1. Virginia Beach, Va.
Virginia Beach is, by our measurement, the best-run city in the U.S. Located on the eastern shore of Virginia, the city is one of the most prosperous in the country. Out of the 100 largest cities, it has among the 10 lowest rates of violent crime, unemployment, and poverty. It's also among the 10 best for median income, high school graduation and health insurance coverage. Moody's listed Virginia Beach's three main strengths as a "large and diverse tax base stabilized by the presence of military bases," the city’s "strong and carefully managed financial position" and "comprehensive financial policies and conservative budgeting approach." The city’s credit rating is a perfect Aaa.
2. Irvine, Calif.
Irvine has a violent crime rate of just 0.55 per 1,000 people, the fifth-lowest score among the major cities on our list. The city is also among the 10 best for home vacancy, unemployment, median income and high school graduation. In 2008, CNN Money rated it the fourth-best place to live in the U.S. According to Craig Reem, the director of public affairs and communications, "we are seeing a gradual improvement in our local economy that allows us to move from recession-ready to recovery-ready. The City Council plans conservatively: This past fiscal year (2010-2011), we outperformed our budget expectations by nearly $14 million."
3. Madison, Wis.
Madison, the other capital city on our list, was incorporated in the mid-1800. Madison is not a particularly wealthy city, with a median household income of just more than $50,000. Nevertheless, the capital has a perfect Aaa (stable) credit rating, as well as extremely low unemployment and home vacancy rates. Madison city administrative analyst Tim Fruit says, "Over the past few years, we have really made a significant effort toward more carefully planning our six-year capital improvement program. In the past, the out years were not well scrutinized. Now we try to analyze and balance the out years much more carefully."
The 3 worst-run cities in the US:
1. Miami, Fla.
According to a 2011 UBS study, Miami is the richest city in the country and the fourth-richest city in the world by domestic purchasing power. However, a 2011 study by the Census Bureau found the Miami metropolitan area also had the second-highest income inequality rate in the nation -- probably due to the incredibly high percentage of households living in poverty. Despite the city's wealth, Miami's median household income of $27,291 is the third-smallest among the 100 biggest cities. Its poverty rate of 32.4% is the fifth-highest. The city faces a handful of other problems. Only 68.2% of adults have a high school diploma or more -- the fourth-lowest rate. Also, 22.5% of housing units are vacant, which is the fifth-highest percentage. A 2011 Brookings Institute report put Miami among the 20 weakest-performing metropolitan statistical areas in the country with regards to recovering from the recession, due in large part to the crash of its housing market.
2. Detroit, Mich.
Despite being more notorious for its troubles than any other major U.S. city, Detroit managed to avoid the title of worst-run city in the country. The city has been in a tough spot for decades, but continued problems with corruption and poor management have not helped matters. Detroit already sports the worst credit rating awarded by Moody's and is the only one of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. to have a rating below investment grade. Worse still, the agency is reviewing the Ba3 rating, which already had a negative outlook, after the state of Michigan announced that it's evaluating whether the city's troubles constitute an economic crisis. Of the 100 largest cities, Detroit has the highest home vacancy rate, the highest unemployment rate, the highest poverty rate, the worst violent crime rate and the lowest median household income.
3. Newark, N.J.
Newark has a very high rate of poverty, reaching 30.2% in 2010. Its median household income is $32,043, the ninth-lowest among the 100 largest cities. Less than 70% of the adult population has a high school diploma or more — the sixth-lowest rate. Meanwhile, Newark's violent crime rate has been increasing. In late November 2010, the city laid off nearly 15% of its police force. By May 2011, the annual homicide rate had increased by a stunning 65%. Robberies, burglaries and thefts increased as well
The only thing more stunning than tax-hiking politicians is their unswerving faith that taxpayers, especially wealthy ones, simply will smile and surrender even more of their money. This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is impervious to mounting evidence that taxpayers go where taxes are low.
French President Francois Hollande thought he could impose a 75 percent top tax rate and simply watch revenues flow into Paris like the Seine. Instead, actor Gerard Depardieu rushed into the loving arms of Vladimir Putin and Russia's 13 percent flat tax. Former French President Nikolai Sarkozy reportedly may move to London to escape Hollande's thievery.
Golf great Phil Mickelson generated headlines this week when he suggested that high taxes might drive him from his native California or perhaps America.
