Interactive Broker's founder quits CT for taxfree Florida

There's an easy way to save a cool $50-100M when you're a billionaire in the top tax bracket in Connecticut - move. Florida, with no income or estate tax, is a popular choice as this article shows:

http://www.courant.com/business/dan...eterffy-exit-costs-state-20160302-column.html

Worsening budget deficits ($1-2B) and rising state tax income rates (4.5 to 7%) surely made Peterffy's decision easier, but maybe you can pick up a deal on his $65M estate if you're looking for a bargain.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/billion...ng-greenwich-estate-for-65-million-1437674191

 

These articles are misleading as most billionaires pay minimal taxes....

 

Then why would they bother to leave and all be going to FL? Tepper dumped NJ recently for Florida too. It can't be all how much better they like hurricanes over the New England winters. Plus, you know it matters when the financial budget guys at the states are getting worried, since they can see how much they stand to lose based on what these guys actually pay in taxes.

 

Tepper is 58, Peterffy is 72 IE people of certain age move to Florida, Arizona, Nevada etc...

 

high earners that are mobile have little reason to stay in blue states. In NY and CA the highest tax bracket is 13% and 9%. Factor on top of that local income taxes. All-in they get shaken down for more than 50% of their income.
If Hilary becomes our next prez I can see the current exodus from the blue states accelerating, further skewing the ratio of takers to makers. Most blue states are headed down the path of Puerto Rico.

 

Because you have access to their tax statements, huh?

You get them from Hillary.

 

Obviously you have a lot to learn, such a naive statement...

 

When you say "skewing the ratio of takers to makers" you mean the red states will finally have more "makers" than the blue states, unlike the situation today?
With a few exceptions, it looks to me like the red states "take" a whole lot more than the blue states (http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/). I think the whole "maker/taker" argument is BS, so I'm not going to demand that SC, which takes almost $8 federal dollars for every $1 it gives back in tax revenue, somehow even up with the evil CA which takes fewer than $1 for every dollar it pays in tax revenue. Those socialists in Silicon Valley sure create a lot of jobs considering they're a bunch of blue state freeloaders, right? But I will keep pointing out to everyone who tosses out the maker/taker meme how it's not only senseless, but on average the red staters complaining about it are actually the "takers" they're so apoplectic about.
BTW, you must have never worked in Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur to say "high earners that are mobile have little reason to stay in blue states"? There are plenty of reasons to stay in areas with developed ecosystems if you make money because you can be part of those ecosystems. They far exceed the amount of money you save by moving to a state solely to save money on taxes. Not to mention the fact that CA, for example, is a great place to live with a perfect climate in many areas, and the opportunity to surf in the morning and be on the slopes by the afternoon. If I'm rich enough to be able to do that, I'm going to live where I want to live, not move to a house in the swamp in FL because I save a few bucks on my income tax! Talk about a loss of perspective here.

 

I'll take that as a no and that YOU are being misleading or rather MSU.

BTW I wonder if Hillary gave any speeches for IB as well as Goldie?

Huh do you know?

 

Take it as you like but as I had noted earlier, you are naive and have a lot to learn.