What tax advantage should I keep an eye for if I am going to relocate?
"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for ""unincorporated"" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the ""expedited development package"" which generally has a ""processing fee"" involved. This is something you make up ie. ""What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote"" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone." "Depends. If you can choose where to relocate to, then I second the ""no income tax"" states. But even of these chose wisely, some have no income taxes at all, others have taxes on some kinds of income. Some don't have neither individual nor corporate taxes, some tax businesses in some ways. Some compensate with higher property taxes, others compensate with higher sales taxes. On the other hand, you might prefer states with income taxes but no sales taxes. It can happen if your current income is going to be low, but you'll be spending your savings. If you don't have a choice (for example, your employer wants you to move closer to their office), then you're more limited. Still, you can use the tax break on moving expenses (read the fine print, there are certain employment requirements), and play with the state taxes (if you're moving to a state with less/no taxes - move earlier, if its the other way - move later). Check out for cities that have income taxes. In some states it cannot happen by law (for example, in California only the state is allowed to collect income taxes), in others it is very common (Ohio comes to mind). Many things to consider in New York. New York City has its own income tax (as well as Yonkers, as far as I remember these are the only ones in the State of New York). So if you want to save on taxes in NYS but live close to the city, consider White Plains etc. If you work in NYC its moot, you're going to pay city taxes anyway. That is also true if you live in NJ but work in the city, so tax-wise it may be more efficient not to live across state lines from your place of work."
I have this exact same issue.  Event the dollar amounts are close.  Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1:  Walk away.  Goodbye credit for 7+ years.  Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL.  With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it.  What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose?  What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2:  Short sale.  Good if I can let it happen.  I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state.  If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live.  If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure.  It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank.   Option 3:  Keep paying.  I am going for this.  At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live.  (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer).  I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years.  Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have.  I can't re-fi; too upside down.  I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance).  I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house.  I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not.  I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan.  They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place.  The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence.  I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can.  The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better.  I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years. Fuck you.  Fuck the HELL out of you.  First, what if I operate a business that has industry-wise small margins?  All manufacturing, for instance, operates on an average margin of 2%.  How much is that tax increase going to be, again?  5%?  Thanks, I guess you didn't want a manufacturing sector in the US after all.   Second, what if my competitive advantage *is* a small margin?  For many small businesses, that is their *only* competitive advantage in their start-up years.   Third, when the HELL did being left alone and keeping the money I earned by generating wealth and providing services become a motherfucking SUBSIDY? When the hell did the money I earn become the government's by right????    Also fuck you, you disgusting self-important pimple.  The risk-takers, wealth generators and employers of half of America are in fear for their survival; their livelyhoods, their life's work, and their retirement are all at risk from government meddling; and you cavalierly snark that they should just go out of business.    May you live long enough to one day learn how it feels. "I don't have a lot of time to keep going back and forth. It seems like we differ on a bunch of things. But I do want to respect your final question when you ask me what I thought was wrong in that post.  You mention things like the government regulating things like water and air. Those are common goods. These cannot be in the hands of a corporation. Man did not put those things there. So, man cannot take ownership of these things. Bottled water, running water, oxygen tanks, etc, those things are man-made products or services for a market. I can go to a public body of water and swim in it because no one owns it. I can go to the shore in my favorite bathing suit and swim in the beautiful ocean water if I so please without needing to pay or trade with anyone for access to the ocean. But I cannot start pumping water out of the ocean and into a big tank for me to haul away. The government needs to step in and put an end to anyone that does that sort of thing. Same goes for anyone trying to tamper with the water or doing something that is harmful to people or the life living in the water. Government needs to stop all of that. Also, yes the ""municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage"". But are you also claiming that it was the government that created the solution to clean and purify our water supplies? Because they sure didn't.  As for electricity, the way it is delivered and made available to our homes is a commodity. Electricity is natural, but just like how water when bottled becomes a consumer product, the generation and delivery of electricity to our homes is a product and service. If a company delivering electricity to customers in a city is using public infrastructure, then of course they have to share it. That makes sense as the electric company does not own the utility poles, streets, etc. The government should regulate that.  The government handling trade agreements is a job of the government. We need them to do that. I believe in an open, free, and consumer-driven market. I don't want a lot of regulation on this - such as tariffs that Trump has talked about - because history shows that could lead to the costs inflating with quality not following suit. His rants on jobs fleeing offshores followed by his talks of tariffs on foreign imports would be a terrible idea. I want the government to negotiate trade deals as long as it is in the best interest for this country. This is what grows an economy. Imagine if Apple couldn't import iPhones unless they paid a 30% tax since it was assembled in China. That would kill sales of iPhones because Apple would have to pass most - if not all - of that cost on to the consumer. Samsung phones (for argument's sake, let's say these aren't made in China. I don't think they are anyway, but just saying) would begin to take a larger share of the consumer market because prices would be lower since Samsung didn't have to pay a 30% tax.  