When rich Vermonters die, their kids aren’t the only ones who get a windfall. The state is a beneficiary, too, taking a 16 percent cut of the value of estates over $2.75 million.
Vermont is one of just 12 states that still have an estate tax — or, as critics call it, a death tax. Most others ditched theirs after a 2001 federal tax overhaul.
Gov. Phil Scott thinks the tax chases wealthy families out of Vermont, ultimately starving the state of steadier revenue streams that would be collected before they die, such as income and sales taxes. So in his proposed budget, now being hotly debated by the legislature, he called for a big tax break for wealthy Vermont families in the hopes they’ll keep their greenbacks in the Green Mountain State.
The plan has reignited a long-simmering policy debate over whether Vermont’s tax burden is so high that it’s driving people to states with lower taxes. Though there’s no conclusive data to prove this theory, those who believe it have plenty of anecdotal evidence.
“The ones with all the money are checking out,” said Pat Robins, cofounder of the SymQuest Group, a South Burlington technology services company he sold in 2015. “I know, because a lot of them are friends of mine.”
It’s one thing to ask the wealthy to pay taxes on their own income or properties, he said, but it’s another to tax what they’re trying to pass on to their children. Many can and do leave the state to protect those assets, he argued, depriving Vermont of the taxes and economic activity they would have otherwise generated.
“I think we’re slowly strangling the golden goose,” Robins said.
Paul Cillo doesn’t buy it. The executive director of the Public Assets Institute in Montpelier said he’s heard this claim for years and has never seen any evidence to back it up.
“This convention about people leaving any state as a result of tax changes is nonsense,” Cillo said. “It’s basically an argument without substance.”
People move for jobs, to be closer to family or for better weather, but not to flee higher taxes, he said. Studies done after states have imposed taxes on millionaires have debunked the claim, he said. One 2011 study by the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was titled “Tax Flight Is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration.”
“What happens is, people pretty much stay put,” Cillo said.
The number of people coming into the state mostly makes up for those who leave, he added, creating a population churn that is not only natural but healthy.
Tax Commissioner Kaj Samsom disagrees. The state should not be satisfied to simply replace departing residents with new ones, he said, calling it a recipe for stagnation.
“Clearly, for the Scott administration, success is not equilibrium,” Samsom said.
The goal should be to increase the number of high-income residents by continuing to attract new ones and encouraging people to stay, he argued.
Vermont has a relatively progressive tax structure, meaning rates increase as people’s incomes do. The problem, according to Samsom, is that the state has few wealthy people compared to others.
It ranks 41st in the nation by one key measure of wealth: the average income of the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Connecticut tops the charts at $3.2 million. Vermont is at $1 million, according to the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
“A progressive tax structure doesn’t do what you want it to do if the high income and high wealth is not there,” Samsom said.
A $10 million estate today would enjoy a $2.75 million exemption and be assessed at $1.16 million in taxes. Scott’s plan would bump up that exemption to $5.75 million, slashing that same estate’s tax bill to $680,000 — and saving the heirs $480,000.
All told, the Department of Taxes estimates that the state would give up about $10 million per year in revenue if the proposal became law, a change that would be phased in over several years.
Financial professionals have been telling the state for years that its tax structure in general, and the estate tax in particular, contributes to driving well-off people elsewhere, Samsom said.
Rebecca Walsh, a financial planner with Pathway Financial Advisors in South Burlington, said there is broad consensus in her industry on this point.
“Every financial planner, attorney and accountant I’ve spoken to about this issue has handfuls of anecdotes of clients who decide to establish residency in another state while keeping a foot in Vermont, to reduce their income [tax] and estate tax liabilities,” Walsh said.
People with multimillion-dollar estates usually own homes in other states, often in warmer climates, so shifting their residency is not difficult, Walsh said.
States such as Florida generally require legal residents to be physically present for six months plus a day, which is not that much longer than the de facto Vermont winter. And the cost of airfare twice a year, Walsh noted, is far from prohibitive for someone with a $10 million estate.
“That range of wealthy clients have a lot of flexibility on how to live their lives,” she said.
