Goodby to Hawaii

"Quante981" <quante981@m> wrote in message
news:1116390303-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> "Quante981" <quante981@m> wrote in message
>> news:1116306307-sch@news.lava.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am one of those "retired" people who moved from the
>>>> mainland. How did the State make is more easy on me,
>>>> then the ones who lived and worked her all
>>>> their lives and are retired here?
>>>
>>> The state government exempts pension income yet you are still
> eligible
>>> for the many state income tax credits has established to help this
>>> special interest or another so you can pay even less tax on your
>>> non-pension income. Go figure.
>>
>> Most, if not all states exempts pension income from taxation, unless
> that
>> income is derived from the state you are living in.
>
> Is this applicable to your situation? In other words, is your pension
> income derived from a Hawaii-based source? So why bring up the
> qualifier? Hawaii doesn't tax pension income period. From any state.
> Big difference.

What has that got to do with the sttement "The state government makes it
very easy on retired people, especially those who move from the mainland."
If you are making the argument that the State Government "makes it easy on
retired people" because they exempt pension income derived from outside that
State", that applies to most if not all States. So, this State is no
different than any other State in that regard.
>
>
>> And most States give us
>> some sort of breaks on a whole variety of things that others have to
> pay.
>> So, I do not see a whole lot of difference between Hawaii, and other
> states.
>
> Hawaii's income tax is moderately high and makes up a comparatively
> large proportion of the state government budget. That these retirees
> from the mainland escape paying into the system means that other
> taxpayers have to pick up the tab for them, whether it be investment in
> infrastructure or in the workforce, or expenditures on the environment,
> health, social welfare, etc.

That is true, but that is not an incentive for seniors to move from the
mainland to the islands. For that matter, it does not sound like an
incentive at all.
>
>
>>>
>>> Two, if I were to retire to California, I would have to pay very
> high
>>> property taxes to support the local school district. In other
> words, I
>>> would have to pay taxes to support the education of children in
>>> California and California's future workforce. Mainland retirees
> moving
>>> to Hawaii do not share in that burden/responsibility. Competitive
>>> disadvantage for Hawaii? Local policymakers are clueless.
>>
>> Gee, I pay property taxes here in Hawaii.
>
> Of which zero dollars goes to pay for public education. You pay to get
> your trash picked up and for police and fire. None of it goes to
> educate Hawaii's future workforce.

So? That hapens to be the way the State has decided to set up their system.
>
>
>> Granted the property tax rate
>> here is Hawaii is lower than it would have been in Califrnia, but I
> would be
>> willing to bet it is higher than some other state.
>
> Very few. Hawaii is near the bottom in property tax paid, per capita
> and as a percent of income, even after factoring in the high valuations
> of property here. People here aren't aware of how high property taxes
> are on the mainland because they are insulated in the middle of the
> Pacific ocean. People in many places on the mainland pay more property
> taxes on a $150,000 condo than Hawaii people pay on a $450,000 home
> here.

Okay, let us backtrack a little here. Think of taxes being in one big or
small bucket. As a taxpayer do you care how the bucket is filled? Or do
you care more that your bucket is fuller than someone else's bucket?
>
>
>> And it just seems to me
>> whether the tax is used to pay for the education of children, or is
> used to
>> pay for some other government service, is simply moving the beans
> around a
>> little.
>
> Nope. You are taking advantage of a loophole in the structure of
> government in Hawaii.

I did not take advantage of anything. The structure was here before I moved
back home. I cannot do anything about what the structure is, it is just the
way it is. Saying I took advantage of a loophole in the structure, is no
more significant that if I move back to California, and took advantage of
that tax structure.
>
>
>> The property tax I pay in this state, goes to fund whatever
>> government service the government wants to spend the money on.
>
> It goes to provide whatever the county government wants to spend it on
> and to repeat, the counties don't operate the public school system.

Yep.
>
>
>> Besides, if
>> the property tax was used to fund the education of the children of
> the
>> state, and since we do not have any children of school age, by paying
> the
>> tax, we are funding the education of children, when we hve none
> taking
>> advantage of the free education.
>
> Using that logic, why would a person from Hawaii who retired in
> California have to pay property taxes to the local school district to
> educate children in Californial and California's future workforce?

Because you have no "choice" in the matter?

I
> don't see the California school districts rushing to exempt retirees
> from other states from their property taxes. Must not be as logical as
> you think.

That is true, but it still does not change what I said. Those who own
property in California, who do not live in California, are paying for
someone else's children's education, not theirs.

>
>
>> As for what mainland retirees have to pay
>> for, that applies to everyone who is retired and living in Hawaii,
> whether
>> they lived their entire lives here, or came from someplace else and
> retired
>> here.
>
> Only if you ignore that people who lived here all their lives have paid
> into the system and invested in the state. Those who haven't paid into
> the system are taking advantage of a loophole about which local
> policymakers are clueless.
>

Gee, so what? That happens to everyone who moves from one state to the
other during their lifetime, and who has worked in each of the States they
lived.

Aka wrote:
> Quante981 wrote:
>
>
>> Mainland retirees moving
>> to Hawaii do not share in that burden/responsibility. Competitive
>> disadvantage for Hawaii? Local policymakers are clueless.
>
> In Hawai`i, education is funded via GET. Please explain how mainland
> retirees who move to Hawai`i can live in Hawai`i and not pay any GET
> (and thus support Hawai`i's education system).
>
> --- Aka

You could go even further and say that tax revenues are fungible and
that it isn't possible to link one type of tax revenue with a certain
type of expenditure BUT look at the numbers.

The state income tax generated $1.25 billion in 2004, with pension
income exempt. Goes into the state general fund. The public school
system cost $1.36 billion to operate in 2004. Paid from state general
funds.

The GET generated $1.89 billion for the state general fund in 2004.

The state income tax represented 34% of the general fund in 2004. ~75%
of public school costs are financed from the general fund. Match or
what?

This isn't just number spinning or coincidence. Old timers might
remember Waihee's proposal to transfer the responsibility for the
income tax to the state board of education to fund public schools.
Putting the ridiculousness of the proposal aside and just looking at
the numbers, it would have been a decent fit in terms of revenues and
expenditures after netting out Cayetano's income tax cuts during
1999-2002.

Jerry's crowd is not paying their 34% into the state general fund.
They didn't contribute to the system when they were younger. So the
burden was paid by those who lived here most or all of their working
lives and on those currently in the workforce. This includes past
investment in school facilities as well as current operations.

Jerry Okamura wrote:
> [defending his perks to the last]

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

> items like the Hawaii Kai sign

> A sign like that has the
> majority support of the neighborhood board, community
> organizations etc, before the city will budget for it.



your naivete is showing.

Whatever "perks" I have was "given" to me by the State. If you do not
like
it, then write to your representatives, and tell them so.

"Quante981" <quante981@m> wrote in message
news:1116475205-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> [defending his perks to the last]
>
> If you don't get it, you don't get it.
>

Quante981 wrote:

> You could go even further and say that tax revenues are fungible and
> that it isn't possible to link one type of tax revenue with a certain
> type of expenditure BUT look at the numbers.

<...much snippage...>

OK, education is funded by the general fund which collects revenue via
GET and income taxes. That's a valid point. However, you haven't
explained anything, since retirees pay both. Not all retirees have a
pension plan. In fact, pensions are becoming less common. More
likely, retirees will have some mix of 401(k)s and IRAs, with taxable
distributions, Roth IRAs with nontaxable distributions, and Social
Security, which is nontaxable.)

Case in point, when I retire, I will have no pension. Most of my
retirement income will come from my 401(k) and IRA accounts.

However, you originally claimed:

"In other words, I would have to pay taxes to support the education of
children in California and California's future workforce. Mainland
retirees moving
to Hawaii do not share in that burden/responsibility."

I asked you to explain how "mainland retirees moving to Hawai'i do not
share in the burden" of paying for education.

You have not done so. What you have done is point out that, just as
every other resident of the state does, retirees fund education through
GET, which was my point, they also fund education through income taxes,
which I neglected to point out.

Whether the burden is through income taxes, sales tax/GET, or property
taxes is irrelevent. It's still a burden and a bite out of their
pocketbooks.

--- Aka

On Thu, 19 May 2005, Aka wrote:

> Quante981 wrote:
>
>> You could go even further and say that tax revenues
>> are fungible and that it isn't possible to link one
>> type of tax revenue with a certain type of
>> expenditure BUT look at the numbers.

> I asked you to explain how "mainland retirees moving
> to Hawai'i do not share in the burden" of paying for
> education.
>
> You have not done so. What you have done is point
> out that, just as every other resident of the state
> does, retirees fund education through GET, which was
> my point, they also fund education through income
> taxes, which I neglected to point out.
>
> Whether the burden is through income taxes, sales
> tax/GET, or property taxes is irrelevent. It's still
> a burden and a bite out of their pocketbooks.

Aka, I think his point is that in the mainland, an
enormous burden of education falls on residents through
the property tax. We have no where near what people in
California pay for example. In Hawaii, not only is the
pensions of the retired, but also IIRC IRA's and 401Ks,
are not taxable by the state. Hawaii has a good reason
to be called a tax haven for the retired rich.

However, he does share a small portion of the education
bill, for two reasons: 1. the GET is very widely
distributed to residents and businesses in the islands.
2. Tourists pay about 30% of the GET. So his actual
portion reported due to the GET is actually 30% less
than what is reported. IE his actual share of the
education burden due to the GET is 30% less than what
is reported for the GET revenues. The second reason
(tourists) is the primary reason we have the GET.
Seniors get a kind of rebate on the GET from tax
credits. So his burden on education is very light or
non-existant-- depending if he applies for the tax
credits.

---alvin

Alvin E. Toda wrote:
> In Hawaii, not only is the
> pensions of the retired, but also IIRC IRA's and 401Ks,
> are not taxable by the state.

You remember incorrectly. Pensions are exempt, but not traditional
IRAs nor 401(k) plans.

--- Aka

"Aka" <mauna_halem> wrote in message
news:1116698401-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>> In Hawaii, not only is the
>> pensions of the retired, but also IIRC IRA's and 401Ks,
>> are not taxable by the state.
>
> You remember incorrectly. Pensions are exempt, but not traditional
> IRAs nor 401(k) plans.
>
I think that pension income is also taxable, at least mine are.

On Sun, 22 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Aka" <mauna_halem> wrote in message
> news:1116698401-sch@news.lava.net...

>> You remember incorrectly. Pensions are exempt, but
>> not traditional IRAs nor 401(k) plans.
>>
> I think that pension income is also taxable, at least
> mine are.

I haven't gotten to the point of collecting. I want to
wait for maximum benefit. But due to what seems to me
to be contrary to what I have been reading in the
papers. I would hold judgement until, there is a more
authoritative source.

--alvin