People Moving To Low-Tax States Could Swing Future Elections

Submitted by: trimble 8 months ago in Lifestyle News & Politics

In general, states that keep taxes low and provide a competitive business climate perform far better than the states that follow the tax-and-spend approach.

An excerpt from The Hill:

Americans are voting with their wallets in response to policy decisions and state competitiveness. The new census migration data reveals that millions of people are moving their families, businesses and incomes to states that are more economically competitive.

This country has always been the land of opportunity, offering newly arriving immigrants the chance to live the American Dream. Sometimes it’s easy to forget the magnitude of the migration within our own borders for similar reasons.

People choose to move from state to state for all sorts of reasons, like proximity to family members and better weather, but migration to pursue economic opportunity is a key take away from a decade of our research in "Rich States, Poor States."

It really all goes back to economics 101. When you tax something, you get less of it, and when you tax something less, you get more of it. Pro-growth policies, such as lighter tax and regulatory burdens, boost state economic activity and attract citizens looking to enhance their wellbeing.
There are 15 comments:
Male 4,319
squrlz4ever may be able to correct me if I'm wrong here, but, I hear a lot of people are moving to the Scranton PA and Allentown PA areas to live, and then working in Philly and even NYC. The commute and properties and taxes are simply cheaper than properties and taxes alone in the city areas.
0
Reply
Male 906
Supply and demand. There is a market seeking price that is best for all. I have seen friends and family move to lower tax states and back  again when tax structure changes. I am not that old but history is already repeating itself...
0
Reply
Male 2,602
Wow what a concept!!!!!!!.
0
Reply
Male 326
I live in the worst state in the Union, according to the referenced website, and would move in a second if my family wasn't here. However, while I'm here, I'll make the best of it, add to my community and advocate for change. Gotta keep it positive. 

(I feel a mini rant coming on, sorry) More money in the pockets of consumers means more disposable income to buy stuff, which is simply good for all businesses big and small. My observation is that governments don't create jobs; nor do corporations. In the most basic terms, disposable income creates markets and markets create jobs. In other words, someone needs to be in a position to buy something before a job is created to meet that demand. Taxes reduce disposable income, ergo taxes reduce the market demand that will create jobs. 

I think most people understand and appreciate the necessity of reasonable taxes, but 30% income tax to predominantly pay debt service and unfunded government pensions is immoral. (I'm about to slide off topic, I can feel it.)

I don't have kids, but I (cough cough) happily pay my local school tax. However, I don't have a pension, nor a matching 401K (most private sector jobs do not), so I have a visceral response to having money taken out of my paycheck, with an expectation to have to work into my 70's, while a portion of my taxes go to pay the pension of a 55 year-old government retiree, who was granted a pension before I ever even entered the workforce. This seems unfair to me and more than a little Ponzi. 

I only have a problem with the way government jobs are compensated, not government workers or the government as an entity. I feel these positions should be paid with high enough salaries to attract the necessary workforce, but retirement should be done through IRA's, like the majority of private sector workers, so that each generation pays for their own federal and municipal services and a reasonable fairness is achieved. Private sector jobs can pay what they want, because they get their money from the market, not from taxes.

(man, that felt good)  
1
Reply
Male 2,602
johndplorable   Hear hear.
0
Reply
Male 1,612
johndplorable The velocity of money is key.  keep that dollar bill moving from place to place within a community and you all get richer.  Put that dollar in the hands of someone who will shelve it, or move it away, its benefit is lost.  Put that dollar in the hands of someone who will buy something from elsewhere, its lost.  Put that dollar in the hands of someone who will go elsewhere, its lost.

1) keep as much money as possible in the hands of folks who live paycheck to paycheck
2) keep as much money as possible in the hands of folks who spend the highest proportion of their income locally
3) keep as much money as possible in the hands of folks who will spend it on goods and services within their communities
4) keep as much money as possible away from folks who travel internationally, who buy imported goods, who buy services overseas, who tend to save,

0
Reply
Male 326
punko Very interesting. I hadn’t been aware of the concept of monetary velocity. Makes sense and although I think reasonable saving is good long term, all this jives with my current belief system. Thanks punko!
0
Reply
Male 2,217
There is obviously a balance that has to be made. Even I agree that there needs to be taxes, but as soon as my kids graduate HS, I will try to leave Chicago. I get the triple hit. Chicago is tax crazy, Cook county is tax crazy and Illinois is tax crazy. Now, if I felt like I was getting my monies worth, that would be another story. I prefer to stay at a Marriott over a Motel Six. Costs more, but I get more. Instead I live in a shithole city. 
0
Reply
Male 208
Voting with your wallets got you into this mess, now it's gonna get you out? I say let the robots take over.
1
Reply
Male 899
So that is what happened in Kansas?
0
Reply
Male 5,110
muert I didn't see them as one of the states that gained districts from the census, may have missed it though.
-1
Reply
Male 899
trimble Exactly.  They cut all their taxes, and now their state is in shambles.
0
Reply
Male 5,110
muert Oh, I see, not really what this article was about though. 
-1
Reply
Male 893
muert yeah Kansas problem was the pass through taxes. Which as the article said allowed too many entities to avoid taxes altogether. So where as you could get more activity thats pointless if its 0%. Even more pointless when you were removing your activity that was paying above that.   https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2017/06/09/kansas-shows-how-not-to-design-a-tax-cut-not-that-all-tax-cuts-are-bad/

I have more time for the following arguments. Tax cuts dont increase revenue when you dont have a mobile pool of workers to call from. E.g put immigration controls and tax cuts. Or creating a race to the bottom woth cuts is a classic orisoner dilemma everyone suffers eventually.
0
Reply