Monday, December 27, 2010

Seeking sunnier climes - High tax states are losing taxpayers: "States taxing themselves to death." And - surprise, surprise - guess which New England state has the highest per-capita state tax burden in the country? It starts with "M" and ends with "assachusetts."

More - From Q&O.


Anonymous said...

The variable statistical noise in "Taxprof"s chart would drown out a Metallica concert. For starters, no-tax Nevada has a higher per-capita tax number than all but two of the "losing states."

The commenters aren't buying it, either. Maybe this high-bias, low-fact "tax flight tsunami" premise is perfectly suited to Dick Morris' personal taste, but then, so are hookers' feet.

Anonymous said...

Stupid Anon,

1. The citizens of Nevada aren't paying those taxes. All the suckers visiting Las Vegas and Reno to gamble pay them.

It's been a while since I lived in Nevada but I paid $900 a year in property taxes, no income tax, no other property tax (cars, etc...), and I think 7% sales tax.

2. Are you actually denying the census results – or the economic growth coming out of Texas?

Stupid data! said...

Nevada's an example, dumkopf (that's what "for starters" means). Replace it it with Washington and your fascinating anecdotal cost analysis vanishes like a gambler's lucky streak.

I don't dispute the census numbers. The fact-free "tax flight" meme, now THAT'S a crock. Do you actually think there's a wave of fed-up American families moving from New Jersey to Georgia, or Pennsylvania to Utah, to save $600 a year? Did you know that the #1 destination for fleeing Taxachusetts escapees is the faraway red state of Vermont (9.4% top state tax rate)?

In 2004, New Jersey increased its income tax on half-millionaires by 2.6%. How has that worked out? According to records from the state's Tax Division, the number of half-millionaires has since grown by 30%. However, the net out-migration of N.J. half-millionaires HAS skyrocketed, from 1.6% to... 1.8%. Let's assume that the higher taxes are the sole reason why every single one of these 0.2% of this group of Jerseyites ran screaming to the free air of, let's say South Carolina. (I saw it on a guy's chart, so it must be true.) Losing the 0.2% has cost NJ $38 million per year. The new policy takes in over $1 billion in new revenue per year. At this rate, New Jersey will start losing tax revenue on the deal, um, never.

...the economic growth coming out of Texas?

Would that be the same Texas whose 2010-2011 Comptroller's Report projects the state's downturn, saying, "The only question now is for how long and how severely"? Is it the same Texas that has an $18 billion shortfall in its next budget? And which DOESN'T have $69 billion of stimulus dollars coming to it in the next cycle (that'd be the same stimulus White House aspirant Rick Perry first lambasted, then took)? $17 billion of that devil money patched holes in the state's expiring budget, but the fun is over now and the Texas Association of Counties frets, "Our great fear is that they will dump a bunch of unfunded mandates on counties." But that's just good ol' trickle down economics.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic use of selective data. As a current NJ resident, I wouldn't recommend using the Garden State as a good example. What keeps us afloat is how dependable New York is in setting even worse policies.

That and the "half-millionaires" can't leave NJ because they can't sell their houses without taking massive losses.

Anonymous said...

That would be the Texas where more than half the new U.S. private sector (real) jobs were created in 2010.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic use of selective data.

Fantastic use of unwitting irony. Your data has been strong and comprehensive. Tell us again about how Taxprof's chart shows that a state that picked up 1 House seat did so because it has a tax burden 44 dollars less than a state that lost a House seat. There's a rallying cry. Just move from Iowa to Utah, and your whole family can see "Little Fockers" for free!

That would be the Texas where more than half the new U.S. private sector (real) jobs were created in 2010.

"(real)" = selective data, but never mind that. Take up your complaint with the nonpartisan Texas Comptroller's office. They're the ones who say that although Texas weathered the 2008 economic collapse better than most states, the state's immediate future is expected to be something else. (Their report even spells out the exact reason why they've so far had the least economic pain: O-I-L S-P-I-K-E.)

Anonymous said...

Lower taxes are part of it. Economic freedom and business friendliness is also part of it. Oil will continue to spike because of world demand and the limits the U.S. is putting on domestic production and Texas will benefit because they allow the oil industry to exist. New York is sitting on part of the second largest know shale oil deposit in the world, but they have chosen to forego any benefit from it.

Jobs, growth, and people will go where there is opportunity. When governments limit opportunity (economic freedom) –whether it is simply the opportunity to keep more of your property or business opportunities – people will leave. Liberals can deny it and stomp their feet and call names. The census data doesn’t lie.

Anonymous said...

You clearly prefer broad philosophy and boilerplate rhetoric to actual data. I would too, if I was arguing your side.

Forgive me if I assign a smidge more weight to the analyses of Texas-based actuaries than to an "economic freedom" mantra and the alleged sound of stomping liberal feet. I think the Comptroller's Office may have heard rumors about the oil industry.

The census data doesn’t lie.

Indeed not. By the way, the #1 fastest-growing state in the 2010 census is Nevada.

Nevada has a higher per-capita tax bill than 7 of the 10 losing states on Taxprof's "Tale of the tax tape" +/- House seat chart.

Bluto Redd said...

This alleged demographic shift is unproved, and most probably unprovable. It sounds an awful lot like that invisible army of fed-up economic producers who've been "going Galt."

It simply MUST be happening, because I would really like it if it were!