Hacker News Reader

Comment by pragmatic | Hacker News Reader

No, not miles of empty land, just a change from some of highest taxes in the country to the some THE lowest.

http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/09staxrank.html

I did a ton of research recently on this issue, and other cost-of-living issues, because I live in an RV full-time. I'm currently paying California taxes, because that was my most recent permanent residence...but everything is insanely expensive in California, including vehicle insurance, health insurance, taxes of all sorts, vehicle registration and licensing, etc.

On my way back from Alaska in a couple of months I'm going to take a detour east to setup my domicile in South Dakota (I want to see Mount Rushmore and the Crazy Horse monument, anyway). It will save me at least a few thousand dollars next year.

Why the down votes for linking to a supporting document?

Haters going to hate?

Because the supporting document shows total state taxes, not tax rates. In other words, the supporting document doesn't.

Maybe because you linked to a document that ranks total state taxes instead of per capita taxes? (which is incredibly misleading regardless of whether or not it was deliberate)

Minnesota is not going to fair well on the per capita basis either.

Tough crowd.

Here goes, taxes are lower in South Dakota.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html

"Minnesota ranks 43rd in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index."

"Neighboring states ranked as follows: North Dakota (25th), South Dakota (1st), Iowa (46th) and Wisconsin (42nd)."

"Minnesota's 2008 state-level individual income tax collections were $1,493 per person, which ranked 5th highest nationally."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com