Wyoming as a tax haven?

[swamp]

www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/wyoming-trusts-finance-pandora-papers/?itid=hp-top-table-main

Huh. I always thought it was weird that so many celebrities were moving to Wyoming. I mean, it is beautiful, but this explains so much more

[TheOtherMe]

The celebs that move there are up in the beautiful part of the state, not the along I-80 where it's hours of nothingness.

A lot move to Idaho, too, so there must be tax advantages there.

I'd also bet those celebs don't stay in Wyo and Idaho a lot during the winter.

[andi9899]

It was behind a pay wall so I couldn't read it.

[NoNamePerson]

Dec 20, 2021 11:10:55 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

It was behind a pay wall so I couldn't read it.

Just google celebrities moving to Wyoming. You’ll get mostly same info there if interested. 

[TheOtherMe]

Jackson Hole is the only place in the state where I would consider living and it is way out of my price range.

[kadee79]

I thought it was N. Dakota that was the big tax haven?

[Artemis Windsong]

The tax haven is South Dakota. I have no reference but it could be googled.

[Deleted]

This article doesn't have a pay wall.


www.marketwatch.com/story/how-jackson-hole-has-become-a-tax-haven-for-the-01-2020-03-17

Looks like the big money is in acquiring land and then agreeing not to develop it, which gets you big tax credits.  Not a bad deal, but the article does point out that the people who work in retail and hospitality in Jackson Hole can't afford to live there and often have treacherous commutes through snow from far-flung suburbs.

I've always told the "tax-the-rich" people that the very rich have options you and I don't have.  They'll pay taxes but if governments get greedy and there are legal ways to lower their taxes, the very rich will seek them out.  My own brother re-domiciled from SC to FL because FL has no personal income tax.  He bought an amazing house in Melbourne for $525,000 2 years ago (Zillow claims it's now worth $750K) and says that what he saves in personal income taxes pays for the carrying costs on the house.  (Yes, he did well in his career.)  They still have a lake house in SC and a condo in Charlotte where they go occasionally but he's a retired tax accountant so I'm sure he'll keep SCRUPULOUS records to make sure they're legally domiciled in FL.


 

[tskeeter]

Dec 21, 2021 9:21:41 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

This article doesn't have a pay wall.


www.marketwatch.com/story/how-jackson-hole-has-become-a-tax-haven-for-the-01-2020-03-17

Looks like the big money is in acquiring land and then agreeing not to develop it, which gets you big tax credits.  Not a bad deal, but the article does point out that the people who work in retail and hospitality in Jackson Hole can't afford to live there and often have treacherous commutes through snow from far-flung suburbs.

I've always told the "tax-the-rich" people that the very rich have options you and I don't have.  They'll pay taxes but if governments get greedy and there are legal ways to lower their taxes, the very rich will seek them out.  My own brother re-domiciled from SC to FL because FL has no personal income tax.  He bought an amazing house in Melbourne for $525,000 2 years ago (Zillow claims it's now worth $750K) and says that what he saves in personal income taxes pays for the carrying costs on the house.  (Yes, he did well in his career.)  They still have a lake house in SC and a condo in Charlotte where they go occasionally but he's a retired tax accountant so I'm sure he'll keep SCRUPULOUS records to make sure they're legally domiciled in FL.


 

You’re right.  When the tax-the-rich group gets greedy enough that the rich think that their tax bill is unfair, they will re-domicile.  For the rich, the financial implications often override the personal inconvenience of a re-domicile event.

The thing is, we’re not just talking about the loss of income tax revenue when the rich re-domicile.  Income taxes a just part of a bigger picture.  The real estate and sales tax revenue the rich provide usually goes away too.  As does the taxes their businesses pay.  And the rich folks contributions to civic organizations and charities.  And the civic and charitable contributions their businesses make.  

Finally, if the rich re-domicile and also re-domicile their business, how many paychecks will they remove from the community, state, or nation?  For example, if Apple moved out of the US, how many of the 2,000,000 Apple jobs in the US would move out of the country?  What would happen if, say, 1,500,000 former Apple employees suddenly quit paying nearly all types of taxes, and instead, relied on social programs to survive?