According to Rick Kozlowski, a Burlington attorney who specializes in estate planning, the combination of state income and estate taxes pushes Vermonters to leave — or, in legal terms, change their domicile.
“It’s the hit to their income combined with knowing that when they’re gone, their kids will be writing out a big check to the State of Vermont,” Kozlowski said. “It riles them as unfair. They’re thinking, Why should I give 16 percent of what I’ve earned and saved over my life to the State of Vermont just for the privilege of being there?”
To reduce their exposure to the estate tax, many clients instead give money to their children while they are alive, Kozlowski said. As long as the parent lives for two years after making such a gift, it is not taxable, he added. So, a person who gives an adult child $1 million can avoid paying $160,000 in estate taxes after death.
The administration faces several challenges in making its case to reform the estate tax.
One is a data problem. No information clearly shows how many people leave the state due to the tax. Samsom’s department knows how many Vermonters change their tax domicile, but it doesn’t know why.
The department recently tried to analyze the exodus. It examined tax data from 2017, looking at returns from nonresidents who used to file taxes as Vermonters but still have to make disclosures based on Vermont income. Someone who now lives in Florida for more than six months of the year, for example, might still have a rental property in Vermont on which they have to pay state income tax, Samsom explained.
The analysis found that 422 nonresidents who were over 60 years old and made more than $200,000 per year filed returns with the state. Of those, 200 had moved from Vermont to states without an income or estate tax. The top two destinations were Florida (136) and New Hampshire (45).
This suggests to Samsom that while climate is certainly a motivator for people to move elsewhere, tax benefits are also clearly part of the equation.
Cillo said that such analysis fails to consider that a similar number of people in that income range likely moved into the state. In 2016, 420 such people moved out and 401 moved in, he said, citing Internal Revenue Service data.
Samsom countered that a closer look at the data shows there are fewer high-income residents coming into the state than leaving, and those that are replacing them are earning an average of $50,000 a year less.
He also noted that it wouldn’t take that many more people staying in the state to recoup from other sources the drop in estate tax revenue. A typical resident earning more than $300,000 per year generates about $40,000 in a suite of other taxes, the department estimated.
People don’t change their retirement plans on a dime. But if over the next 15 years just 17 more retirees per year decide to keep their tax home in Vermont than would have otherwise, the state could recoup the $10 million annually. The more high-income residents who stay, the faster the state would not only recoup the lost revenue but exceed it.
Rep. Janet Ancel (D-Calais) isn’t convinced that lowering the tax would really change the retirement patterns of the wealthy.
“I don’t think the data proves or really even demonstrates that,” said Ancel, the chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. “There are a lot of reasons people move.”
But she does think the estate tax contributes to the impression of the state as high-tax, and there might be fairer, broader ways to make up similar revenue. That’s why her committee recently supported raising the exemption, but only to $5 million, instead of the governor’s proposed $5.75 million. To compensate, the committee proposed raising $5 million by expanding the capital gains tax, which targets the sale of land and businesses.
The full House approved the change as part of a tax bill that now heads to the Senate.
There are signs that it may be in for a cool reception.
Sen. Chris Pearson (P/D-Chittenden) said he was “astounded” when Gov. Scott proposed in his budget address to reduce the tax burden on wealthy families.
“That is a segment of the population that I’m not fretting about,” said Pearson, who sits on the Senate Finance Committee. He said he was surprised to see the House “essentially advance the governor’s proposal” and said he’ll need some serious convincing to support it.
“To me, the onus is on folks to really clearly and unequivocally prove that we have a drain of wealthy families in Vermont,” Pearson said. “I just don’t see it.”
Related Stories
This article appears in Apr 3-9, 2019.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I spent 35 years operating a moving company in Chittenden County. The high tax rates in the State of Vermont contributed to our revenues by motivating people to seek less taxing venues. I can assure you high tax rates DO motivate people to move out of the State. There were some years I was tempted to send flowers to the legislators expressing my gratitude.
My comments may be anecdotal but my experience is not. Pat Robins speaks the truth – uncomfortable as it is.
@pcowanvt – I’m trying to understand your point of view. So, how much benefit have you personally received from trickle down? It seems as if you oppose taxing the wealthy based on their ability to pay. So here’s the thing, in my view: we already don’t tax the income challenged based on their inability to pay and now it seems that you are suggesting that we dont tax the wealthy based on their ability to pay. How exactly do you think that will benefit the middle class? I believe that we’re already taxed at a higher percentage of our income than any other group when you factor all the write offs that the wealthy have traditionally been able to take advantage of . So if we’re not taxing the poor and we’re not taxing the rich, how exactly is that going to help those of us in the middle class? Do you honestly think that the wealthy are going to dump the amount they aren’t being taxed into the local economy and that’s going to “trickle down”? Further, you seem to be suggesting that we cut spending. I’m on board with that but exactly what programs do you suggest cutting? Should we become a state like Alabama or Mississippi and get rid of most services for the sake of much lower taxes? Do we become a state like Kansas and institute massive tax cuts to the detriment of all state services including education? As I said previously, I think our “progressive” tax system is for the birds and am on board with creating a new tax system that more fairly taxes people but I’m really not sure what that would look like.
It would be so easy to run an experiment over 5 years that would show statistically which strategy works best. We have the data for the gouge strategy for the last 5 years, so why not try the welcoming strategy for 5 years? I want to live in a state that accepts all socio-economic levels instead of pitting one group against the other. We should be asking what type of State we want to be. Our tax policy sends the message that we want to have power over the rich and take them down. Why would they want to stay? Or come in the first place? I’m certain that there are fiscal policies that would send a kinder message but would maintain the standard of fiscally responsible. How come we aren’t, instead, scrutinizing how our tax dollars are spent in the first place instead of assuming we need to gouge the rich to pay for what we are currently spending? And, I’m not rich, so I can’t be superficially labeled as having self-serving motives instead of seeing things in a balanced, rational way.
So, Scott and Samson both want to cut taxes for the wealthy. Considering that they are both Republicans, is that terribly surprising? This is just more of the “trickle down” horse crap that Republicans have been shoveling for years even though decades of living under trickle down has not produced the promised results.
Given that both Phil Scott is a millionaire and Kaj Sampson isnt exactly poverty stricken, one has to wonder exactly how much self dealing is behind their push to give the wealthy a big tax break.
All that being said, Vermont’s “progressive” tax system is for the birds. How about going back to the drawing board and drafting a tax scheme that is fair for everyone?
Two issues here, first, every state has a spending problem! Taxes are not the issue it how badly the states manage the tax dollars they get.
Second, Paul Cillo is a fool. Every state that has high taxes is seeing the rich leave. There is nothing free and the state and federal governments need to realize this and better manage the money they steal from us that produce.
My wife and I moved from Florida to Vermont last year, six years after I retired. We are, sadly, not rich enough to be at risk from the inheritance tax, but we were well aware that our property taxes and income taxes would be higher here. (Our car and house insurance costs are lower.) We had lots of reasons for the move, but one big one was that we expect the Florida economy to collapse in the next 20 years from the effects of climate change. We have no confidence whatever that Florida state government will effectively address preventing or mitigating the effects of climate change. Also, Florida is not just a low-tax state, it is a low-services state, and that will be more important to us as we get older.
Paul Cillo doesn’t buy it. The executive director of the Public Assets Institute in Montpelier said he’s heard this claim for years and has never seen any evidence to back it up
I love the tag line of the public assets institute as being non-partisan. This progressive organization is as non-partisan as Zuckerman and Tim Ashe in a single body.
Every single person who has the good fortune to weigh this question, does so. The estate tax can be the deciding factor in many cases. The group statistics are not designed to pick up on nuance. The estate tax should mirror the federal tax thresholds. At that level it would reflect goals that many Vermonters share, such as keeping large farms intact. Those are part of estate values, iirc.
People who live in states with less income inequality are healthier — whether they are rich or poor — compared to people of similar income who live in states with greater income inequality. I think we should consider having lower income inequality (which is how I interpret the observation that our Vermont rich people are not as rich as rich people elsewhere) as a plus, not a minus. See Figure 1 in https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/…
Mr. Feldman
I was with you when you used data. But your hypothetical is one-sided and ignores the possibility that some millionaires would move into Vermont (some do).