Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.'”     Phelps Adams

February 13, 2006

Follow Up on Tax Migrations

by Eric

Rogel, at It Looks Obvious (newly added to the blogroll as well), followed up on my previous article about tax reform in Rhode Island. He did some research on migration related to taxes at the state level and that resulted in this article on his blog. The interesting part is, of course, this:

From 2000 through 2004, a net 1.3 million people moved out of states with taxes on ordinary income and into those without such taxes, says Richard Vedder, an economics professor at Ohio University.

The migration includes folks leaving California, Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Massachussets. It’s important to note that Vedder was only looking at the trend from states with taxes on income to those without income tax. Based on the changes occurring in New England’s tax structures, I would guess the data would be even more interesting if you looked at states with progressive income tax structures, in general, and where their citizens are going. Would you find that Massachussets had a net loss to New Hampshire until they enacted a flat tax structure? That’s what the Mass Legislature found.

The real question is what impact this new “tax revolt” will have on Federal tax structures.


Permalink || Comments (1) || Categories: General
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/02/13/follow-up-on-tax-migrations/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

1 Comment

  1. What’s particularly bothersome to me about (most?) people’s perception of taxation is this: “they” tend to favor higher taxes where their “rich” neighbors are concerned, but at the same time, “they” want to pay the absolute minimum in taxes “themselves”. In other words: it’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

    If someone wants to assist another—voluntarily, of course—then that’s wonderful. However, when one coerces another to assist a third-party, it then becomes an immoral act, which typifies our current progressive tax code.

    Comment by Robert — February 14, 2006 @ 6:49 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML