Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Vermont governor signs bill to pay people $10K to move to state and work remotely


Recommended Posts

Vermont governor signs bill to pay people $10K to move to state and work remotely

Source: The Hill

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (D) has signed a bill into law that will pay people $10,000 if they move to the state and work for an out-of-state employer remotely. 

The bill, which is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2019, has budgeted grants for nearly 100 new remote workers in the first three years of the program, and 20 more workers per year for every year afterward. 

Under the terms of bill, a new remote worker may be eligible for a grant under the program “for qualifying remote worker expenses in the amount of not more than $5,000.00 per year, not to exceed a total of $10,000.00 per individual new remote worker over the life of the program.” 

Remote worker expenses that qualify for the grant include the purchase of computer software and hardware, broadband access or upgrade, and membership in a co-working or similar space.

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/390046-vermont-governor-signs-bill-to-pay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Gotta pay people to move to the state...and then, work for a firm that isn't even in that state?  WUT THA?????

Why can't Vermont grow it's company base to hire local people?

We only have a limited number of maple trees to tap :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
18 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Gotta pay people to move to the state...and then, work for a firm that isn't even in that state?  WUT THA?????

Why can't Vermont grow it's company base to hire local people?

Because the NY liberals who took over the state want the whole state to be a forest. They already made their money before they moved there so fuck anyone who needs to make a living. CFK lives in the only working part of the state.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ckf said:

We only have a limited number of maple trees to tap :lol:

:lol:

Short season here this year.

2 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Because the NY liberals who took over the state want the whole state to be a forest. They already made their money before they moved there so fuck anyone who needs to make a living. CFK lives in the only working part of the state.

Ahh...so MC has no idea why he posted it then.  Normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Because the NY liberals who took over the state want the whole state to be a forest. They already made their money before they moved there so fuck anyone who needs to make a living. CFK lives in the only working part of the state.

Burlington is really the only working part and a small area around Rutland. The rest is tourism based economy and lots of trees to hug. 

 

Not a bad move though to get people to come in and pay income taxes with jobs that in many cases would be on the high end for the state. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Im4snow said:

Businesses are taxpayers too. :bc: 

Yes I know. This is a great idea and much better than spending millions in tax cuts to lure 1 company to your state. 

Maine should take note of this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Yes I know. This is a great idea and much better than spending millions in tax cuts to lure 1 company to your state. 

Maine should take note of this idea.

absolutely as should NH for the northern tier of the state although both have some infrastructure issues with telecommuting from a lot of area.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/01/15/fastest-growing-and-shrinking-states-closer-look/1019429001/

Vermont is shrinking in population...

The population of Vermont declined by 0.2% in 2016, the third largest contraction of any state. Like most Northeastern states with population loss, the population decline was largely due to outbound migration. Approximately 2,00 more residents moved out of Vermont in 2016 than moved in, nearly the largest loss of any state when adjusted for population size.

Population growth was also stymied by the state’s low birth rate. Vermont’s birth rate has been on a fairly steady decline over the past three decades, and in 2016, there were just 6,035 births in Vermont — nearly the fewest of any year since the 19th century.

Edited by racer254
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the young in both VT and ME leave to chase opportunity therefore reducing the birthrate.   Fortunately we have the job opportunities in southern NH that it is not as dramatic.  I've actually done more deals with young vermonters moving to here this year than in any i can remember.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Angry ginger said:

the young in both VT and ME leave to chase opportunity therefore reducing the birthrate.   Fortunately we have the job opportunities in southern NH that it is not as dramatic.  I've actually done more deals with young vermonters moving to here this year than in any i can remember.  

So, young people are moving out of VT and ME to find better employment opportunities at a significant rate?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zambroski said:

So, young people are moving out of VT and ME to find better employment opportunities at a significant rate?  

been happening for awhile now lots go out of state to school and never come back as full time residents as it's easier to find quality jobs elsewhere.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

been happening for awhile now lots go out of state to school and never come back as full time residents as it's easier to find quality jobs elsewhere.  

 

Are VT and ME high in property taxes?  Other taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Are VT and ME high in property taxes?  Other taxes?

property taxes would be considered high compared to a lot of places in the populated areas although they are lower than what I see here in NH.  the difference maker between the 3 states though is VT and ME both have fairly high income/sales tax rates resulting in a top 10 tax burden vs nh being in the lowest 10 in overall burden.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

property taxes would be considered high compared to a lot of places in the populated areas although they are lower than what I see here in NH.  the difference maker between the 3 states though is VT and ME both have fairly high income/sales tax rates resulting in a top 10 tax burden vs nh being in the lowest 10 in overall burden.  

 

 

Yup and Lepage tried to address the tax rates and that went no where......hopefully the next governor will have better luck.

 

 https://www.shawnmoody.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

While I'm not completely against states doing things like this how about just have a low enough tax system to begin with to attract business and people.  Same could be said about Iowa so don't go throwing that out.  Iowa gave Apple around $213 million for a facility that will create 50 jobs once complete.   WTF!!!

The income tax has a top rate of 8.95%. This ranks as the sixth-highest in the U.S., although it only applies to taxpayers making over $413,350 per year. Meanwhile, total state and local sales taxes range from 6% to 7%. SmartAsset has gathered all of the relevant facts and figures about Vermont's individual taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Angry ginger said:

property taxes would be considered high compared to a lot of places in the populated areas although they are lower than what I see here in NH.  the difference maker between the 3 states though is VT and ME both have fairly high income/sales tax rates resulting in a top 10 tax burden vs nh being in the lowest 10 in overall burden.  

 

 

That's what I was getting towards is what was the tax burden.  Unless cost of living is low and there is cheap enough real estate, population dwindles without new jobs and an influx of new employers.  Interesting.  I don't know too much about the NE area.

33 minutes ago, Highmark said:

While I'm not completely against states doing things like this how about just have a low enough tax system to begin with to attract business and people.  Same could be said about Iowa so don't go throwing that out.  Iowa gave Apple around $213 million for a facility that will create 50 jobs once complete.   WTF!!!

The income tax has a top rate of 8.95%. This ranks as the sixth-highest in the U.S., although it only applies to taxpayers making over $413,350 per year. Meanwhile, total state and local sales taxes range from 6% to 7%. SmartAsset has gathered all of the relevant facts and figures about Vermont's individual taxes.

Indeed.  There has to be a balance.  When government just blatantly starts to bleed the citizens and businesses to pay for their bloated expendatures, people vote with their feet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when the Corporation decides to pay their remote worker $10K less than say a office worker in the Corporations State.  Will the MC's and Moto's of the world say that the Corporation is subsidized by the Govt?   (ie, Walmart)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...