Minnesota State Income Tax Form 2011: Fill & Download for Free

I went to grad school at UofM for more than 5 years, and then worked in Minneapolis for 5 years before moving to Seattle in 2011. For the first year after moving to Seattle, I still debated whether I should move back to Minneapolis. I was so used to the life in Minnesota at the time, everything in Minneapolis was so nice.Then after first year, especially, after spending the first summer in Seattle, I just loved it. Looking back, I now think Seattle is a better place to live. The living costs in the two cities are comparable. It doesn't rain as much as most people perceive. Even in the winter, it rains only 3 or 4 days a week, I would trade that with snow any time. The city is more vibrant, especially the summer is just perfect. It's not too cold, it's not too hot and most houses don't even have AC. There's almost no rain in the summer actually. You can drive to Portland and Vancouver, BC for some fun and come back within a day, they both only are 3 hours away. As compared with Minneapolis, the closest "city" with interesting things to visit/see is Chicago, which is 6 hours away. As a bonus, the state of Washington doesn't have the state income tax, you only have to file the federal income tax. And if you want to save even more money, you can drive to Portland to buy stuff, there's no sales tax in the state of Oregon.Having said that, I still miss Minneapolis. My son was born there, I bought my first house there, I still have many friends there. And last but not least, I'm still a die hard Vikings fan - Go Vikes!!!

This has already happened to a degree with Vermont, with high taxes and lots of government, and a state going the other way, New Hampshire. The two states are next to each other, and have very similar demographics.Cultural differences...Vermont and New Hampshire, geographic twins, cultural aliensVermont vs. New Hampshirelong article on differences... Page on people.matinic.usEDIT: As a result of Joseph Boyle 's question, I took a closer look at Vermonts Income and sales taxes....and I was disgusted by what I saw.It looks like a lot of the tax burden gets paid by the working lower class and the bottom of the middle class. The taxes are not very progressive.A number of other states, like California, keep much of the state tax burden off the working poor and lower middle class. Vermont doesn't, either through philosophy or necessity. Example - Single person income tax rates -3.55 percent on the first $36,250 of taxable income.6.8 percent on taxable income between $36,251 and $87,850.(that rate is going to hit middle class people hard)7.8 percent on taxable income between $87,851 and $183,250And a Sales tax of 6.0%It looks like they have a morally ugly tax system that screws the working poor and lower middle class. This looks like they want to run the working poor out of the state.******How politically different are they ?New Hampshire has a long history of libertarian politics that don’t sync up with that of its New England neighbors; Vermont has a history of moderate communitarianism. While Vermont’s Constitution tilts towards the quasi-socialist with phrases such as “private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it,” New Hampshire is the only state so suspicious of government itself that it includes as the tenth article of its Constitution a “right of revolution.”Tax levels different ?The right-wing Wheelabrator Foundation published A Comparative Study of the Fiscal Systems of New Hampshire andVermont, 1940–1974, and found that Vermont had the third-heaviest personal tax burden in the country while New Hampshire had the fourty-seventh.Add to this a 6% or more sales tax....The Vermont (VT) state sales tax rate is currently 6.0%. Depending on local municipalities, the total tax rate can be as high as 7%.Other, local-level tax rates in the state of Vermont are quite complex compared against local-level tax rates in other states. Vermont sales tax may also be levied at the city/county/school/transportation and SPD (special purpose district) levels.Vermont sales tax has numerous local taxing levels that must be monitored and maintained on a regular basis, it is complex and time consuming due to the volume of jurisdictions.>>> Vermont is listed in Kiplinger’s 2011 10 Tax-Unfriendly States for Retirees. A state sales tax of 9% is imposed on prepared foods, restaurant meals and lodging and 10% on alcoholic beverages served in restaurants. Businesses have a nightmare to maintain and track all the different nuances in the state sales tax code.Really bad news for people who like to enjoy restaurants.State Spending per capita, FY 2011Vermont 9,855New Hampshire 7,766A brief side by side comparison...Both are very white, educated (over - educated ?)Vermont 95.4% WhiteNew Hampshire 94.4% WhiteHigh School Degree Vermont 91% New Hampshire 91.2%Bachelor degree Vermont 33.8% New Hampshire 33.1%Vermont vs New HampshireGSP per capitaVermont 38,187New Hampshire 42,958New Hampshire creates 12.3% more value than Vermont.So here's the good news for all you socialists: education in Vermont results in high test scores !Vermont.gov - News Releases" November 26, 2013Vermont’s Reading and Mathematics Test Scores among the Best in the Nation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress"This is a great press release ! Let's look inside..." Vermont students historically score in the top 10 states in the nation, and this year was no exception. In eighth grade, only Massachusetts students scored higher than Vermont in reading and mathematics. In fourth grade reading, only Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire scored higher. In fourth grade mathematics, only New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Minnesota outscored Vermont students. In comparison to the rest of the country, Vermont students were at least five percentage points higher and exceeded the national average by 11 percentage points in eighth grade mathematics. "Oops ! How did New Hampshire get in there as higher than Vermont on some things ?We can dig into the data and see the differences are very small..Vermont Grade 8 Mathhttp://nces.U.S. Department of Education/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2013/pdf/2014465VT8.pdfNew Hampshire Grade 8 MathPage on ed.govSo all the higher taxes net out ....you pay higher taxes, you don't really get much for the higher taxes.Net assessment - "Democratic Socialism" state government doesn't do any better than libertarian leaning state government, (for the case of states with highly educated mostly white people) it just costs more tax money and slow economic growth.Socialism is probably sub-optimal for most developed nations.Or we can do bumper sticker style...Socialism : It's for losers******>> Now the other factors that make Norway work are cheap hydropower and oil.Actually, Norway and the US do something similar - they drill for oil.Huge entrepreneurial success ? That would be Israel.

Your question is unclear. Do you mean: “How much could they spend on a home with no housing-related worries?” or “How much could they spend on a home with no financial worries whatsoever?”I’ll assume you mean “no financial worries whatsoever.”Also—though great answer by Edward Lafreniere—I’ll assume that you have the $350 million in cash—after taxes, after other expenses. You have that $350 million, all yours, in a bank somewhere.The first question is: What are your living expenses? How much do you need to live on, in a lifestyle you’d like? Edward suggests $2 million a year. That certainly should be enough unless you plan on buying yachts, airplanes, etc.Let’s deal with taxes. Warren Buffett said that in 2011 his effective tax rate was 17.4%. The average federal tax rate in 2009 for the 400 tax returns with the highest adjusted gross income—think of it as the 400 wealthiest individuals, more or less—was 20%. Then there was the tax cut passed early in Trump’s presidency. According to one analysis, that’ll reduce the taxes paid by the wealthiest 1% of the population by 1.5%. Meanwhile, state income tax rates vary, and what the wealthiest pay is going to be under the stated rate. Some states—Florida, Texas, Nevada, Wyoming, and a few others—have no state taxes. Others—such as California, New York, Minnesota, Oregon, and some others—can approach and even exceed 10%, depending on income. So, let’s say—roughly—that you’ll pay 20% in federal tax and 5% in state tax on your income every year. Perhaps a bit less, with the tax cuts and depending on where you live.And let’s say you can invest your money to produce a 6% return. (With all your available resources and advisors—and opportunities that others don’t have—I’d hope it would be a lot higher.If you need $2 million a year to live on, you’ll need pre-tax income of $2.667 million. That means you’d need to invest about $44.5 million at 6% to produce the $2.667 in pre-tax income.Still, we haven’t answered the question of how much you could spend on a home. That’s going to cost you some money every year. How much? It depends on the property taxes where you live. That varies from under 0.5% in Hawaii and Alabama to more than 2.3% in Illinois and New Jersey. The average is around 1%.Then figure maintenance and upkeep on the home. That’ll vary, too, depending on the type of property, the cost of the property, and other factors. A rough rule of thumb: 1% of the property’s value per year. And let’s keep this very simple. If you bought a $100 million property (with cash) that costs you 2% a year in property taxes and maintenance/upkeep, That’s another $2 million that you’d need. We already saw, above, that you’d need to invest $44.5 million to produce after-tax income of $2 million. So, to produce $4 million ($2 million to live on, $1 million for property taxes, and $1 million for the maintenance), you’d need to invest $89 million.There are ways to play with those figures. Maybe you take out a mortgage for part of the cost of the property. Your immediate cash outlay is less, but your monthly cost is higher. Your CPA probably would suggest some strategy of having your company own the property and leasing it to you. You might rent out the property for parties and events, as Donald Trump does with Mar a Lago.Still, where are we? Buy a $100 million property. Invest $89 million to produce income for your living expenses and housing. That leaves $161 million as a cushion. (I suppose you could spend more on the property—close to $200 million—and bump your investments up to $150 million.Or if you go with Edward Lafreniere’s assumption that you’ll only end up with $182 million, our initial scenario—$100 million for the property and $89 million to produce income—is pretty close. He’s also aiming for $2 million in annual income, which seems reasonable. So, while I suppose you could spend $93 million for the property and use $89 million to produce income (that’s your $182 million), I wouldn’t feel comfortable without an additional cushion—maybe $65 million for the property and the remaining $117 million to generate income and cover expenses.So there isn’t a clear answer to the question, but that gives you some ranges, depending on your circumstances and assumptions.