As for the coffee pot from china starting a fire in my house. No one would by a coffee pot if there was a known fire-starting issue with those coffee pots. The government telling china that coffee pots need to be a certain specification is really irrelevant. The issue would resolve itself because no one would by the coffee pots. Once this became a known problem, stores would take it off the shelves and no longer sell it. We have cars that are recalled left and right. Car seats for infants and toddlers that are recalled every year. So on and so forth. I know the federal government has a recall process, but usually its the manufacturer that will announce the recall first. If there is a bad product out there, it will die out and no longer be made available for purchase. I don't see the the federal government slapping regulations on car manufacturers that mandate ""all tires must not fall off of the car while in motion"". No. Instead, the manufacturer, who is in the business of making money, which they need to sell cars to make money, would create a car where the tires are not likely to ever fall off while a car is in motion (or even when idle).  The last thing I want to touch on is the Obamacare mandate. If I don't want something, why am I being forced to pay for it? Why do you agree with this? I am already paying into social security and I wish I wasn't. I will make my own investments with my income to prepare for retirement. Why should I pay for health insurance if I don't want it. The government should not be making my life choices for me. I have one responsibility on this earth as it pertains to my behavior. That is to respect others inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as I do not harm someone in an immoral way (e.g. steal, kill, physical harm, property damage, disclose personally identifiable information, etc), I should be free to live my life without government interference. I am fine with paying into a system for true welfare cases. Some people fall into bad situations that they could not help. Some people are born into a terrible situation. Those people need help. But I don't want to pay for stupid ass things like Chuck Schumer's idiotic idea of Medicare for people over 55. He wants to lower the medicare age by 10 years. This is the insane progressive ideas that literally just worsen societies. [""In 2016, Medicare benefit payments totaled $675 billion, up from $375 billion in 2006.](http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/) A $300 billion increase in just 10 years and that schmuck wants to lower eligibility by 10 years. If this were ever signed into law, I am (plus other American workers) going to be forced to pay into this. That means less money for me to save and invest for retire or an emergency. Less for my daughter. Less for my mortgage. Less for me to continue my education. Less on whatever I choose to do with my money that I spend 40 hours/week in an office for. My time is spent doing something asked of me by a corporation. That corporation pays me for my time. It's a mutual agreement resulting in a trade of money for my services. I do it because I want to do things and provide for my family. I don't do it because someone decided to spend 4 years for a degree in graphic design and can't get a job. I also don't do it for people that have a cash only income (both illegal immigrants and legal citizens do this) and don't declare all of their income making them eligible for Obamacare. And, lastly, I do not do it for people that decide to live off of the system and are physically and mentally fit to work in some capacity. I should not be forced to pay a mandate just because I'm here breathing.  Obama - just like all progressives - normalized this ""breathing"" tax. It isn't right. Of course, Obamacare falls apart if there aren't enough healthy people to subsidize the sick people. That's why the mandate was obviously put in place. But just because the mandate is needed to make it work, doesn't make it right to force on people. My mortgage needs to get paid. If all my neighbors chipped in $75/month, I could make it work. Well, is it right to force my neighbors to pay my mortgage? Nope. I made the decision to buy my house. They did not. Not to mention, with socialized health care, services are rationed and that is just sickening. Big Gov: ""Oh, you're 80 years old and you need a knew knee? Well, you did live for 80 years, so we're going to deny that request."" In a system where I pay for my own health care and insurance, I can get a new hip and a new knew if I needed it and it would all be done within a week or 2 most likely. You have 51 week-old Charlie Gard who Britain and the wonderful EU (sarcasm) ordered to die. He did so just last week even though his parents had the money to fly him here and have a doctor perform a potentially life-saving surgery. Yep. When the government owns healthcare, they own your health. That's my other big reason for hating Obamacare. It truly is a bad thing. We have world history that can easily show anyone what it looks like if we keep going down this path.  I am done for now. I am not trying to convince you of anything. That usually doesn't happen as people are set in their ways. If anything, this exchange of messages is for the person(s) out there that want to learn what is right and what is wrong. What liberty is and what it isn't. Taxing people as a way to redistribute wealth is wrong. Imposing mandates so people buy a product/service is just straight up wrong. Our income is a representation of our time spent fulfilling the responsibilities of an agreement that we voluntarily made with an employer. Our money is our time. Our time is our liberty. And if we aren't infringing on the rights of others during our time, then the government needs to stay out.  Catch you later." This should be posted in /r/Personalfinance.  Also, do not do what /u/BlitheCalamity is suggesting.    1. If it is an IRA, simply do an ACAT transfer.  No taxes will be incurred if the paperwork is filed correctly.  Additionally, there is a 60 rollover provision for IRA accounts... another way to get out of a tax penalty for an IRA account.  2. Check the internal fees for your mutual funds.  You may have purchased A shares, which I am guessing is the case since your advisor was an Ed Jones advisor.  The ongoing internal expense ratio should be rather low so you might want to consider keeping these funds.  An ACAT will allow you to transfer your investments to your new account if you want to keep them.  (A shares have a onetime high upfront charge, but low ongoing fee.  If you've already paid for the fund, why ditch it for another fund that charges a higher ongoing fee but not an upfront fee? Evaluate your costs.)  3. If this is a non-IRA account, still file an ACAT.  It is the easiest way to transfer your account.    Edit:  Silly me, this is clearly a question regarding an IRA.  In that case, there is no tax penalty for selling anything and buying within your IRA as long as you do not take the money out.  Like I said, please file an ACAT with the new company otherwise you will have to prove to the IRS that you completed the rollover in 60 days.  If not, you will pay income tax and a 10% penalty. They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate. Reading about the [Bring Jobs Home Act](http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239029-republicans-blocked-the-democrats-insourcing-bill) it talks about how the (filibustered in July) bill would end the ability of companies to take a tax deduction for the costs of off-shoring labor(moving people and equipment overseas). The blog/newspaper articles don't really say much more than that. "While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do   I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, ""necessary and ordinary"" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say ""no"" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000   miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (""pleasure"") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is ""business"" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the   property? Although, again, the ""necessary and ordinary"" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA)." "In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called ""Fair Tax"". Basically, that's exactly how the ""rich folks"", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway."