms** than they were when I was a student in Chicago...20 years ago.  So I am paying 50% less after inflation, and most of my appliances probably use 50-70% less juice to provide the same 'energy service' as they did then.
> 
> *Everyone everywhere agrees they pay too much in taxes and for energy.*  But if you look at what you get for for both, in detail, and compare to the deal in other countries, we are not.
> 
> ...



I do not agree that I pay too much in taxes and for energy. I think energy is dirt cheap and I pay triple per kwh what folks do in other parts of my state. I use turbotax and at the end I get a summary of my actual total tax rate which is different than the marginal rate that most people think they pay for federal income tax. It's low, like almost 10%, and I feel like I get a lot for it.

Now about your cable bill. You probably pay too much. I only pay 31 dollars per month through a company called centurylink for "high speed" DSL that works great for my 4 person household. I put an antenna in my attic for free high def television.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 28, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Now about your cable bill. You probably pay too much. I only pay 31 dollars per month through a company called centurylink for "high speed" DSL that works great for my 4 person household. I put an antenna in my attic for free high def television.



Yeah, two years ago we had so-so broadband, basic cable, HBO, one box and one DVR, and a 'free' landline and it was $230/mo.  

After 4 hours on the phone, over three calls, I got it down to ok broadband, basic cable, and its $110/mo.  A little less than my seasonal average HVAC energy bill.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 28, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> It could be that Texas has an average rate but lower taxes...and making the overall bill less.
> 
> Texas GDP is up 3%.  They are doing a great job attracting businesses.  California had no growth during the same period.



Texas begins every budget cycle $10 BILLION in the hole (for at least the last several years).

This has forced drastic cuts to children's education which has damaged the preparedness of graduating students to enter higher education or high paying jobs in the workforce. It's a very short-sighted policy to put money above the health and education of the children. This will affect the state for decades in the future. Maybe Texas should consider raising taxes to levels more normal in civilized societies for the benefit of it's citizens rather than coddling the wealthiest 2%.

The share of Texans living in poverty grew faster than overall population growth and hit 18 percent in 2010, up one-third from a decade earlier. Shameful.

To make matters worse, Texas is suckling off the teat of the Federal Government, taking more money from the Treasury than they contribute. With their focus on cutting taxes to benefit the wealthy, Texas has turned itself into a money sucking welfare state, a stunning development for a state that normally prides itself on self sufficiency and that is loaded with natural resources like oil and natural gas. 

But just keep repeating the mantra that what is good for business is good for the people.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 29, 2017)

Oh for sure no one likes the cable companies or their prices ..but let's not forget, cable is an option

Try doing without electricity, and you'll see why there's a special place in hell for electricity monopolists


----------



## Brian26 (Jul 29, 2017)

Brian26 said:


> You get absolutely crushed in CT with taxes, delivery charges, surcharges, etc. This was a bill from a few months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Solar panels went online May 18th. I just got this for a recent bill.

Best thing we ever did was bought solar panels. They went in online May 18th. Here is a comparison on bills before and after solar.




First bill with full solar.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 29, 2017)

I'm told in Connecticut the power co evaluates the addition of solar transformer by transformer. If you're the guy who exceeds the limit on your sub circuit..you get to pay for the new transformer

That's one way to limit Solar

Thanks electric monopolists


----------



## Where2 (Jul 29, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> ... I got it down to _ok_ broadband, basic cable, and its $110/mo.


You probably don't really want to know what is really out there in random parts of America... Forty miles this side of the Canadian border (in Northern Maine), my wife and I have a fiber internet connection to our 86 acre farm. My old Linksys WRT54G router actually turned into a huge bottle neck in my network on the 100Mbps wired ports when I plugged it into the fiber modem, and hardwired to my laptop. If I plugged the gigabit wired Ethernet connection on my laptop directly into the fiber modem, I was getting 518Mbps download speed, 708Mbps upload speed. The service is listed as 100Mbps up, 100Mbps down in their sales literature. _*Here's where your mouth will drop*_: Price $49.95/mo for the first 24 months, special introductory rate! $100 install. (no data caps, current advertised rate is $59.95/mo for new subscribers)

Fast forward to my business in Florida: I recently found a local company can offer fiber to my business location. When I asked for approximate pricing, I learned that 100Mbps up, 100Mbps down runs somewhere around $150/mo, with data caps. The cost of install varies depending on the location of the nearest node they can pull from (it's all underground fiber cabling), and how far they have to trench to get to my office. I'm still researching the pro's and con's versus my existing cable connection at the office which is obscenely expensive. However, the fiber option for my office is being sold as the same speed I have at the farm, and 3X the cost?? Meanwhile, in my suburban neighborhood where I live in South Florida, nobody offers fiber at any price...



georgepds said:


> Oh sure no one likes the cable companies or their prices ..but let's not forget, cable _*is*_ an option. Try doing without electricity, and you'll see why there's a special place in hell for electricity monopolists


Funny you should say this, our neighbors to our 86 acre farm actually do just fine without electricity or the internet. They're Amish, and don't have electric, a phone, broadband, a car, or a tractor. They have some beautiful horses, and some hard working kids.

The company that dragged fiber to my farm, is actually a local _*cable*_ company. They offer TV delivered via fiber...


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 29, 2017)

Where2 said:


> You probably don't really want to know what is really out there in random parts of America... Forty miles this side of the Canadian border (in Northern Maine), my wife and I have a fiber internet connection to our 86 acre farm. My old Linksys WRT54G router actually turned into a huge bottle neck in my network on the 100Mbps wired ports when I plugged it into the fiber modem, and hardwired to my laptop. If I plugged the gigabit wired Ethernet connection on my laptop directly into the fiber modem, I was getting 518Mbps download speed, 708Mbps upload speed. The service is listed as 100Mbps up, 100Mbps down in their sales literature. _*Here's where your mouth will drop*_: Price $49.95/mo for the first 24 months, special introductory rate! $100 install. (no data caps, current advertised rate is $59.95/mo for new subscribers)



My cable company will provide a similar deal for new subscribers in my neighborhood. $59/mo, forever, versus my current $110 rate, forever.  To be a new customer, I need to disconnect for 6 mos and then reconnect.  So what is their process?  They start to offer you new stuff, like DVRs, better speed, etc, at a steep discount, and then when those things expire, your rate stays high, and then you need to disconnect to get back to the original deal.

The one other company here does the same chit.  So I need to switch back and forth between the two, and/or never take any 'deals' (and have the wife not take any deals).

The problem with that, is that every time you connect as a new customer, they drill a new hole in your house and run a new aerial line...they will not use the 'old' one for a new customer.  I currently have 4 coaxial cables running from my house to the pole in front...3 are dead and they will not remove them.  So, if I want to keep a decent rate, I have to work the phone every couple years, and deal with an ever increasing spider web of cables spraying off the front of my house.

Awesome.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 30, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Everyone everywhere agrees they pay too much in taxes and for energy.  But if you look at what you get for for both, in detail, and compare to the deal in other countries, we are not.



Yep... same thing happens here.  Every time a propery tax or income tax increase is proposed poeple will rant and complain its "too expense"  then the turn around and drop 60k on a luxury car without thinking, or they act shocked when the school now has to ask us parents to chip in for class supplies.

I also get a chuckle when well educated folks making high 6 figures complain about the "injustice" of paying teachers a 2% raise.  My wife works in the public school system.  We couldn't afford even a trailer park life on what she is paid. Its almost criminal.



woodgeek said:


> The folks in the EU are appalled when they realize we send our power through neighborhoods on the top of wooden poles!  Why not put them in an underground conduit next to the water and sewer?  Don't the wires break all the time, etc?  they ask.  Yup...they do....outage rates in the US are WAY higher than over there.  But our power costs half as much on average as theirs.  You get what you pay for.



Not to mention how ugly all those poles are.






WoodyIsGoody said:


> Texas begins every budget cycle $10 BILLION in the hole (for at least the last several years).
> 
> This has forced drastic cuts to children's education which has damaged the preparedness of graduating students to enter higher education or high paying jobs in the workforce. It's a very short-sighted policy to put money above the health and education of the children. This will affect the state for decades in the future. Maybe Texas should consider raising taxes to levels more normal in civilized societies for the benefit of it's citizens rather than coddling the wealthiest 2%.
> 
> ...




It is not just Texas. Not surprisingly, most of the "Red" states are being subsidized by us "Blue" states.  Your welcome.


----------



## Brian26 (Jul 30, 2017)

georgepds said:


> I'm told in Connecticut the power co evaluates the addition of solar transformer by transformer. If you're the guy who exceeds the limit on your sub circuit..you get to pay for the new transformer
> 
> That's one way to limit Solar
> 
> Thanks electric monopolists



That is true. I had to pay $150 for some kind of interconnection study to see if the grid could handle it. They said there was an option to have it fast tracked for $500 but they approved me in 2 days. This was with Eversource. They were actually very good and quick to work with. Net meter went in 2 days after I called after passing the town inspection.

There is another small electric utility callled United Illuminating that serves New Haven and a couple towns. They do everything they can to make it as hard as possible to get solar installed. They take months to do there so called interconnection studies and people wait months for there net meter and approval. My installer said it can take sometimes 6 months to year to get a system up and running with them. He also said they are now claiming there are to many people in you neighborhood on solar and you have to pay thousands for a new transformer.


----------



## begreen (Jul 30, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I do not agree that I pay too much in taxes and for energy. I think energy is dirt cheap and I pay triple per kwh what folks do in other parts of my state. I use turbotax and at the end I get a summary of my actual total tax rate which is different than the marginal rate that most people think they pay for federal income tax. It's low, like almost 10%, and I feel like I get a lot for it.
> 
> Now about your cable bill. You probably pay too much. I only pay 31 dollars per month through a company called centurylink for "high speed" DSL that works great for my 4 person household. I put an antenna in my attic for free high def television.


