Lower Taxes Attract More People
by Big Dog on Dec 22, 2010 at 15:23 Political
Some of the data for the last census has been released and the numbers are not good for Democrats. Red states picked up 6 Congressional seats and Blue States lost them. The interesting thing about the census is that states that have no income tax saw the largest increase in population:
This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade. Michael Barone – Washington Examiner
People do not want to be taxed to death so they are moving to states where taxes are low or income is not taxed at all. People will only stand for so much before they take action. In this case, people voted with their feet.
This should be a lesson to politicians but they will fail to learn anything.
Taxes are a necessary evil but for a long time we have been taxed to pay for things that are not required to run our government and are not spelled out in the Constitution. When politicians learn to stop using the American public as an ATM machine and scale back government and its out of control spending then we will be able to prosper as a nation.
The idea that government must do everything for all people has failed in every society in which it has been tried.
We are on our way to that death spiral.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: census, population shift, taxes, us constitution
Sadly, this is why the federal government keeps spending more — because only the feds can continue the transfers of wealth payments across state lines. We can only flee so far, and not out of reach of the federal government.
On taxes Barone started with an idea and then picked out numbers to make it seem correct. He assumes that since states with favorable tax laws grew a lot then it had to be because of the tax laws. This is a classic post hoc fallacy. Shame on him for abusing the numbers in such a way.
Yes, 7 of 9 states without income tax are above average in growth accounting for 35% of the growth. On the other hand 15 more states with regular income tax are above average too and account for 42.5% of the growth. Most of the growth in that list is by California, Florida and Texas alone. The rest of the top growing states are single digits. Futhermore, of the top 10 states in population growth only 3 of them are states without income tax.
So if it’s the favorable taxes driving growth to those 7 states then what is driving growth to those other 15? You can throw in the states with no sales tax and you still get states with income and sales tax performing just as well in growth as other the other states.
Barone’s failure is that he compares growth this time around but doesn’t check the trend of their past growth to see if anything is out of the ordinary. To fit the argument you would need to see out of the ordinary positive growth in relation to tax policy. Let’s look at the states in question:
Nevada grew 35.1% but historically has grown at 50% or more each decade since the 1970’s. If the tax laws help growth why would we see such a drop off?
Texas grew about 20% this year. It’s average growth over the last 5 decades was about 21%. It’s tax laws come largely from the 90’s so why has the growth remained a pretty steady 20% before and after the changes?
Florida’s amount of growth has declined each decade since 1980. If tax laws were drawing folks in wouldn’t the rate of change be going up instead of down?
Washington is below average growth this time too like Nevada.
Alaska’s growth has declined like Florida. They went from 36.9 in 1990 to 14.0 in 2000 to 13.3 in 2010.
Tenn and Wyoming’s growth mostly fits the argument.
Barone’s argument obviously sounds good but it makes no sense when you look deeper into the data. Population growth has many factors and simply believing it’s taxes doesn’t make it so.
If you read the article you will see that many things are attributed to the growth and not just taxes. However, it is absolutely true that people are moving away from states with higher taxes and moving to states with lower taxes.
And no, not all the states have NO income tax but lower tax rates which is what you mentioned when you said NORMAL income tax. The states that LOST population are the ones that tax a lot.
California had little growth so much so it did not gain a set for the first time since it was admitted to the union and New York LOST seats.
Michael Barone is a whiz with numbers and I think if you read what he says instead of trying to spin your liberal twaddle you will see he attributes this to many things but also says that the movement to states with LOWER or NO (notice it is not none for all) attract more people.
The title of this post is LOWER taxes, not no taxes.
States with lower or NONE saw an increase of larger percentages than those with high taxes (many of which had a decrease).
As for comparing past numbers, the population grew at a lower rate so the numbers will be smaller.
Florida has a lot of old people who probably die faster.
Nevada has an unemployment rate a third or more higher than the national average so people are leaving. Can’t worry about taxes if you have no job.
States that saw increases have favorable tax environments as well as favorable business environments (because of lower taxes).
New York is losing tons of millionaires (Maryland has seen a decrease in those folks as well) because they move away from high taxes.
It is natural behavior.
Yes, if you wish to debate Barone on numbers go ahead and set that up but he would make you look like a fool so perhaps you would reconsider whether he makes sense or whether you mistook LOWER for NONE in all cases…
I can’t speak for other states, but in Texas’ case, the growth has always been steady- there has never been a time when Texas LOST population growth- people DO gravitate towards places where they feel freer, and feel that they can take their destiny in their own hands, rather than have government handle them like a pedophile would a child.
“If you read the article you will see that many things are attributed to the growth and not just taxes.”
Really? Point them out for me. The article makes several points but not several points about the cause of growth.
“The title of this post is LOWER taxes, not no taxes. … or whether you mistook LOWER for NONE in all cases…”
I’m not sure what that means really. Did I say anything about states with no taxes? The major point of his article is about states with no income tax but I’m pretty sure I wasn’t arguing anything about states with no taxes.
“States that saw increases have favorable tax environments as well as favorable business environments (because of lower taxes).”
I’m just not seeing any evidence for that. Show me a list of states you’d consider more or less favorable to business and for taxes.
And this is not to say I don’t think the premise of the article and your argument is not correct. My objection is that he makes no effort to back it up with evidence and his method of arguing his case is the same I would use to argue mine. Of course you don’t believe in my case so using the same method he used to make my argument is probably “liberal twaddle” to you, whatever that means…
Dick Morris has some thought on this as well.
One thing is clear. Of the 12 seats gained 11 of them were in states with below average state taxes according to this table. I agree with that conclusion by the authors.
What makes the view a little murky is that of the 12 seats lost 6 were in above average tax states and 6 were in below average tax states. That to me says other factors are at work than taxes. I again go to the trends in the states in question.
States that lost seats:
* New York has lost 2 or 3 seats each Census since 1940. The 1930 census was the last time New York gained seats.
* Ohio has lost seats each census since 1960 when they last gained 1 seat.
* New Jersey has maintained or lost 1 seat every time since 1960 when they last gained 1 seat.
* Pennsylvania has lost seats each census since 1920. They last gained a seat in 1910.
* Massachusetts has been losing or maintaining seats since they last gained a seat in 1910.
* Michigan has been losing seats each time since 1970. They last gained a seat in 1960.
* Illinois has been losing seats each time since 1930. They last gained a seat in 1910.
* Iowa has been losing or maintaining seats since at least 1900.
* Missouri has been losing or maintaining seats since at least 1900.
* Louisiana has alternated between 7 and 8 seats since at least 1900.
States that gained seats:
* Georgia gained seats in 2000 and 1990.
* Utah gained a seat in 1970 and has held steady since then.
* Washington gained a seat in 1980 and 1990 and head in 2000.
* Arizona has gained a seat or more every time since 1930 except in 1950 when they stayed the same.
* Texas has gained 2 or 3 seats each time since at least 1900 except in 1920 when they stayed the same.
* Florida has gained 2 to 4 seats each time since at least 1940 and gained 1 or more since 1900 except for 1920 when they stayed the same.
* Nevada gained 1 seat in 1980 and one more in 2000.
States that usually gain but didn’t this time:
* California gained only 1 in 2000 compared to 7 in 1990, 2 in 1980, and 5 in 1970.
* North Carolina gained in 1990 and 2000.
To conclude, saying it’s about taxes ignores the reality that these states that gained and lost seats (with the exception of CA and NC) are simply continuing a trend that began 50 to 100 years ago or more. I’m not convinced at all by Barone or Morris and I think they’ve come to their conclusion not based on the data but based on a preconceived notion.
Maybe the tax trend has been going on for a number of years. Often people have “intuition” or “a hunch” that research proves to be correct. There are times when “stereo types” are actually based on truth. There are also times when profiling is a very very smart thing.
It is no accident that low taxes lead to productivity. To believe otherwise goes against common sense, research, studies and history.
What is truly astounding is the Left’s consistent harping that higher taxes increases productivity, when there is no proof, no logic, no history and no foundation what so ever for such an outlandish claim.
50 to 100 years should convince you, Adam. What does it take?
Is it even possible, or do you just play “devil’s advocate” because of some inner voice? Some insane inner voice?
I liked it better when I thought you were unreal. That people like you really exist is scary. Creepy. You are like that commander in Avatar, the guy with the scars. So SURE you are right when you are
Dead
Wrong.
Obviously, gaining and losing seats is complicated because there are 435 to redistribute no matter what the population.
However, the gains and losses over the decades were minimal and none tied specifically to one major item. This time it is obvious that taxes played a larger part in some of this since it is fairly prevalent.
CA gained NO seats for the first time since it entered the union and it is in the biggest financial mess (and with all those wealthy libs there too). New York is bleeding rich people who are moving because the taxes are getting out of control.
That is what people are saying as to why they moved. The census gives credibility to the claims that people are moving out of high taxed areas.
FL and TX gained seats all along and have been no tax states for that long. You can discount the trends and I will agree that low taxes is not the sole reason. People are also moving because those areas tend to be more Conservative and conservatives make up a higher part of the population.
But, to discount the fact that for years wealthy people have claimed they are moving from high taxes to low (or none) and then seeing it reflected in the census is living in a dream world.
Barone and Morris are known for those preconceived notions given all the years they made money accurately portraying data…
“However, the gains and losses over the decades were minimal and none tied specifically to one major item.”
Wrong. Re-read my state by state breakdown or take a look the numbers yourself. CA is the only state in the union to slow the way it has. It’s hardly evidence of anything specific.
“FL and TX gained seats all along and have been no tax states for that long.”
I could get behind that idea but I don’t know if there’s data to back it up. For instance though Texas’ income tax laws come from the 90’s. They’ve actually increased their tax burden rank from the 1970’s from the a high of 49th to more recently a low of 41st place. As their burden has grown we’re still seeing the same trend of growth.
Sure, the rich have claimed to have moved but that’s less than 1% of the population of the whole US so numbers that have moved are a fraction of a percent. I just don’t see any single piece of evidence that lets me conclude taxes are even a small factor in large scale population shifts.
Of course you don’t, you need to spin to make it look like people are somehow aligned with your philosophy.
If the census said people moved there because Obama is popular in low tax states you would jump on that bandwagon. You need to carry the water.
I will cede to you because God knows you have made a living out of this and Barone and Morris have not.
The last election meant nothing as well.
Oh, and your wealthy 1% is wrong. A lot of folks who move are in the 5-10% of the population range.
Some are even in the bottom 50% like military folks who pick Texas as their state of residence to avoid paying state income taxes.
“Of course you don’t, you need to spin to make it look like people are somehow aligned with your philosophy.”
What does my philosophy have to do with it? Because I support what? States with higher taxes? Not really. I’m simply stating the obvious: the men you cite are abusing the numbers.
“The last election meant nothing as well.”
While I disagree that it means what you think it means I doubt I’ve ever said it meant nothing.
“Some are even in the bottom 50% like military folks who pick Texas as their state of residence to avoid paying state income taxes.”
Again, in cases like Texas you’d think we’d have seen a jump in population growth trends since 1993 when the income tax laws were done away with. You can see no change. It’s grown the same amount and picked up the same amount of seats as it always had every 10 years before and after the tax laws were changed.
The last election meant nothing?
SO when Obama won it was a mandate to go against the will of the majority of the country and pass things most folks did not want. You said he had a mandate.
When the Democrats get their ass handed to them in an election it means nothing? You MUST be smoking dope.
But let me put it this way. We are going to defund all we can, and do all that we can to stop the agenda that he had no mandate for and we are going to work hard to make him a one termer. We are going to push our agenda above all else and you need not bother whining because the American people have spoken and they do not like what you guys did.
In other words, if you do not like it, shove it…
Adam- the reason that Texas’ population growth has stayed steady, is that we tend to weed out the whiny folk and libtards- heck, if we accepted just ANYBODY, we might even wind up with the likes of you, and then we would have to sequester you in Austin, where most of your kind go.
They do not often venture out past the City Limits- it is just too real for them-
“When the Democrats get their ass handed to them in an election it means nothing?”
I think you’re simply misreading. You’re the only one saying I said it meant nothing. You can’t put words in my mouth and then get outraged over them. The election meant plenty. It just didn’t mean what you think it did.
I get it, you get to decide what elections meant. Obama elected means to pass the stuff that was counter to the majority. Republicans win a historic victory and it means they need to do what Obama says because the people who voted for them meant something else…