Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Tampa Bay resident here (Brandon suburb really, but close enough).

The reason this happens is simple: other people's money is subsidizing the losses.

First, Florida is extremely fiscally conservative. Taxes for anything are a hard sell. Without additional taxes, our infrastructure will continue to lag, causing far more damage than would've been had we ponied up the taxes in the first place. Also, infrastructure is not prioritized over glitzy marketing. St Petersburg is in dire need of a waste water treatment plant upgrade, but it's mayor is going to spend the money on a development project instead ("The Pier").

Second, insurance: the state has a high risk pool that you can join as an insurer of last resort, and they'll insure you across multiple losses. As long as we continue to issue insurance (taxpayer sponsored!) for properties that are subject to repeated losses or sea level rise, we'll continue to throw good money after bad.

View on HN

The Washington Post just printed what I'd consider a follow up to TFA that discusses the governor's lack of leadership on the issue of climate change (Okay, hostility to the concept of acknowledging it let alone addressing it) and dealing with associated consequences like rising ocean levels and storm surges:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/flori...

The parent article discusses a "direct hit" being inevitable-- Well, at least as I type this, the projection of Irma's path goes right through Tampa Bay...

http://www.tbo.com/weather/local/interactive_radar_wide/

Switzerland is fiscally conservative. Florida is just low-tax.

What are the tax rates in both?

CH's income tax is graduated and can only be estimated as a function of which canton and community you live in. I live in Zürich city in canton Zürich. I can't recall exactly what the figure works out to be, but it is nothing compared to taxes I would pay were I still living in the United States (hint: as an American abroad, I am a citizen of two countries on the planet who tax their citizens working and domiciled abroad). I get partial tax credit (it's basically double taxation; don't let anyone tell you otherwise).

I estimate my CH tax averages to 20 percent my gross income, which is pathetically low by European standards, and before any of my fellow U.S. countrymen balk at this, consider that we have a working and efficient society here. It is mostly free market with some degree of state-run business. Where the state runs something, it runs it typically better than the private or public sector does in the U.S. All of this is to say, comparing taxes between the two is apples and oranges.

Another consideration: there are stupid voters here like anywhere else; but after they burn their hands on the metaphorical stove once, they recognize their mistakes and attempt to correct. I would give this country a higher social durability rating than any part of the United States. Not having the whole mythology of predestined preeminice shoved down their throats helps.

Last I checked when living in the U.S., my average tax was about 30-something percent when combining federal and state.

CH also has a yearly tax of wealth (property, stock, bank assets, etc.), but it is effectively so miniscule that it remains unnoticed for ordinary people. For me, it would be 0.1 percent on total wealth per annum.

Tax rate is orthogonal to the effectiveness of society, governance, and civil society. A starve-the-beast mentality injures all three of these. Sorry. I hate to put it so bluntly and bust anyone's bubble. You get what you believe in and pay for.

Yup keeping comparing a country, with a population less than most metros in the US and draw whatever conclusions on tax policy you want that fit the narrative in your head. Getting ridiculous around here.

Chances are this alpine nation is a little more similar to places many of us are familiar with.

CH:

- 8 million people

- 41’285 km2

- $700 billion GDP

- 25% foreigners (Zürich exceeds 30%)

- Powerful Local Governments (26 Kantone - each managing local immigration quotas)

- Minor Ocean Access (Rhein port in Basel; they have a large merchant marine)

- Majority of residents are renters — independent of wealth.

S.F. Bay Area:

- 8 million people

- 7,384 Km2

- $780 billion GDP

- 37% foreigners

- Powerful Local Governments (NIMBY)

- Major Ocean Access

- Majority of residents are renters — independent of wealth.

Try overlaying CH onto the Bay Area. It's pretty shocking: http://overlapmaps.com/index.php

I lived in S.F. before moving to CH. I always keep the magnitude of these similarities in mind when reflecting on the lost opportunities and potential within the Bay Area. From an efficacy and infrastructure capitalization perspective, they are light years apart (Spoiler alert: CH is in better shape).

Thanks for the detailed explanation. But still, the previous commentator's "Florida is just low-tax." does not hold at least percentage wise. However, when I searched the tax ration they say there is a 40% income tax in Switzerland. What is wrong here?

Note what I remarked about the taxes being a precise function of where you live in the country and income level. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Romandie (French region of CH) experienced a top total (local+regional+national) marginal rate of the amount you cite. This is not very easily Googleable in English. If you speak one of the national languages, the official government calculators and tax schedules can give you the information canonically.

>"I estimate my CH tax averages to 20 percent my gross income, which is pathetically low by European standards, and before any of my fellow U.S. countrymen balk at this ..."

Why would a fellow US countrymen balk at this? Aren't taxes there much higher? You have a federal tax, a state tax and sometimes a local city tax, closer to the 30% you mentioned.

Its interesting to me that tax rates are a function of the canton, is there no federal tax then?

Do you wind up paying net 20% in taxes then after the partial credit or is the 20% just the Swiss part of your total tax obligations?

CH income taxes are much lower than the USA, even when local income taxes are considered (canton tax is the only significant part, federal government in CH is not dominant). Americans living in CH who make more than $100k (very common) have to leverage the foreign housing deduction to avoid extra USA taxes.

CH VAT on the other hand is high...it's not like Switzerland doesn't have taxes. They are just different.

CH VAT is cheap compared to it's neighboring countries! Heck, let's not kid ourselves about sales taxes in the U.S.; they are not necessarily cheap!

Swiss consumer prices are super high except for cars, gas, and cigarettes compared to neighboring countries (France/Germany).

Thanks, so overall as a US expat in Zurich you wind up keeping more of your income than you would on the equivalent salary in the US? Is that correct?

It depends. I'm not a tax accountant, but if you make under $100k, most definitely. Above that, you are into ge foreign tax credit and can get screwed, except Swiss also has a high cost of living and you can leverage foreign housing deductions, so...it's complicated.

But if you actually buy things, pay rent, etc...you will spend a lot more than in the states, so it's really a wash. And like I said, Swiss still have taxes, just not high income taxes...again, it's hard to compare.

Disclaimer: I lived in Lausanne, not Zurich, but I expect they are similar.

CH VAT is 8%, how is that high?

RE: US-Americans balking — hard to say what everyone's tax situation is like. A few states lack income tax, but pay is accordingly lower on a nominal scale vis-a-vis other states, so perhaps 20 percent would seem high.

RE: federal tax — taxed on three levels federal, cantonal, and community. Each has its own scale. Too numerous to enumerate here.

RE: percentage and recipient state — Swiss is equitable. I pay that first. The U.S. fraction is a mess to calculate. I pay a differential of the two with some measure of tax credits and income exclusion, meaning hypothetically a remaining higher marginal percentage to the U.S. There are exclusions and credits, but they only go so far. Often they completely fail in localities where the nominal cost of living and pay is higher than the U.S. Think: Scandinavia and Switzerland. You don't get much sympathy arguing about this with countrymen, because the see the nominal amount and assume you live like a sheikh — until they visit and then comprehend that the economics are vastly different. Frankly it is very peeving since the United States' Revolutionary War motto was, "No Taxation without Representation." Sure we can vote from abroad, but no aspect of the U.S. political system acknowledges us or affords special treatment. Our votes are tied to this vague concept of last state of affiliation. God forbid someone lose a U.S. state driver license abroad and then have to reprove residence to that state for them to issue a new one. Happened to a friend here, and the process would have made Kafka blush. So the Swiss fraction is the base I always pay. I pay some amount extra to the U.S. At least CH has no capital gains taxes! This is one of the big reasons expats are very careful to follow the criteria each U.S. state has to avoid them claiming you were a tax resident and thus be subject to extra taxation without representation. Don't get this wrong. I believe in taxes and happily pay. I just want the society to have collective agreement that we will have successful governance and do something good. This whole half-assed approach the U.S. has been taking for decades makes me never want to return. I feel zero connection to the U.S. body politic. I regard it the same as a fuck up alcoholic relative whom the family has repeatedly helped but who always lets them down. Sorry. Among expats, this is very common theme.

General government spending (local, regional, national):

  Switzerland 33%
  USA 37%

Military % of GDP:

  Switzerland 0.7% 
  USA 3.3%

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

the word conservative is not really a synonym for the word responsible.

As there is a political industry devoted to promoting the idea that it means exactly that, that's just another reason for replacing it, or at least challenging its use.

I'm not sure most people actually understand what that word means, even if they used to. I know it technically has a well formed definition, but I'm confident it's not used as it was intended.

> First, Florida is extremely fiscally conservative

Neglecting infrastructure is not "fiscally conservative". It is fiscally reckless.

Hey toomuchtodo,

Hope you're safe. As another Tampa Bay resident to another, what you've said is spot on and a damn shame.

Thank you! If you need any help before I head to the airport at 2pm today, contact info in my HN profile. Please be prepared and be safe!

This immediately made me think of this quite relevant moment from the television show, "The West Wing".

Watching this year's politics unfold, it's a bit amazing to me just how much of what we're currently encountering was reflected in "The West Wing". Then again, while the faces and ads change, much of our national policy and politics is actually of a long-standing nature.

I chose a YouTube clip of the relevant moment that also includes a couple of minutes in front of it, for some context. I added a time parameter to skip to the relevant moment within it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyqzPu5pX6U&t=120

The administration of the sitting President, President Bartlet, has negotiated his opponent in the upcoming election, Governor Ritchie of Florida, into having one "real" debate, as opposed to two debates with a format so constrained it would have allowed only for sloganeering. (Ritchie wanted less debates -- the reason he agreed to this.)

The first debate question, and response, speaks directly to the parent's point.

If you have never watched "The West Wing", might I suggest giving it a try? Yes, it is an ensemble show that therefore cannot exactly reflect the nature of the Oval Office and West Wing (i.e. there are more people involved). But it was advised by a number of key people from the Clinton administrations, and the writers speak very informatively and, ultimately, very elegantly, to key issues of our national policies -- and to the character of many people devoted to public service and that we wish to see in public service. On both sides of the aisle, actually -- as demonstrated in the show.

You cannot be fiscally conservative while constantly demanding unlimited funds for your population. Come up with an intellectually honest term instead.

Ditto with Texas, Alaska.

Maybe "welfare queen states"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com