You're lucky. CenturyLink's "high speed" DSL is an option for us too, but it is anything but high speed, particularly if you are a distance from the nearest switch. They claim up to 40mbps but in our neighborhood I'd be lucky to get 10mbps. In contrast, Comcast is at 80mbps. That said, if CLink upgrades and adds a closer switch I'd consider moving over.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 30, 2017)

Brian26 said:


> That is true......
> 
> There is another small electric utility callled United Illuminating that serves New Haven and a couple towns. They do everything they can to make it as hard as possible to get solar installed. They take months to do there so called interconnection studies and people wait months for there net meter and approval. My installer said it can take sometimes 6 months to year to get a system up and running with them. He also said they are now claiming there are to many people in you neighborhood on solar and you have to pay thousands for a new transformer.



Yeah.. that's what I heard


I think UI was recently bought by a Spanish company...perhaps things will change. Spain is noted for solar... but I don't know the reputation of the company that bought UI


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 31, 2017)

jharkin said:


> Yep... same thing happens here.  Every time a propery tax or income tax increase is proposed poeple will rant and complain its "too expense"  then the turn around and drop 60k on a luxury car without thinking, or they act shocked when the school now has to ask us parents to chip in for class supplies.
> 
> I also get a chuckle when well educated folks making high 6 figures complain about the "injustice" of paying teachers a 2% raise.  My wife works in the public school system.  We couldn't afford even a trailer park life on what she is paid. Its almost criminal.
> 
> ...



My school taxes in a very blue state are $4900/year.  That is robbery for my one income family. 

Why in the world would you measure the amount of dollars a state sends to the federal government as a success?  That is an absolute failure. This chart just shows us how screwed up everthing is.  It can't be used to point at any one group and say "there's the problem"!  It is totally screwed up that someone is getting over taxed in CT to send his money to a trailer part in TX.  I'm 100% with ya.

Either way..people are leaving states like mine here in upstate NY in droves to go to NC, TN, SC, TX...ect.  The facts speak for themselves.  To have a higher quality of life, NY'kers are leaving and going to states that have cheaper taxes and jobs.
Also, retirees are moving to states without income taxes, so they can live better on a smaller income.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 31, 2017)

VT has made efforts to a distributed system. Does anyone know how they bill for these virtual power plats described below?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/29/...t/vermont-green-mountain-power-grid.html?_r=0

"In 2014, it became a B Corporation. That is a voluntary designation, requiring executives to take into account not just how decisions will affect profit and shareholders, but also how they will affect the public, generally defined as society or the environment."



According to the original post, their bill per kwh is still pretty high

9. Vermont
> Average price of electricity: 17.3¢/kWh
> Average monthly usage: 546 kWh (2nd lowest)
> Average monthly bill: $95 (9th lowest)
> Largest energy source: Hydroelectric


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 31, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> My school taxes in a very blue state are $4900/year.  That is robbery for my one income family.
> 
> Why in the world would you measure the amount of dollars a state sends to the federal government as a success?  That is an absolute failure. This chart just shows us how screwed up everthing is.  It can't be used to point at any one group and say "there's the problem"!  It is totally screwed up that someone is getting over taxed in CT to send his money to a trailer part in TX.  I'm 100% with ya.
> 
> ...



Sorry.  I need some data here, not anecdotes.  Most large cities in the US are growing more rapidly than they have in decades, including those in the NorthEast, despite their additional city taxes.

Have you looked at private school tuition lately?  I pay a similar School tax, have two kids, and private school around here would be >$50k/yr for two.  Even a cr@ppy parochial school would be at least 5X my School tax rate.  

If you don't have kids, well, remember that my kids will be paying for your SS and Medicare when you are old and gray.

As for state by state redistribution....I think Jeremy was not trying to say that it was wrong....we are One Nation, after all, and this goes with the territory.  But rather, that its ironic that the people who are most railing against the evils of Fed taxes (and progressive policy) are largely the same ones 'making out' the most from them.

And I'm going to stop there to limit my OT.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> My school taxes in a very blue state are $4900/year.  That is robbery for my one income family.
> 
> Why in the world would you measure the amount of dollars a state sends to the federal government as a success?  That is an absolute failure. This chart just shows us how screwed up everthing is.  It can't be used to point at any one group and say "there's the problem"!  It is totally screwed up that someone is getting over taxed in CT to send his money to a trailer part in TX.  I'm 100% with ya.
> 
> ...





woodgeek said:


> Sorry.  I need some data here, not anecdotes.  Most large cities in the US are growing more rapidly than they have in decades, including those in the NorthEast, despite their additional city taxes.
> 
> Have you looked at private school tuition lately?  I pay a similar School tax, have two kids, and private school around here would be >$50k/yr for two.  Even a cr@ppy parochial school would be at least 5X my School tax rate.
> 
> ...




Yes, I was using that comment and the map to point out that its easy to bang the drum of low taxes when your low taxes are being subsidized by somebody else (me) paying more. Sportbike, I do NOT like that I give the feds more funding than Texas does, I dislike that Texas is mooching off me, to put it in simplistic language.

And its not even that simple... since the map only shows % and not dollars or whats being done with those dollars. Heck even your home state of NY is getting more federal dollars by % than Texas, and the real bad ones are all the deep sourth states like MS, LA, AL, GA,  etc...


I'm not sure what a "school tax" is but for sake of argument I'll assume you guys are using that as a code word for property tax. Where I live the property tax on my house, levied as a % of the assessed value funds the entire town budget:
Schools
Police
Fire
Road maintenance and snow removal
public works, water, infrastructure
libraries
parks
town level social services
etc...

For that I pay about $6500 a year.  And that $6500 is tax deductible on my 1040 so effectively its about $4800 out of pocket.  My wife works in the school and Ive seen the union pay scale - I can assure you that money is not being wasted, most of those teachers dont make enough to even  pay rent in this town.

I would find your $4900 a downright bargain.

Which leads me to my question -_ How is $4900 highway robbery?  _Just throwing that number out without context tells me nothing.  If you lived in Iowa, made $25k/year,  live in a trailer that was worth nothing, had no kids in school and the town was funding schools with farm taxes then yeah it might be excessive.

BUt on the other hand, if you live in Manhattan, make $5MM a year, live in a $2MM condo and have 10 kids in expensive public schools then $4900 would be ridiculously cheap and probably other families where subsidizing your services.

Without that context I have no idea whether you tax is fair or not.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 1, 2017)

Our property taxes are split between school and local townships.  For school I pay the mentioned $4900.  For local town taxes, I pay around $1700. 

See, that's just the thing.  It is all a matter of perspective.  What if you have no kids and are single and can deduct almost nothing? Then it is robbery. 
We should have the option of taking our school taxes and spending that same money elsewhere on different education, or something completely different.  It is not the schools money, it is *our* money, and they have no right to it.  I worked for it, I earned it. It is mine. I should not be forced to pay more if I own a larger house simply because I have a larger house (I don't).  It's outright theft.  It is very common for a house valued at $300k here to pay $12k/year in taxes. 
Is it fair to have an older couple forced out of the home they have had for 50 years because of taxes?

Teachers are always complaining about their salary, but their benes are fantastic.  Great health benes, great retirement pension, 3 months off in the summer.... If it was so bad, teachers would quit.  There is a waiting list a mile long for teachers here in NY...why?  Because it's a good gig.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> See, that's just the thing.  It is all a matter of perspective.  What if you have no kids and are single and can deduct almost nothing? Then it is robbery.
> We should have the option of taking our school taxes and spending that same money elsewhere on different education, or something completely different.  It is not the schools money, it is *our* money, and they have no right to it.



This line of thinking leads to the idea that a basic education is not a right and that all families should have to pay for it. The result will be that only the super wealthy can afford education, the working class grow up illiterate  and this country gets thrust 500 years backward into a new feudal society. Do you really want that?




sportbikerider78 said:


> I worked for it, I earned it. It is mine. I should not be forced to pay more if I own a larger house simply because I have a larger house (I don't).  It's outright theft.  It is very common for a house valued at $300k here to pay $12k/year in taxes.
> Is it fair to have an older couple forced out of the home they have had for 50 years because of taxes?



Measuring the value of a house is just one option they have of determining individual means to pay.  If a locale drops that then something else like a town level income tax or sales tax would be required.  If I own a 300k house and my neighbor owns a 900k house there is a good bet he has more resources than I... or is living beyond his means, and that is his problem not mine.

If the retired couple is going to loose their home over property taxes it sounds like they didn't plan well for retirement.  Which is all too common now that the industry has successfully killed off pensions and put all the responsibility on employees with the 401k/IRA system but there has not been the requisite personal finance education to teach people how to use these vehicles properly.

Having said all that, my state still thought of this and there are all kinds of over-65 tax breaks on property tax, water/sewer, etc around here.




sportbikerider78 said:


> Teachers are always complaining about their salary, but their benes are fantastic.  Great health benes, great retirement pension, 3 months off in the summer.... If it was so bad, teachers would quit.  There is a waiting list a mile long for teachers here in NY...why?  Because it's a good gig.



You obviously dont work in a school.  My wife does.  She is single handledly responsible for the health and welfare of 700 children but could be making more money working retail.  Her salary is lower than mine was right out of college 20 years ago, and the health insurance is so expensive that it would eat HALF her take home pay if we couldn't use mine. 

The retirement is a mixed bag.  The Mass pension is *great*, but the 403b is only so-so (And its one of the better ones, most 403bs are so bad with high fees and crappy active load funds you are better off not bothering).  the real gem is that they also offer a 457... but most teacher salaries are so low that maxing all these vehicles would leave them with almost no take home and 90% of teachers dont bother to use them.

Most young single teachers we know work a second job in those "summers off" to make ends meet and live very far from the towns they work in due to cost of living.  And when the kids go home at 3 they take a lot of work home (grading class prep).  Plus the admin staff works all summer and the teachers have to come in quite a bit over the summer for class placement work, orientations, parent conferences, etc.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 1, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Sorry.  I need some data here, not anecdotes.  Most large cities in the US are growing more rapidly than they have in decades, including those in the NorthEast, despite their additional city taxes.



Sure.  Since I live and work in upstate NY...here is what our area is facing.  

http://www.wgrz.com/news/upstate-ny-hit-hard-as-more-migrate-out/424916453

From the article:
"Ohio also lost two seats that year. Most of the gains took place in the South: Texas added four seats, Florida gained two, and Georgia and South Carolina each gained one"


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 1, 2017)

jharkin said:


> This line of thinking leads to the idea that a basic education is not a right and that all families should have to pay for it. The result will be that only the super wealthy can afford education, the working class grow up illiterate  and this country gets thrust 500 years backward into a new feudal society. Do you really want that?



I absolutely believe that it is not a right.  A right is something you are born with, not something someone else is forced to pay for you.
This right is something you believe a gun should be forced into someones face and they can be stripped of their freedom and imprisoned if they don't pay their school taxes?  Is not freedom a right?

No one was educated before public schools?  How did we build this society we have today?  Perhaps they were just not traditionally educated and we need to take a look at how and what we are teaching kids...because it's not working.  Public education is a failure.  And a very costly one.

Private schools would be affordable and prevalent if Americans were not forced to pay for public education.  Even if they were more, at least you could stop paying once your kids were done with their educations.

Are we off topic yet?   I prefer these conversations with a smile, happy heart and a beer...and in person.  Back to work!


----------



## georgepds (Aug 1, 2017)

"...
This right is something you believe a gun should be forced into someones face and they can be stripped of their freedom and imprisoned if they don't pay their school taxes?  ...."


Ooooo..  really tough tax department in your town...

What's the power company up there do if you're late paying the bill, geld you?


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I absolutely believe that it is not a right.  A right is something you are born with, not something someone else is forced to pay for you.
> This right is something you believe a gun should be forced into someones face and they can be stripped of their freedom and imprisoned if they don't pay their school taxes?  Is not freedom a right?
> 
> No one was educated before public schools?  How did we build this society we have today?  Perhaps they were just not traditionally educated and we need to take a look at how and what we are teaching kids...because it's not working.  Public education is a failure.  And a very costly one.
> ...




I'm sorry you feel that people should not have a basic right to an education  in order to pursue success in this world. And I still dont understand why the right needs to equate every disagreement with a gunfight.  I fundamentally disagree but I'll put that aside.

So lets do some math.  My school district publishes their budgets as do yours I am sure.  The FY18 budget for my district is $33.2M, and they have 2,889 children enrolled K-12 starting next month.  Using my calculator I get  approx. $11,500 per child per year.

I'll be generous and assume my schools are more expensive, lets call yours $10k in round numbers.

That means that if you have _even one child _attending public school you are correct that your taxes are highway robbery.  Of course its you dong the robbery against the other families in town subsidizing the other $5k of your child's education.

You can opt to home school to correct this injustice.

In your world I should probably be publicly stoned by my neighbors since Im getting $23,000 worth of schooling for my kids and only paid some % of my $6500 total tax bill for it.  


We can go on and on, as the same logic applies to many other large societal costs that would be crushing to the bottom 95% if each individual had to pay for their exact share of usage - healthcare (better hope you dont get cancer), roads, national defense, etc.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 1, 2017)

Part of the reason electric bills are so high

https://thinkprogress.org/arizona-investigation-solar-utilities-15bf28f10ae3

“The FBI is currently conducting a long-term investigation related to the financing of certain statewide races in the 2014 election cycle,” special agent Matthew Reinsmoen told the Arizona Republic in early June. In 2014, APSallegedly funded a political nonprofit that supported the candidacy of two utility-friendly Republican candidates for the regulatory commission. The nonprofit is not required to disclose its donors.

"The allegations of wrongdoing suggest the lengths to which embattled utilities are willing to go to protect their interests.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Sure.  Since I live and work in upstate NY...here is what our area is facing.
> 
> http://www.wgrz.com/news/upstate-ny-hit-hard-as-more-migrate-out/424916453
> 
> ...



Thanks for the article.  Looks like NY state is flat to increasing in population overall, and people are moving in NYC and revitalizing it.  This seems counter to your 'high-tax, people move out' hypothesis.  Doesn't NYC have a big city tax?  Really expensive real estate?  Sometimes problematic public schools?  And yet people are moving there anyway...

So, I'm sorry that people are moving from your area....perhaps you need more or better jobs, or a more appealing civic life.  It doesn't seem to me that racing to the bottom on your local public schools will do the trick.

Also: around here, some towns have property taxes like what you describe (and mostly broken out as school taxes), and some towns are a lot lower.  Seems that people with kids move to the first kind, and people without kids tend to move to the second kind (where the schools are ok, just have fewer students).  Maybe you should move a couple towns over??


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 1, 2017)

jharkin said:


> I'm sorry you feel that people should not have a basic right to an education  in order to pursue success in this world. And I still dont understand why the right needs to equate every disagreement with a gunfight.  I fundamentally disagree but I'll put that aside.
> 
> So lets do some math.  My school district publishes their budgets as do yours I am sure.  The FY18 budget for my district is $33.2M, and they have 2,889 children enrolled K-12 starting next month.  Using my calculator I get  approx. $11,500 per child per year.
> 
> ...



Around here, $11.5k gets you a private school education, or very, very close to it. 

Simple.  I equate it to the town taking your property by force.  Which they will, if you do not pay your school tax.  It is not my opinion.  It is something that would most certainly happen.  

I completely agree with you.  It isn't fair to ask your neighbors w/o kids or the elderly to finance my kids education.  That is one of the many reasons they are not in a public school.  

I don't think you should be stoned....I'd never say that.  I just think you are using a system that many others use that has been presented as your only option.  I think you (like me) should have much more say in where your kids are educated and what they are taught.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 1, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Thanks for the article.  Looks like NY state is flat to increasing in population overall, and people are moving in NYC and revitalizing it.  This seems counter to your 'high-tax, people move out' hypothesis.  Doesn't NYC have a big city tax?  Really expensive real estate?  Sometimes problematic public schools?  And yet people are moving there anyway...
> 
> So, I'm sorry that people are moving from your area....perhaps you need more or better jobs, or a more appealing civic life.  It doesn't seem to me that racing to the bottom on your local public schools will do the trick.
> 
> Also: around here, some towns have property taxes like what you describe (and mostly broken out as school taxes), and some towns are a lot lower.  Seems that people with kids move to the first kind, and people without kids tend to move to the second kind (where the schools are ok, just have fewer students).  Maybe you should move a couple towns over??


I'm not sure how many other places you want me to reference.

Here's the same info from the NY Post.  Hardly a conservative magazine. 
http://nypost.com/2016/12/25/heres-why-new-york-is-shrinking/

"In just the year ending July 1, a full 191,367 residents fled for other states, notes the Empire Center in its annual report on “net domestic migration.” That was the largest exodus since 2007, bringing New York’s total outflow over the last six years to *846,669*, more than any other state.
The latest Quinnipiac poll found that 39 percent of voters would leave New York if they could. Asked to name the most important problem now facing the state, 22 percent of voters say the economy, while 20 percent list taxes and 10 percent cite “politicians/political corruption.”"


Keep in mind, this is with a large influx of immigrant populations which usually go to the city.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I'm not sure how many other places you want me to reference.
> 
> Here's the same info from the NY Post.  Hardly a conservative magazine.
> http://nypost.com/2016/12/25/heres-why-new-york-is-shrinking/
> ...



OK, seems like cherry picking.  People move between states in the US all the time, and some people immigrate into and out of the US entirely.  It seems that the 191,000 people who left NYS were almost balanced by the influx of people who moved INTO NYS (who obviously have not read this thread).  For one of the most populous states, this number doesn't seem very surprising (I'd want to see it per capita for all 50 states before deciding if NYS is an outlier), and I would still think a lot of it has to do with moving for a job, moving south when retiring to get to a warmer climate, etc....not necessarily the property taxes that are making you so upset.  Especially since your taxes seem to be similar to the property taxes in my area, in a not so high tax state.

Can't I argue that Boomers are retiring, so there is a wave of people hitting retirement age....upstate gets a lot of snow and once retired, those folks are going to move to a place they don't need to shovel.  In my hypothesis, in NYC there should not be such an effect because the snow is less, and it gets cleared pretty fast by the city.... ?

AS for immigrants...yup, that happens.  A lot of the jobs that skilled folks move to the US to take are in cities...and this is part of the city revival.

A lot of skilled immigrants **move** to my town, because it has great public schools (and associated high school taxes).  And around here any private school that is not a dump is $25k/yr.  The sought-after ones are mostly $40k and up.

I still think you need to shop around and just move a couple towns over if you want to reduce your taxes, not to Texas.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 1, 2017)

The surrounding towns are much more money and you get much less. 

Exactly, they move out of upstate because of taxes and move to other states because they don't have them.  

I live here.  We talk about it all the time.  Very very few talk about retiring here because of this fact.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 1, 2017)

Sounds like you are making out....all those free-loading retirees are moving to another state, and young, hard-working immigrants are moving in to keep your state budget afloat.  Good times.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Sure.  Since I live and work in upstate NY...here is what our area is facing.
> 
> http://www.wgrz.com/news/upstate-ny-hit-hard-as-more-migrate-out/424916453
> 
> ...



Look at that map in the article you posted- the most expensive, hi tax counties in and around NYC (NY, Queens, Nassau, Westchester) , and upstate around Albany/Schenectady  actually *grew.  * the counties that are loosing people are the far rural areas north and west. It doesn't support your theory that its a cost issue - its rather likely a lack of access to jobs issue.

I went to school in Troy.  I still have friends out there, living in Saratoga.  Nice scenic area but I remember it being really dull outside of class. mnost of us couldnt wait to leave when we graduated just because there was no culture/entertainment and not many jobs.  Thats why I moved to Boston.



[edit: Whoops, Geek beat me to it, we where thinking the same thing]


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Around here, $11.5k gets you a private school education, or very, very close to it.
> 
> Simple.  I equate it to the town taking your property by force.  Which they will, if you do not pay your school tax.  It is not my opinion.  It is something that would most certainly happen.
> 
> ...




Its certainly not my only option. We have numerous private schools around here and when I was a kid my parents put me in a private school because they thought I needed "special help"

I put my kids in public school deliberately and by choice because I believe that a publicly funded education avalble to all regardless of means is the #1 single best thing we can do in this county to give all people the equal opportunity to succeed and to fight against class inequality.   I also chose to live in a state that has the best rated public primary schools in the nation, partly for this reason.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 1, 2017)

jharkin said:


> I put my kids in public school deliberately and by choice because I believe that a publicly funded education avalble to all regardless of means is the #1 single best thing we can do in this county to give all people the equal opportunity to succeed and to fight against class inequality.   I also chose to live in a state that has the best rated public primary schools in the nation, partly for this reason.



I'm a product of the Mass public school system up through 8th grade.  I'm surprised to find that it is so highly rated.  I thought it was horrific when I was there...perhaps they have got their act together!


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 1, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Why in the world would you measure the amount of dollars a state sends to the federal government as a success?  That is an absolute failure.



States don't send money to the federal government. It's the other way around, the federal government sends money to the states.

And red states, on average, suck on the federal teat more than blue states. Red states are a net drain on our Federal Budget which causes the rest of us to subsidize them. It's like welfare for red states.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 2, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> States don't send money to the federal government. It's the other way around, the federal government sends money to the states.
> 
> And red states, on average, suck on the federal teat more than blue states. Red states are a net drain on our Federal Budget which causes the rest of us to subsidize them. It's like welfare for red states.



The states themselves don't but the residents of states sure send money to the federal government. That's the point. Sum up the money being sent from the state (residents of course) compared against the money being sent back to the state by the feds (to the state/local governments for spending).

I propose that the red states "get more" because they are not as densely populated. What makes a blue state blue? A whole lot of blue people and blue people like big cities. Big cities are more able to fund their own projects due to economies of scale. I may be crazy about this paragraph but there are a lot of federal highways in those big desolate red (on edit) states and not a lot of people to pay for them.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 2, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I propose that the red states "get more" because they are not as densely populated. What makes a blue state blue? A whole lot of blue people and blue people like big cities. Big cities are more able to fund their own projects due to economies of scale. I may be crazy about this paragraph but there are a lot of federal highways in those big desolate blue states and not a lot of people to pay for them.



Take a look at transportation as a percentage of all federal spending and let me know if you still propose federal highways as the explanation why wealth is redistributed from blue states to red states.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 2, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Take a look at transportation as a percentage of all federal spending and let me know if you still propose federal highways as the explanation why wealth is redistributed from blue states to red states.
> 
> View attachment 198939



No change in my opinion. I must not get your point. Transportation is just one example. Population density and composition of blue states compared to red states is what I'm focusing on as the cause of the discrepancy you perceive. Whatever, not important IMO.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 2, 2017)

E pluribus unum, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 2, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> E pluribus unum, n'est-ce pas?



Yes. I was just pointing out that the wealthier blue states transfer a disproportional amount of their federal tax dollars to the poorer red states. Which is ironic because conservatives love to criticize wealth redistribution. Unless they are the ones getting the free handout.

But I'm in favor of this if it makes for a stronger union.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 3, 2017)

jharkin said:


> Look at that map in the article you posted- the most expensive, hi tax counties in and around NYC (NY, Queens, Nassau, Westchester) , and upstate around Albany/Schenectady  actually *grew.  * the counties that are loosing people are the far rural areas north and west. It doesn't support your theory that its a cost issue - its rather likely a lack of access to jobs issue.
> 
> I went to school in Troy.  I still have friends out there, living in Saratoga.  Nice scenic area but I remember it being really dull outside of class. mnost of us couldnt wait to leave when we graduated just because there was no culture/entertainment and not many jobs.  Thats why I moved to Boston.
> 
> ...



If high taxes are the solution, why not double the taxes and we should see a surge of people moving back and business happy to pay higher wages come back.  Right?


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 3, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> States don't send money to the federal government. It's the other way around, the federal government sends money to the states.
> 
> And red states, on average, suck on the federal teat more than blue states. Red states are a net drain on our Federal Budget which causes the rest of us to subsidize them. It's like welfare for red states.



And the money the government sends to the more receiving states comes from the other states...or rather the individuals in those states.  The federal government has nothing it doesn't take from someone else.  That's the entire problem.  They shouldn't be handing out money to anyone..it only creates issues.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 3, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> If high taxes are the solution, why not double the taxes and we should see a surge of people moving back and business happy to pay higher wages come back.  Right?



A lot of communities have rolled out a lot of new *services* to try to make themselves attractive to employers to relocate, rich people to retire, tourists to visit, college student to not move away after graduations, etc.  These services (done well) actually WORK to increase local revenue, gdp and population, as well as making the existing population happier too.

But they all cost money, so let's skip them and let our community spiral into carnage.  That sounds like a plan.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 3, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> If high taxes are the solution, why not double the taxes and we should see a surge of people moving back and business happy to pay higher wages come back.  Right?



Where did I say taxes where a solution?  Please quote..


You stated that taxes where driving people out of state.  Your articles shows that people are actually flowing IN in the regions that have highest tax (NYC and surrounding counties with the additional city income/sales tax and high property tax).   My point is that your own article disproves your tax thesis. 

I posit that the real reason is a lack of economic opportunity, job, etc in those rural counties.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 3, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Either way..people are leaving states like mine here in upstate NY in droves to go to NC, TN, SC, TX...ect.  The facts speak for themselves.  To have a higher quality of life, NY'kers are leaving and going to states that have cheaper taxes and jobs.
> Also, retirees are moving to states without income taxes, so they can live better on a smaller income.



Voting with your feet is how the system was designed to work... way back in 1778 - 1781.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 3, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> A lot of communities have rolled out a lot of new *services* to try to make themselves attractive to employers to relocate, rich people to retire, tourists to visit, college student to not move away after graduations, etc.  These services (done well) actually WORK to increase local revenue, gdp and population, as well as making the existing population happier too.
> 
> But they all cost money, so let's skip them and let our community spiral into carnage.  That sounds like a plan.



Or you could have people keep more of their money and buy the services they want.



jharkin said:


> Where did I say taxes where a solution?  Please quote..
> 
> 
> You stated that taxes where driving people out of state.  Your articles shows that people are actually flowing IN in the regions that have highest tax (NYC and surrounding counties with the additional city income/sales tax and high property tax).   My point is that your own article disproves your tax thesis.
> ...


Sure, because the businesses are sick of paying high taxes, over regulation, state always favoring the employee, unions...ect..they leave and never come back.  That's the point.  Then the rest that are left have to pick up the bill.

I will not bother posting again..not much point.  I've made the point I want to make.



Ashful said:


> Voting with your feet is how the system was designed to work... way back in 1778 - 1781.


I never would have moved back...just here for my aging parents.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 4, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Or you could have people keep more of their money and buy the services they want.



Doesn't work.  Services mentioned like major road projects, elect/water/sewer grid expansions to serve business, etc are so capital intensive that you Joe citizen would never be able to buy your slice if where were not all pooling together. 

The same exact reason why health insurance doesn't work if only the very sick and elderly buy it.





sportbikerider78 said:


> Sure, because the businesses are sick of paying high taxes, over regulation, state always favoring the employee, unions...ect..they leave and never come back.  That's the point.  Then the rest that are left have to pick up the bill.
> 
> *I will not bother posting again..not much point.*  I've made the point I want to make.



Saying "I'm done" is a weak debate tactic used to deflect when you are losing. If you are confident in your argument and have the evidence to back it up you should continue. I would welcome being proven wrong_ on the data._

I will once again point out that everything you have stated is hearsay and tea party talking points.  If you have some evidence, studies proving that people are leaving NYS due to high taxes, please provide it and lets discuss it in detail.  What you did provide was a map showing that people are leaving low tax rural rural, and inflowing to high tax urban counties. Which directly counters your argument. 

It just happens that there are more rural counties than urban so the net flow is out.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 4, 2017)

jharkin said:


> Doesn't work.  Services mentioned like major road projects, elect/water/sewer grid expansions to serve business, etc are so capital intensive that you Joe citizen would never be able to buy your slice if where were not all pooling together.
> 
> The same exact reason why health insurance doesnt work if only hte very sick and elderly buy it.
> 
> ...



The services you are speaking of are not the majority of my taxes.  They are less than 1/3 of the taxes I pay from property..the rest is schools..as I pointed out already.
You don't think the southern states with less taxes have electricity, water, gas, parks?  What world are you in?

I'm on vacation.  If you consider 4 days on the lake losing.....
Cant you chill out and have a conversation without stereotyping and calling someone a loser?  End though you have no idea what their time constraints are and might just want to do something else than argue on the internet?


----------



## jharkin (Aug 4, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> The services you are speaking of are not the majority of my taxes.  They are less than 1/3 of the taxes I pay from property..the rest is schools..as I pointed out already.
> You don't think the southern states with less taxes have electricity, water, gas, parks?  What world are you in?
> 
> I'm on vacation.  If you consider 4 days on the lake losing.....
> Cant you chill out and have a conversation without stereotyping and calling someone a loser?  End though you have no idea what their time constraints are and might just want to do something else than argue on the internet?




Where did I call you a loser? ????  All I stated was that the statement  "I'm done talking" is a well known deflection debate tactic used when the debaters_' argument is losing_.  There is a difference between attacking the position and attacking the person.

All I am asking for is some data, , something more than "because I said so" and repeating party talking points as a defense of your thesis that tax rates are driving people out of NYS.


To reinforce Woodgeeks' point - one could argue that Schools are another part of the "services" that attract business and jobs.  Business moves in to areas that have good infrastructure, friendly regulatory climate, and_ good access to well qualified candidates_.  To get qualified candidates you have to make well educated people want to live in the area and good schools are probably up there in the top drivers of peoples decisions where to live.  This is again likely a big part of why people and business are concentrating in the expensive big cities (Boston, NYC, etc... ) even in the "cheap" south industry concentrates in the (relative to the local area)  expensive cities like Atlanta, Dallas, etc..


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 4, 2017)

Probably time to close this thread


----------