"There are going to be some drastic changes for me," Mickelson said.
"If you add up all the federal (levies) and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the [Social Security], and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent." Imagine keeping just 37 cents of every dollar you earn. Is that a fair share?
Travis Brown, author of "How Money Walks," demonstrates how Americans between 1995 and 2010 shifted some $2 trillion in wealth by abandoning California, Illinois, New Jersey and other high-tax states and unpacking in low-tax states such as Florida, Nevada and Texas.
"After spending several years mapping and analyzing these data, one correlation keeps popping up: Income moves to where it is most welcome, tax-wise," Brown writes. "Money walks because opportunity talks."
As I observe in Brown's book, this reality is undeniable among the Empire State and its neighbors. "I have identified the most compelling incentive of all," Paychex Inc. chairman Tom Golisano wrote in the New York Post. "Move out of New York State." Golisano spent about 90 minutes transferring his voter [registration], driver's license and domicile certificate to Florida. "By domiciling in Florida, which has no personal income tax, I will save $13,800 every day. That's a pretty strong incentive."
One-way traffic from the Empire State to the Sunshine State is so steady that Harrington [Moving and Storage] specializes in easing that exodus. "Our professionals work hard to ensure that you don't have to during your move from New York to Florida," boasts the Maplewood, N.J., company's website. "You can rest assured knowing that your New York-to-Florida move will be smooth, relaxing and seamless throughout."
Connecticut still is smarting over the relocation of hedge-fund manager Edward Lampert. With an estimated net worth of $3 billion, according to Forbes, Lampert was considered the fifth-wealthiest man in the Nutmeg State. In August 2011, Connecticut increased taxes by $875 million, retroactively to that January. It cut the maximum [property tax] credit from $500 to $300 and lifted its top state income tax rate from 6.5 percent to 6.7 percent. Then, on June 1, 2012, Lampert moved his company, ESL Investments, to Florida. Lampert also took with him the $10.6 billion that ESL reportedly controlled at that time.
Supply-side economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore found similar unintended consequences after New Jersey boosted its top tax rate from 6.35 percent to 8.97 percent. As they wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect." State deficits soon erupted like Jersey barriers beside a ditch.
Politicians should always remember that taxpayers are not oak trees. Shake them too hard, and they and their money soon will be gone with the wind.
Yet people hollar about Equality but when anyone suggest that everyone be taxed equally they scream bloody murder. Why? Why are people jealous of what other people have or how much they have. A flat tax across the country would treat everyone equal. If you had to pay say 10% of your earnings and the same thing for Bill Gates then what would it matter. 10% of of 50K = 5K but 10% of 1 billion would be 100 million now wouldn't that be a great trade off?lol...fairness?
I would propose a flat tax with only one deduction, the first 25K you earn period. Nothing for the number of kids you have, nothing for medical, nothing for house interest, just the first 25K. So if you make 100K per year, your tax rate would be $7,500.00. If you wife makes $22,000 per year her rate would be $0.00, But you cannot combine her deduction with yours. In other words each individual would file their own tax no combining deduction. So if you made 28K and your wife 18K that would equal 46K total, but you would still owe $300 in taxes as that is 10% of the $3000 you made over your 25K deduction.
...is Tebow's faith an act and a charade???...if not , how are you so certain Tebow is not, but Lewis is??...Lewis certainly didn't appear as committed and devoted 13 years ago, but you're judging him today on what he may or may not have done 13 years ago....a 24 year old vs. a 37 year old...what is the media going to get an answer to today, that hasn't been asked or answered in 13 years???...
EVERY ATHLETE??...NO EXCEPTION??...BUT YOU DON'T CARE??...soooooo...what would have been the answer that would have been satisfactory to you...and ended the discussion...given you have no evidence on him other than your "belief", kinda like the "belief" #52 has in his creator, which you think is a charade.....or did Wiki, and Ms. Welker tell you it is so??...lol
gas, I like increasing income rate and reducing the sales tax rate. Are you surprised? I know that you will not like them. I am aslo glad that he has been plans to improve MA economy. I have not kept up on other taxes but at least MA wants to pay for what they spend. Wish the US Congress would do the sameAnd as I pointed out, it is not a reduction of the sales tax at all. It is reducing the rate while increasing the number of goods it is applied to. So in summation, you will pay less in the next year on any given item than before, but pay total for the year more in sales tax than the year before.