Census Shows Americans Fleeing High-Tax States (credit card, buy, bankruptcy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a fundamental principle of logic (not the strongest suit, for many posters here) that the simultaneous occurrence of two events is not proof of causation, and certainly not proof that A caused B, as opposed to B causing A.
The migration of Americans to the west and south has been going on full speed since the Great Depression, which was long before current tax rates were struck. If there is a connection between population shifts and tax rates, it could very well be because states that were losing population had to increase the per-capita taxes in order to simply maintain at current levels the public infrastructure.
Or, simply put, maybe taxes went up BECAUSE of the flight of the tax base.
The average American pays 10.1% of his income in state and local taxes. In all but 11 states, the average is within 1 percentage point of the national average. Which means that moving will, in a great majority of cases, save you only 1% or at most 2% of your income. Would you uproot your family and move across the country to a new location ONLY to save 1% of your income? The moving costs would be more than you'd save in taxes in ten years. It seems to me to be utterly foolish to think that such a savings would be a motivating factor in people's migration decisions.
You would not save one cent in taxes if you moved from Massachusetts to Georgia, or Michigan to Arizona.
These high-taxes states could change their minds that's all.Less taxes and more open attitude toward businesses and they'll keep people and businesses = more revenues from taxes.
Maryland is a high tax state and I don't see many people "fleeing" it.
The Northeast / Mid Atlantic still grew by 15%....didn't shrink at all.....but it got more dense. The Railway corridors are growing .....ridership on every system has shot up threw the roof.
LOL , the NYpost is not a credible source. All states in the Northeast still grew , none shrunk. That tells you something , the population is moving around.....building up along Railway corridors and shrinking along interstate towns. Now come back with a different news source , + majority of ppl in this state and other states in this region still approved tax hikes for school disrects...
at least he is posting a source. a population growing doesn't mean that region is booming.
Maryland is a high tax state and I don't see many people "fleeing" it.
You need to look again. Whole swaths of southern PA are now populated by Marylanders in exile. Some are retirees in escaping MD income taxes others are young families looking for cheaper housing and better schools.
The migration of Americans to the west and south has been going on full speed since the Great Depression, which was long before current tax rates were struck. If there is a connection between population shifts and tax rates, it could very well be because states that were losing population had to increase the per-capita taxes in order to simply maintain at current levels the public infrastructure.
then what is the difference between texas and california at the moment economically? is it not right wing style capitalism that made new york "new york" and chicago "chicago" and san francisco "san francisco?" and if new york remained more of a free market economy do you think it would be the city building like dubai and hong kong?
Quote:
The average American pays 10.1% of his income in state and local taxes. In all but 11 states, the average is within 1 percentage point of the national average. Which means that moving will, in a great majority of cases, save you only 1% or at most 2% of your income. Would you uproot your family and move across the country to a new location ONLY to save 1% of your income? The moving costs would be more than you'd save in taxes in ten years. It seems to me to be utterly foolish to think that such a savings would be a motivating factor in people's migration decisions.
maybe if you were an average person but if you owned a business then 1% can amount to a lot of money. a lot of business have accountants and they hire accountants to try to save them as much money as possible and to pay as little taxes as possible. if you can save 1% in taxes if you move your business to texas and your business profits 10 million, you would get to keep an extra $100,000. that little 1% could hire about 2 more skilled workers with college degrees or maybe 5 unskilled laborers. or just keep the 100k and spend it and circulate it into the economy. and the savings can be much greater than 1%.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 12-26-2010 at 11:00 AM..
The Northeast / Mid Atlantic still grew by 15%....didn't shrink at all.....but it got more dense. The Railway corridors are growing .....ridership on every system has shot up threw the roof.
California grew by 10% (above the national rate), but people are going to start whining that Hispanics (grew by 2.6 million) and Asians (grew by 1 million) count as only 1/3 of a human being and not a net for the overall economy. It's not only on this site, but I hear it increasingly in real life, which is sort of insulting to my intelligence. But I digress.
What people don't seem to understand here is that correlation doesn't equal causation. People on City-Data seem to think its extremely simple to pick up your whole life and move somewhere else in the country without having some personal consequence (IE: family, roots, etc etc). The fact of the matter is that despite the decreased personal tax rates of some states (IE: Alaska, New Hampshire, or South Dakota) people aren't moving there. Tax rates, by itself, aren't sufficient enough to explain why the 2000s went the way they did.
Quote:
These high-taxes states could change their minds that's all.Less taxes and more open attitude toward businesses and they'll keep people and businesses = more revenues from taxes.
Then face a budget shortfall? Then as soon as some things are cut, the same exact people are going to complain "see, they had to cut services, showing how crappy the state is" without realizing that they had to cut things to have reduced taxes! You see this all the time on City Data. The fact of the matter is the average voter expects some services to be done by the state, but aren't really willing to provide a way to pay for it. That's the paradox here.
Things aren't nearly as cut and dry as you think here. There's seriously something wrong with the mentality of many voters nowadays.
These high-taxes states could change their minds that's all.Less taxes and more open attitude toward businesses and they'll keep people and businesses = more revenues from taxes.
And then you'll be back here in five years saying "More public services and more efficient law enforcement and more traffic infrastructure and better schools, and they'll keep their people and businesses.
If you lived in a state where they reduced your taxes by one percent of your income, and all those things kept getting worse and worse and worse, do you think anybody would leave?
Which would inspire you to leave-----Crappy schools and traffic jams and high crime rates? Or save a few dollars on taxes?
And then you'll be back here in five years saying "More public services and more efficient law enforcement and more traffic infrastructure and better schools, and they'll keep their people and businesses.
If you lived in a state where they reduced your taxes by one percent of your income, and all those things kept getting worse and worse and worse, do you think anybody would leave?
Which would inspire you to leave-----Crappy schools and traffic jams and high crime rates? Or save a few dollars on taxes?
those schools can get better as business grows in their areas. business brings revenue. lower taxes can raise revenue because they spur economic growth. if less people are unemployed, more people have jobs. duh. if more people have jobs, more people are paying taxes. if more people have jobs, less money has to be spent on government benefits. if 2 people are unemployed and tax rates are say 15% and their salaries were 50,000 then the government loses out on a combined $15,000 from their former salaries plus is giving them whatever government benefits they have to receive now. if a company can save that 1% of $10 million in taxes ($100,000) then they can hire 2 more workers. if they hire those 2 workers, those guys will have jobs paying $50,000 p/yr and the government will get that 15% that they didn't get when the company was taxed out of those 2 workers and then those 2 workers actually have money to circulate into the economy.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 12-26-2010 at 03:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Northeast only grew by 3.2%