While the rich can, and should pay more taxes than they currently do, a judicious approach to tax allocation is in order.  Our Congressional representatives would do well to avoid killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.  Congress did exactly this in 1991 when they enacted a 10% luxury surcharge tax on many items.  While the tax was supposed to raise nine billion dollars in additional taxes during the five years following implementation, it raised almost no revenue.  What the luxury surcharge actually did do was to destroy the yacht building industry in the US, and put thousands of boat builders out of work.  How did that happen?  Well, rather than pay the luxury tax surcharge, many rich  people quit buying new yachts.  Or, if they bought a new yacht, they bought it from a boat builder outside the US and then docked the boat outside the US, where US tax laws do not apply.

[Tiny]

While I do not disagree with what tskeeter said...

I'm not really sure "Trickle Down Economics" works. How much sustainable income and jobs did someone like Jeff Epstein create with his Island, his plane(s), his boat(s), his house(s)??

I'm sure that a limited number of people benefit from the "work" and "jobs" created by fulfilling demand for yachts, high end sports cars, personal planes, and uber luxurous houses, for the wealthy. And then there are the assistants, chefs, physical trainers, and clothiers , and who knows what else.

But, in the big picture - is servicing the wealthy really adding much to the economy or long term financial security of Americans?


The other thing is - Every State, County, and City can control the amount of taxes businesses and even the wealthy who live there pay.

Individual Cities - can offer a variety of perks that either compensates a business for higher State or Federal taxes OR a tax package on the local level that can make it very attractive for a business to operate in their city.

If an area is "driving out" business because of the taxes the business/owner will have to pay - there's something other than "the taxes are too high" going on.

I see this all the time in my local, urban, densely populated area. businesses/owners cut sweet deals with the local government ALL the time. Sometimes the local government can even use Federal dollars (grants, whatever) to make the deal sweeter.

(FWIW: on a very small scale - a local dentist's office got city, state, and possibly federal money to turn part of their property into much needed parking - which required storm water handling and some modification to the city's curbs and sidewalks. I'm pretty sure for very little money (probably a lot of time and schmoozing though) the office got it's 8 parking spots built out of special water "drainage" materials so the loss of open area/grass doesn't add more storm water to the city's already overloaded sewer system. If the office ISN"T already getting a big tax break - the additional of this parking dramatically improved the property for I'm guessing next to nothing for the business - and now the dentist's patients won't have to hunt for street parking which may help grow the business. ) 

Taxes having to be paid aren't the best measurement... just saying... j


ADDED:  I'm not bitter about the parking - it benefits me - less water in the storm drains is a GOOD thing in my "basement's flood during storms" area.   Also, fewer people looking for parking on near by residential streets is good (parking is already a premium).   If the dentist moves out of the building - the parking remains... the next business benefits from the nicer parking arrangements.        I like these kinds of "perks" even though it uses tax money - it benefits a lot of people for a very long time.  

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2021 16:18:09 GMT -5 Tiny said:

The other thing is - Every State, County, and City can control the amount of taxes businesses and even the wealthy who live there pay.

Individual Cities - can offer a variety of perks that either compensates a business for higher State or Federal taxes OR a tax package on the local level that can make it very attractive for a business to operate in their city.

If an area is "driving out" business because of the taxes the business/owner will have to pay - there's something other than "the taxes are too high" going on.

I see this all the time in my local, urban, densely populated area. businesses/owners cut sweet deals with the local government ALL the time. Sometimes the local government can even use Federal dollars (grants, whatever) to make the deal sweeter.

It can go overboard.  I live in the Kansas City area very close to the KS/MO state line.  Every year a few large companies relocate from one state to the other, enticed by sweet deals. Jobs aren't created- just moved. And every year both states say they have to stop doing this- and then it happens again.  I heard rumors that my last employer, firmly planted in the Plaza area of KC, had a deal that they got to keep the 1% Kansas City payroll tax they collected from us as an enticement not to move to KS from MO.

And then there are the Special Snowflake taxing districts, mostly shopping areas where they tack a little bit more onto the sales tax and it goes to the developer.  I try to avoid shopping there on principle.