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.
what information do you have that backs up this statement?
"Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts."
"Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts."
Of course wealthy people, who can live nywhere, would opt to live someplace where they are treated fairly. This is hardly controversial.
Sure did my friend and this one contradicts it. Perhaps you can explain your belief that tax policy doesn't influence behavior.
the NPR article discusses the various reasons people move, and discusses the study that was done after tax changes were made. they looked at people affected by the tax change, and people just under, and found that migration patterns stayed similar amongs groups.
is it possible that people relocate because of high taxes? absolutely.
but the much more logical explanation is that people who were going to relocate one way or another...happen to choose places that have lower taxes, among many other things (bustling economies, nice weather, etc). yet...articles like the one you linked conclude that it's only because of taxes.
the biggest concern would not be weather raising taxes makes people move. the assumption that people are that easily mobile is very faulty....the concern is, do increased taxes prevent newcomers from coming at all? to that point, i think would be a much stronger argument. if i have a business in the NY metro area, i could live in NJ, PA, NY, or maybe CT. maybe even Deleware. but if i already live in NJ and have any sort of established ties...moving to save $1,000/year, at a cost of multiple thousands of dollars...is simply not worth it to most people.
so no...raising taxes doesn't cause people to move.
what's that old saying? correlation is not causation. maybe some journalists and governors should take a statistics class again...
the NPR article discusses the various reasons people move, and discusses the study that was done after tax changes were made. they looked at people affected by the tax change, and people just under, and found that migration patterns stayed similar amongs groups.
is it possible that people relocate because of high taxes? absolutely.
but the much more logical explanation is that people who were going to relocate one way or another...happen to choose places that have lower taxes, among many other things (bustling economies, nice weather, etc). yet...articles like the one you linked conclude that it's only because of taxes.
the biggest concern would not be weather raising taxes makes people move. the assumption that people are that easily mobile is very faulty....the concern is, do increased taxes prevent newcomers from coming at all? to that point, i think would be a much stronger argument. if i have a business in the NY metro area, i could live in NJ, PA, NY, or maybe CT. maybe even Deleware. but if i already live in NJ and have any sort of established ties...moving to save $1,000/year, at a cost of multiple thousands of dollars...is simply not worth it to most people.
so no...raising taxes doesn't cause people to move.
what's that old saying? correlation is not causation. maybe some journalists and governors should take a statistics class again...
Of course tax policy affects behavior. The weather argument is silly as NH is one of the states benefitting from the migration from high tax to low/no tax states. New Hampshire is hardly known for it's wonderful weather.
And of course low/no tax states would have bustling economies due to their tax policy.
Of course tax policy affects behavior. The weather argument is silly as NH is one of the states benefitting from the migration from high tax to low/no tax states. New Hampshire is hardly known for it's wonderful weather.
And of course low/no tax states would have bustling economies due to their tax policy.
"But just because there are people moving out of New York and California and New Jersey, you can't automatically blame taxes. A lot of those low-tax states have sunny weather, cheap land and relatively healthier economies. It's a complex equation. What researchers needed was a natural experiment to tease out the influence of taxes. And they found just such an experiment, in Chris Christie's home state of New Jersey. In 2004, New Jersey increased taxes on income over $500,000 by 2.6 percent. And what happened? "The vast, vast majority just don't respond to the tax. They stay put," says sociologist Charles Varner of Princeton University.
Varner compared people who were just under the line for the new tax — who made, say, $400,000 a year — with those who suddenly had to pay more taxes. According to Varner's study, both groups moved away from New Jersey at the same rates. "The effect on migration is minimal," he says. Varner says there may be plenty of reasonable arguments for avoiding new taxes on the rich. You can argue that new taxes aren't fair. You can argue that they affect investments in new businesses. But a mass exodus? So far, no one has proved it."
Of course tax policy affects behavior. The weather argument is silly as NH is one of the states benefitting from the migration from high tax to low/no tax states. New Hampshire is hardly known for it's wonderful weather.
And of course low/no tax states would have bustling economies due to their tax policy.
also, the higher tax states tend to be well established states, with quite a lot of saturation with business and housing. there's not much more room for growth. the lower tax states are wide open spaces. so land is cheaper. it's cheaper to start a business, regardless of tax policies.
again - there's much more that factors into the equation than just tax policy.
In reading the WSJ article, they commented on the fact that NJ schools are among the worst in the nation. That is just not true - we are close to the top. That made me question the sources quoted in the article.
Statistics are an amazing thing - why does one study show one result, and another something totally opposite? You have to look at the source to get a clue.
The American Legislative Exchange Council mentioned in the article is a conservative policy advocate in favor of privatizing public services and for very limited government. The Manhattan Institute receives lots of funding from the Koch Family Foundation.
Perhaps before blindly accepting the results of a study, you need to consider the sources.
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.
