Katie <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote in news:ba13b2f8-e88c-48fc-bf55-
f7573c91cc54[at]i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

- quote -



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Dec 29, 1:51*pm, Han <nob...[at]nospam.not> wrote:
- quote -


Severance taxes are taxes imposed for the privilege of separating, or
severing, natural resources from the land, generally measured by the
market value of the resource (e.g., oil, gas, coal, timber, ore) at
the time of severance.

The Census Bureau classifies state and local taxes in 6 categories:
Property, General Sales, Specific Sales (e.g. alcohol, fuel,
telecommunications taxes), Personal Income, Corporate Income, and
Other. Most states get less than 10% of their revenue from "other"
sources, which includes severance taxes. Wyoming and Alaska, by
contrast, get almost 40% of their revenue in the "other" category, and
most of that probably is from severance taxes -- in Alaska's case
specifically the oil production tax. Wyoming, of course, has no
individual or corporate income tax; Alaska imposes local but not
statewide general sales taxes, and has no individual income tax.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Han wrote:
- quote -


--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Katie <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b51d330-3ae2-4ed7-a5a9-
2d2beb1c064e[at]e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

- quote -

????

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -

Its validity will remain constant; its usefulness will vary with
the ability of the recipient to read typos.

- quote -

I represent that.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Dec 28, 10:41*am, My interest <myinter...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -


According to the Tax Foundation, which takes into account all state
and local taxes and includes taxes paid to other states as well as to
the home state, Connecticut had the highest per capita tax burden of
all the states in 1998. Since then it has always been second or
third in ranking, behind New York (always first or second) and,
usually, New Jersey. New Jersey is first in the Tax Foundation
rankings in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The Census Bureau's 2006 ranking for all state and local taxes (the
most recent available) shows Connecticut 4th, behind the District of
Columbia (which is not included in the Tax Foundation tables), New
York, and Wyoming (!), and followed by New Jersey. By contrast, the
Tax Foundation's 2006 top five are New Jersey, New York, Connecticut,
Maryland, and Hawaii.

The Census Bureau always shows Alaska and Wyoming among the highest,
while the Tax Foundation consistently shows them as numbers 48 and
50. Obviously the two organizations are using very different
methodologies, which just illustrates the complexities of the
analysis, so all of these rankings should be taken with the proverbial
grain of salt. Alaska and Wyoming are states that rely heavily for
their revenue on severance taxes, so I would guess that the Census
Bureau takes those taxes into account as if they were paid by
residents of the state, whereas the Tax Foundation (more
realistically, I think) treats them as paid by outsiders.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Dec 29, 10:45�am, Mark Bole <ma...[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -


--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

lotax[at]hotmail.com wrote:
- quote -


And in this group, you'd better make sure you know the correct spelling
of "whiskies" vs. "whiskeys" if you want to keep the moderators happy!

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

OK, I would agree that this statement may be out of context. I am
living in CT and there is no local/community tax etc, so always pays
6% flat tax unless for those tax-empty stuffs. But if taking
household income into consideration, it may be among the states with
highest effective rate because some towns in CT have the highest
household income in the nation.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gj6d5v$f0r$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Carelessness in small matters is a leading indicator of carelessness in
large ones.

- quote -

D.F. Manno
dommanno[at]aim.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

**Off Topic**

- quote -

Just keep saying that over and over and over. What I say is that
misspellings (and other gaffes) in written material make it less
likely for me to continue reading it. Which may render its validity
irrelevant!!

Spell things write or risk not being red.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D.F. Manno <dommanno[at]aim.com> wrote:
- quote -

CT sales tax is NOT the highest sales tax in the continental
United States. However, several analyses I have read do rank
CT as having the highest effective tax rate in the United States
when all forms of taxation are taken into consideration. Thus
the sentence referred to above is a statement taken out of context
and, while it may be an accurate assessment, is not a logical
conclusion of the information above it.

- quote -

That is a conjecture with which most of us would agree.

- quote -

The ability to spell or to use a spell checker neither validates
nor invalidates a statement.

I have had a personal spell checker for over thirty years. After
my spell checker was adjusted to read for content first and to
discuss typos and grammeric errors later, we have gotten along
well.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D.F. Manno wrote:
- quote -

The author of the article might not could have spelled "contentious"
correctly. (grin)

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"My interest" <myinterest[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dfcd543-aa27-4bc6-b89f-499a4ff79da6[at]r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


who knows what that wiki poster was cutting and pasting or trying to recall
from memory. but here is a link

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...8fc0583ee2.pdf

to an article showing Connecticut has the highest effective tax rate in 1993
(table 4). Just glancing at this article, it seems to take into account
federal, state and local taxes, and of most importance the income level of
the Connecticut population, since higher income people pay higher state and
federal income taxes (note table 6).

or, so it seems to me.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

My interest wrote:
- quote -

exercise in futility. Over and above the the general state sales
tax rate you have local add-ons. Then you have transportation
districts, museum districts, special development districts, etc.
Then you have different rates for lodging, dining out, short-term
car rentals, parking, new car sales, etc. Then each state or
locality has tax holidays, exemptions for food or maybe just
prepared foods, drugs or maybe just prescription drugs, clothes
or maybe just clothes priced at under $100 per garment, doctor
visits but not chiropractor visits, etc. Get the picture?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article
<9dfcd543-aa27-4bc6-b89f-499a4ff79da6[at]r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> ,
My interest <myinterest[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

It doesn't have to be right, it's Wikipedia. The author couldn't even
spell "continental;" you're going to believe her/him on taxation?
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno[at]aim.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Anybody understand the last statement in the Connecticut section on
this wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States)? i.e. “When taken into account
Connecticut has the highest EFFECTIVE tax rate in the contential
United States”

Seems to me, unless one assumes delivery & shipping cost is a BIG
portion of most sales, how comes CT sales tax is highest?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >