November 17, 2010

Dog Bites Man, Low-tax states attracting more people

Marc Comtois

Americans for Tax Reform (H/t) report:

A study by Americans for Tax Reform compared states gaining and losing Congressional seats in the decennial reapportionment process and found that states gaining seats had significantly lower taxes, less government spending, and were more likely to have “Right to Work” laws in place. Because reapportionment is based on population migration, this is further proof that fiscally conservative public policy spurs economic growth, creates jobs, and attracts population growth.

...The average top personal income tax rate among gainers is 116 percent lower than among losers. The total state and local tax burden is nearly one-third lower, as is per capita government spending. In eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.

That means more political power for those states, too.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

But don't worry, Linc is going to fix everything by raising your taxes. Yeah.

Posted by: Chris at November 17, 2010 5:54 PM

Obscene taxes causes jobs to flee?
Sounds like typical wingnut bull***t to me.
Anyone who buys into that wingnuttery can get a free meal from me tomorrow night at Bugaboo Creek, followed by coffee and donuts at Tim Horton...after I finish my shift at Bostitch.

Progressiveism-doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at November 17, 2010 7:17 PM

"Canis mordet hominem"? More like, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Bulletproof reasoning!

At a minimum you would think a legitimate analysis would control for natural increase in population (births minus deaths), which is the largest component of year-to-year population change, or base the analysis on "net domestic migration" (people moving in minus people moving out). As is, it's just junk science and political fodder for those with an anti-union agenda, a fun factoid with little or no statistical relevance to public policy.

Posted by: Russ at November 18, 2010 1:26 PM

Hey Russ-please note the definition of progressive above.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at November 18, 2010 2:57 PM

Russ, what you are ignoring is the "we-don't-get-it-yet" aspect of this problem. You see, this is a snowball scenario because of the many people who still don't get it...

As, more and more productive, private sector, working, contributors (who "get it" flee the state, those "headcount" losses are offset by the many who continue to come here to take advantage of some of the best "no-need-to-work" and "no-need-to-be-a-citizen" benefits in the country.

Meanwhile, the we-don't-get-it-yet progressive unionistas continue to run up the tab with the soon to come gifts from the I'll-NEVER-get-it Governor Chafee. At some point, the we-don't-get-it-yets who haven't until now, minded the higher taxes because of what they receive in return in bennies WILL start to, GET IT. They'll begin to "GET" how a growing proportion of what they "contribute" to get those benefits is diverted to other kinds of entitlements for people who don't work, and who in many cases are not even citizens. At some point on this path to destruction, there is nothing left to support the scheme, including a completely busted pension system. Then instead of moving to Florida to collect their RI pension, teachers, DMV workers, Firefighters and Policemen have to move to Texas and Oklahoma to work until they're 80 because their pension is gone!


Baby mommas from New Jersey and south of the border, reproducing for an increase in welfare benefits isn't the kind of population growth we need in this State.

Posted by: George at November 18, 2010 3:13 PM

Baby mommas from New Jersey and south of the border

New Jersey? I don't get it.

Posted by: Phil at November 19, 2010 7:00 AM

Phil-there are women who make a career of moving from state to state when their welfare benefits expire in a particular.
Don't even try telling me this is a right wing urban myth because I personally know someone(unfortunately)who's done this for years.
It's not actually fraud,so it's hard to control.
The father of three of her kids is a good guy who sends support money and yet she still collects for another two she pumped out with layabout boyfriends.
New Jersey had strict welfare reform introduced many years ago if I'm thinking of the right state.

Posted by: joe bernstein at November 20, 2010 6:05 AM


I asked the question of the author of the remark about "baby mommas from New Jersey". But thanks for that answer. You're alot like a guy I knew that if you believed all the stories he told of himself, he would have at least 118 years old. That was twenty years ago and I believe he is still with us.

Posted by: Phil at November 22, 2010 3:52 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.