Norquist and those who are foolish enough to swallow his organization's not-so-clever lies are just more evidence of the validity of the old saw that there's a sucker born every minute. And I figure many of those unfortunates will eventually move to Texass, the state that surely contains the highest concentration of chumps and patsies.
Income migration analyses ignore that the vast majority of people can’t take their income with them to a new state because they work for someone else. When people leave a state, they usually also leave their job. The income they made in that job then typically goes to the person who gets that job next; it does not leave the state.
These analyses also ignore the income gains that accrue to other in-state small businesses when business owners move away. For example, if a New York doctor in private practice retires and moves to Florida, his or her patients ― and their payments ― will go to some other New York provider, increasing that provider's income. Also, the owner of a successful business who leaves will often sell it to someone who will continue to operate it. "Income migration" analyses miss these realities because they focus only on people who move from one state to another, ignoring what happens to the incomes of people who don’t move.
These analyses also do not trace what happens to the income of a person after he or she leaves a state. Income migration proponents effectively assume that the income of a person who leaves a state will stay the same after the move, even if the person doesn’t find a job in the new location or is moving there to retire. That assumption further skews their results. For example, when someone from New Jersey retires to Florida, income migration analyses claim that New Jersey's economy lost income equal to the person's pre-retirement salary, even though their income probably would have declined even if they had stayed in New Jersey.
Other shortcomings in income migration analyses further exaggerate the size of interstate income flows. For example, some people leave a state but continue to work there. These people usually continue to contribute to the economy and tax revenue base of the state where they still work, even though their home is now elsewhere. Income migration analyses exaggerate the income lost to the worker’s old home state by effectively claiming that all of their income is lost to the economies of the states from which they moved.
To be sure, some income does automatically follow a person when he or she leaves a state — pensions, Social Security, and investment earnings, for example. But they represent a relatively small share of total taxable income — under one-fifth in most states. And, as with other forms of income, much of such income that is "lost" to a state when people move out is replaced by income "gained" when others move in.
Policymakers should focus their attention on the policy choices most likely to grow the incomes of their current and future residents, and not be distracted by misleading claims about income migration. The chief policy prescription that the income migration concept is used to justify — deep cuts in (or outright repeal of) state income taxes — would likely prove self-defeating, leading to deteriorating K-12 education, state universities, parks, roads, public safety, and other services that make states places where businesses want to invest and where the engineers, managers, and other personnel they need to hire want to live. — "
State 'Income Migration' Claims Are Deeply Flawed,"
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct 20, 2014
For a thorough debunking of the approach taken in this latest ATR crap, see also "
I look forward to the usual dismissive and unsubstantial LOLs we get from uninformed dolts who confuse true conservatism with their own uninformed, superficial, and hackneyed attitudes.
They can't. Their theory would not be supported.
