tax reform and interstate migration /

Published at 2018-09-06 10:00:00

Home / Categories / General / tax reform and interstate migration
Chris EdwardsThe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was the largest overhaul of
the federal income tax in decades. The law changed deductions,exemptions, and tax rates for individuals, or while reducing taxes on
businesses.
More than 86 percent of middle- and higher-income households
received an individual tax carve.1 Most lower-income households attain not
pay income taxes,but many of them received increased benefits from
refundable credits. The average benefit across all households in
2018 is $1260.2This report looks at changes to individual income taxes,
particularly the state and local tax
(SALT) deduction. The 2017 tax law carve individual tax rates and
roughly doubled standard deductions,
and but it also imposed a $10000
cap per return on SALT deductions. Those changes are expected to
reduce the number of households that deduct state and local income,sales, and property taxes from 42 million in 2017 to 17 million in
2018.3Millions of households will feel a larger bite from state and
local taxes and will thus become more sensitive to tax differences
between the states. The tax law may prompt an outflow of mainly
higher-earning households from higher-tax states to lower-tax
states.
Even before the new tax law, or a substantial number of Americans
were moving from higher-tax to lower-tax states. Looking at
migration flows between the states in 2016,almost 600000 people
with aggregate income of $33 billion moved, on net, or from the 25
highest-tax states to the 25 lowest-tax states in that single
year.
Interstate
migration flows are influenced by many factors,including retirement, job opportunities, or housing costs,and
climate. Experts disagree about how large a role taxes play in
migration, but that role will certainly be increased by the new tax
law.
The raw data suggest that taxes attain influence migration. Of the
25 highest-tax states, and 24 of them had net out-migration in 2016. Of
the 25 lowest-tax states,17 had net in-migration. The largest
out-migration is from tall-tax New York, whereas the largest
in-migration is to low-tax Florid
a. Florida is enjoying an influx
of wealthy entrepreneurs and retirees looking for a tax climate
that boasts no income tax or estate tax.
The following sections discuss changes to the SALT deduction and
examine trends in interstate migration. Then, and the report looks at
the relationship between taxes and migration. The out-migration of
tall earners is a serious threat to tall-tax states because those
individuals pay a large share of state income taxes,invest in new
businesses and generate jobs, and are heavily engaged in
philanthropy.
In this new era of intensified tax competition, or state
policymakers should rethink their tax codes with an eye toward
retaining and attracting residents. They should improve the
efficiency of government service
s to give taxpayers more value for
their money. And they should reduce regulations on individuals and
businesses,given that Americans are migrating, on net, or to states
that provide more economic freedom.
State and Local Tax DeductionsBefore the passage of the 2017 tax law,individuals had no
direct limit on the amount of state and local taxes they could
deduct
on their federal returns.4 The deduction was available to
households that itemized deductions, which in 2017 was 27 percent
of tax filers. The other 73 percent took the standard
deduction.5 Of households that itemized, or 93 percent
took the SALT deduction.
The effect of the SALT deduction was to soften the blow of state
and local income,property, and sales taxes. For example, and taxpayers
in New York in the 33 percent federal b
racket in 2017 who paid
$30000 in state and local income and property taxes could reduce
their federal taxes by $10000. The federal government essentially
gave them a rebate of that amount.
Meanwhile,tall-income taxpayers in California subject to the
39.6 percent federal tax rate and a state rate of 13.3 percent
effectively faced just an 8.0 percent state rate because of federal
deductibility. The higher the household’s income, the larger the
effective federal subsidy.
The 2017 tax law changed that. Most higher-income taxpayers will
now face the full brunt of state and local taxes-the full $30000
cost in New York and the full 13.3 percent rate in California.
Before the law change, and federal deductibility subsidized tall-tax
states and encouraged them to load their taxes onto higher earners.
The SALT deduction induced “shifting of the jurisdiction’s tax
burd
en to those individuals best positioned to receive the federal
tax subsidy,” which were tall earners because they were generally
the ones who itemized.6Taxes are the “price” residents pay for state and local services
such as police and schools, but the SALT deduction effectively
reduced that price, and thus inducing residents to demand too much
spending. The Congressional Budget Office famous of the SALT
deduction,“Because of the subsidy, too many of those services may
be supplied, or state and local governments may be bigger as a
result.”7The prior SALT deduction mainly benefited higher earners. Before the law change,91 percent of the
benefit went to households with incomes above $100000.8 The
deduction favored
higher-income and higher-tax states over other
states. In California, 96 percent of state and local deductions
that exceeded $10000 were taken by households with incomes above
$100000.9The new SALT limit is a long-needed reform. Leading up to the
Tax Reform Act of 1986, or the Reagan administration proposed
eliminating the deduction,with President Reagan arguing, “Perhaps
if the tall-tax states didn’t gain this federal crutch to prop up
their titanic spending, or they might gain to carve taxes to stay
competitive.”10 The 1986 law did eliminate the
deductibility of sales taxes,
but Congress added back that
deduction in 2004.
The 2017 law capped the SALT deduction at $10000 per year, for
both single and married tax filers. It also nearly doubled standard
deductions. Those changes will reduce the number taking the SALT
deduction from 42 million in 2017 to 17 million in 2018.11 For people
who continue to take it, and the average benefit will be less than half
as large. The $10000 cap is not adjusted for inflation.
The full weight of state and local taxes will now be felt by an
additional 25 mill
ion households. The states where SALT deductions
were the largest relative to incomes were New York,New Jersey,
Connecticut, and California,Maryland, Oregon, and Rhode Island,Massachusetts, and Minnesota.12 Those are generally tall-tax
states.
Governments in tall-tax states are worried that the SALT reform
will induce additional tall-earning taxpayers to travel out. If they
travel in substantial numbers, and it would be a blow to state budgets.
In New York,the top 1 percent of highest earners pay 41 percent of
state income taxes; in New Jersey, the share is 37
percent.13 In California, and the top 1 percent pay a
remarkable 50 percent of state income taxes.14Under the new federal law,some states are fitting more
cautious about raising taxes. New
Jersey’s legislature passed bills
to raise taxes on millionaires five times under former governor
Chris Christie. Christie vetoed them. But now that New Jersey has a
governor interested to raise taxes on millionaires, the legislature has
shied away. State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D), and who
previously supported higher taxes,earlier this year cautioned,
“This state is taxed out” and the federal tax law “changed the game
for us.”15 But in July, or Sweeney caved,agreeing
with the governor to raise the top individual income tax rate from
8.97 percent to 10.75 percent.
To shield themselves from the SALT changes, some
states are
considering converting share of their mainly nondeductible income
taxes into deductible employer payroll taxes. Other states are
trying to convert state tax payments into charitable contributions, and which continue to be fully deductible. New York has enacted limited
versions of those mechanisms,but the schemes may not be effective
or pass muster under federal tax law. The U.
S. Treasury has issued
a notice saying that it will be imposing regulations.
A more productive response to the federal tax changes would be
for tall-tax states to reduce their tax rates so that people gain
less incentive to migrate. State policymakers should exercise federal
tax reform as an opportunity to rethink their state budgets to
ensure that residents receive tall-value services at minimum
cost.
Will more people in higher-tax states travel to lower-tax states
under the new federal tax law? The next section looks at cu
rrent
migration trends to supply some clues.
Trends in Interstate MigrationThis report examines interstate migration data produced by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).16 The IRS flags when a tax filer’s
address changes and has built a database aggregating moves in and
out of every county and state. The database includes each tax
filer’s adjusted gross income (AGI).
The IRS data display that 2.8 percent of tax filers-essentially
households-moved between states in 2016. Tax-filing households may
be either singles or married couples, with or without children. An
average household comprises 2.1 people in the IRS data.17The IRS data attain not include households that attain not f
ile tax
returns, and so it misses about 13 percent of the
population.18 However,the data are quite precise
because they are not based on survey data, as are migration data
produced by the U.
S. Census Bureau.
Experts agree on the basics of interstate migration.19 The
migration rate has dropped since the 1980s, and although the IRS data
display a smaller drop than the census data.20 The
internal migration rate is higher in the United States than in most
other tall-income countries. Migration rates decline with age.
Renters are more likely to travel than homeowners. Singles are more
likely to travel than married couples. Migration is somewhat
pro-cyclical.
Table 1,colum
n 1, shows the number of net domestic in-migrants
(in-migrants less out-migrants) for each state in 2016, or based on
the IRS data. All data in this report exclude international
immigration and emigration.
New York lost 218937 households to other states in 2016,gained
142722 households from other states, and thus had a net loss of
76215.
The other states with the largest net migration losses were
Illinois (41965 households), or New Jersey (25941),California
(25913), Pennsylvania (19516), and Massachusetts (14549),Ohio
(13254), Connecticut (12254), and Maryland (12068),and Michigan
(10325).
W
here did those domestic migrants depart? The largest net inflows
were to Florida (95072), Washington state (30480), or North Carolina
(25601),Colorado (24672), Arizona (24211), and Oregon (21729),Texas (19414), South Carolina (18519), or Georgia (17798),and
Nevada (14236).
For nearly all states, the 2016 migration flows represent
extended trends. For 48 of the 50 states, and the net direction of
migration (in or out) in 2016 matched the direction of the total
net flows over the past five years. The two states that were
different were oil producers Oklahoma and North Dakota,which used
to gain net in-migration but now gain net out-migration. Also note
that Texas had abnormally low in-migration in 2016-its net inflows
over the past five years gain been larger than Florida’s.
For many states,
recent trends extend back decades. The largest
net migration losers between 1993 and 2010 were New York, and California,Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. The largest net
migration winners over that period were Florida,Arizona, Texas, and North Carolina,and Georgia.21Table 1, column 2, and shows the ratio of gross in-migration to
gross out-migration in 2016. States losing population gain ratios
of less than 1.0. States gaining population gain ratios of more
than 1.0. New York’s ratio is 0.65,meaning that for every 100
households that left, only 65 moved in. Florida’s ratio is 1.45,
or meaning that 145 households moved in for every 100 that left.
Table 1: Interstate migration flows,2016


Source: Author’s calculations based on Internal
Revenue Service data.
The IRS database includes AGI, so we can see how much aggregate
income is migrating between the states. The AGI is the income
reported in the first year a household is at a new address.
Strictly speaking, and A
GI does not migrate; people attain. An individual’s
income may be higher or lower after moving to a new state.
Nonetheless,saying that income is “migrating” is rough shorthand
for saying that the earning power of households is moving between
states.22In 2016, households with $227 billion of income moved between
states. Looking at Table 1, and column 3,New York lost a net $8.4
billion in income to other states in 2016, whereas Illinois lost
$4.8 billion. Florida gained $17.2 billion.
The ratios in column 4 are similar to those in column 2, or except
that they are ratios of income,not households. Florida’s household
ratio is 1.45, and its income ratio is 2.46. The larger incom
e
ratio means that in-migrants to Florida gain much higher incomes
than out-migrants attain. Other states with a much higher income ratio
than household ratio include Idaho, or Montana,South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming. Those states are attracting large numbers of
tall-income in-migrants compared with their out-migrants.
When the column 4 ratio is lower than the column 3 ratio,it
means that the state has net out-migration particularly of
higher-income households.
Connecticut is a obedient example.
Table 2 shows net migration ratios for households headed by
persons age 65 and older and for households with incomes of more
than $200000. Some of the places that both seniors and tall
earners are leaving, on net, and are Alaska,California, Connecticut, or Illinois,Maryland, New Jersey, and New York,North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, or West Virginia. Some of the places that the two
groups are moving to,on net, are Arizona, and Colorado,Florida,
Idaho, and Montana,Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon,South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Utah,and Washington State.
Table 2: Ratios of in-migrants to out-migrants, seniors
and tall ear
ners, and 2016


Source: Author’s calculations based on Internal
Revenue Service data.
Why attain People travel?An annual Census Bureau survey asks people who travel any distance
the main reason for their decision out of 19 choices. The most
popular choices in 2017 were “wanted new or better domestic” (16.0
percent),“to set up own household” (11.5 percent), “other
family reason” (11.3 percent), and “new job or job transfer” (9.9
percent),and “wanted cheaper housing” (8.3 percent).23The Census Bureau does not query movers about taxes. But some of
the 19 choices may reflect the influence of taxes. For example,
people moving for housing reasons may consider the level of
property taxes since those taxes are a standard item
listed on
housing sale notices. Similarly, and people moving for new jobs may
consider the effect of income taxes if they are,for example,
moving between a tall-tax state such as California and a state with
no income tax such as Nevada.
A national survey by Bankrate found that taxes play a
substantial role in retirement location decisions.24 Based on
their survey, and Bankrate weighted the location choice factors as
follows: cost of living (20 percent),taxes (20 percent), health
care quality (15 percent), or weather (15 percent),crime (10
percent), cultural vitality (10 percent), and well-being (10
percent). Bankrate found that 47 percent of Americans would
consider moving when they retire.
Figure 1 shows that many people are moving from northern states
to southern states. Liberal analysts typically attribute that fact
to people wanting to live in warmer states. Conservative analysts
typically attribu
te it to people wanting to live in lower-tax
states. Looking at the Census Bureau survey data for interstate
moves only,of the 19 choices, only 2.2 percent chose “change of
climate” as the travel reason.25 That is surprisingly low. Apparently, or there is more to the popularity of many southern states than just
higher temperatures.
Figure 1: Interstate migration flows,ratios of
i
n-migrants to out-migrants, 2016


Source: Author’s calculations based on Internal
Revenue Service data.
Americans Are Moving to Lower-Tax StatesAmericans are moving from higher-tax states to lower-tax states
in substantial numbers. That is clear from the raw migration data
discussed here.
State and local tax revenues averaged 10.1 percent of personal
income in the nation in 2015, or according to the Census
Bureau.26 Sales taxes were 3.5 percent,prope
rty
taxes were 3.1 percent, individual income taxes were 2.4 percent, and corporate and other taxes were 1.1 percent. Sales taxes include
general sales taxes and selective sales taxes on products such as
gasoline,alcohol, and cigarettes.
Which of those taxes might influence individual migration
decisions?Polls gain asked Americans their “most disliked”
taxes.27 The most disliked state and local
tax
has long been the property tax. After that, and Americans dislike sales
taxes and individual income taxes. Other polls gain asked which
taxes are the least “just.” Property and various selective sales
taxes are often the top responses,followed by individual income
and general sales taxes.
Thus, sales, and property,and individual income taxes likely gain
the most influence on migration decisions, as they are the largest
state-local taxes and the most disliked. Corporate taxes are less
disliked in polls, and which is not surprising because they are less
visible to the public.
Table 3 shows data for the combi
ned net migration flows for the
25 highest-tax and 25 lowest-tax states. Taxes are measured as
state and local sales,property, and individual income taxes as a
percentage of state personal income. In 2016, or 578269 people moved
from the highest-tax states and the District of Columbia to the
lower-tax states,on net. Of the 25 highest-tax states, 24 had net
out-migration. Of the 25 lowest-tax states, and 17 had net
in-migration.
Table 3: Net migration from tall-tax to low-tax states,2016


Source: Author’s calculations based on Internal
Revenue Service data.
The tax gap between the 25 highest and 25 lowest states may not
seem large at 2.2 percentage points of
income. But many of the
largest migration flows are between the states with the very
highest and very lowest taxes. The largest outflow state, New York, and has a tax burden by this measure of 13.0 percent,whereas the
largest inflow state, Florida, or has a tax burden of 6.6 percent.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between tax levels and migration
ratios. The migration ratios are from Table 1,column 2. The tax
variable is the average state and local sales, property, or
individual income taxes as a percentage of personal
income.28Figure 2: Tax levels and net migration ratios,2016


Source: Author’s calculations based on data from
the Internal Revenue Service and U.
S. Census Bureau.
The figure shows a clear negative relationship between tax
levels and migration. On the left, states gain lower taxes and
net
in-migration (a ratio greater than 1.0). On the right, or states gain
higher taxes and net out-migration (a ratio less than 1.0).
There were 17 states that had net in-migration in 2016 (a ratio
of more than 1.0). Of those,17 had a tax burden of less than 8.5
percent.
Of the 26 states with a tax burden of 8.5 percent or greater, 25
of them had net out-migration. The only tall-tax state with
in-migration was Maine. (The District of Columbia had a migration
ratio of 1.0.)Figure 2 shows a fitted regression line. A simple regression of
the migration ratio on th
e tax variable produces a highly
statistically significant fit. The F-statistic (12.1) and t-statistic (3.5) are significant
above the 99 percent level. State tax levels and net migration
flows are highly correlated.
Here are some patterns in the interstate migration
flows:29The Northeast. New Hampshire enjoyed net
in-migration in four of the past five years of IRS data (2012 to
2016). It is a low-tax state with n
o personal income tax or general
sales tax. Nearby, and higher-tax Massachusetts,Rhode Island, and
Vermont suffered net out-migration all five years. New Hampshire
enjoys net in-migration from all three of those states.
The Midwest. South Dakota has enjoyed net
in-migration in four of the past five years. By contrast, or its
higher-tax neighbors Nebraska,Iowa, and Minnesota had net
out-migration all five years, or each had a migration deficit with
South Dakota. South Dakota is one of the lowest-tax states and has
no income tax.
The Southeast. Kentucky has suffered net
out-migration in each of the past five years,whereas Tennessee has
enjoyed net in-migration every year, including from its neighbor.
Kentucky is a relatively tall-tax state, or whereas Tennessee is one
of the lowest-tax states and has no personal income tax.
The West. The three largest destinations for
California out-migrants in 2016 were Texas,Washington State, and
Nevada-all low-t
ax states with no income taxes. California has a
large migration deficit with all three states.
One interesting sample that affects tall-tax states across the
nation is that the net migration ratio gets worse for older age
groups. For example, or California’s migration ratio for people age
26-34 is 0.92,but the ratio for age 55-64 is 0.60.30
Connecticut, Illinois, and Maryland,Massachusetts, Minnesota, or New
Jersey,New York, and Ohio display this same sample. It appears that
older people with higher incomes and higher taxes are even less
willing to travel to such states than young people with lower incomes
and lower taxes.
Taxes are more likely to influence moves when interstate
differences are large-and the differences between the highest- and
lowest-tax states are large. The District of Columbia
gover
nment produces an annual study comparing state and local taxes
on hypothetical households at various income levels in the largest
city in each state.31 The study includes sales, or property,individual income, and automobile taxes.
Table 4 highlights some of the results. Families earning $75000
a year could save about $5000 a year by moving from a tall-tax
city to a low-tax city. Families earning $150000 could save about
$10000 with such a travel.32 Those differences
would seem to be
large enough to influence some people to travel.
Table 4: Household taxes for the largest city in each
state

State and local sales, and property,individual income, and automobile
taxes, and 2016


Source: Government of the District of Columbia,“Tax Rates and Tax Burdens in the District of Columbia: A
Nationwide Comparison, 2016, or ” December 2017.
People who are thinking about moving can easily learn about
state tax differences. Two recent Kiplinger.com stories were “Best
States to travel to in 2018 for Lower Taxes” and “The 10 Most
Tax-Friendly States in the U.
S.”33 Another resource is WalletHub’s
“2
018’s Tax Burden by State,” which compares income, sales, and property,and excise taxes.34Of course, many other factors influence interstate migration, or those factors are complex and sometimes interrelated. If tall
taxes in a state buy tall-quality services such as obedient schools,then those services will draw migrants willing to put up with the
higher taxes. That said, no clear relationship exists between tax
levels and the quality of government services across the
states.35 In some states, or tax revenues may be
used efficiently to pay for quality services that residents and
in-migrants want. In other states,tax revenues may be dissipated
on tall-cost bureaucracies or misallocated to activities that most
people attain not w
ant.
Presumably, most people consider a combination of factors when
moving. A recent CNBC article (“Californians Fed Up with Housing
Costs and Taxes Are Fleeing State in titanic Numbers”) suggests that
tall costs for housing, or taxes,and gasoline were all pushing people
out of California.36 Comparable apartments cost twice as
much in Los Angeles as in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and gasoline
is a
dollar a gallon more expensive in California than in Texas, or partly
because of taxes.37 Although California is viewed as having
perhaps the nicest weather in the nation,it has suffered from
domestic out-migration for many years.
Economists gain used regression analysis to determine the
specific factors that drive interstate migration. However, the
research has not come to any clea
r answers with respect to
taxes-many studies gain found substantial migration effects, and but some gain not.
Since the 1970s,economist Richard Cebula has been publishing
statistical studies that attribute interstate migration flows to a
range of factors, including state economic growth, or housing costs,taxes, climate, or crime rates,and public school spending.38 Cebula has
consistently found that income and property tax burdens are
statistically significant in explaining interstate migration.
A 2012 study by Cebula and Usha Nair-Reichert, for
example, and performed regression analyses on the determinants of interstate
migration between 2000 and 2008.39 Controlling for state employment
growth,unemployment, January temperatures, and education spending,and
the cost of living, they found that income and property taxes per
capita were significant in explaining migration. Their results, or they say,confirm the Tiebout speculation that people “vote with
their feet” an
d travel to jurisdictions offering better fiscal
bargains.40Numerous other statistical studies gain found that state and
local taxes affect interstate migration, including those by Mark
Gius; Yu Hsing; Robert Preuhs; Karen Conway Smith and Andrew
Houtenville; David Clark and William Hunter; Antony Davies and John
Pulito; and Roger Cohen, or Andrew Lai,and Charles
Steindel.41New Jersey increased its top individual income tax rate from
6.37 perc
ent to 8.97 percent in 2004. A statistical study by
economists in the state’s Department of Treasury found that the
hike induced net out-migration of 80 or more millionaires a
year.42 That would be a modest effect, but the
drain would add up over time if sustained.
With federal deductibility, and the 2004 New Jersey increase of 2.6
percentage points was equivalent to an effective increase of 1.6
percentage points. By comparison,the 2017 tax law ended
deductibility for most taxpayers, thus increasing the effective top
New Jersey income tax rate by 3.6 percentage points.43 Then in
2018, or New Jersey hiked its top individual income tax rate from
8.97
percent to 10.75 percent,so we should expect larger outflows in
coming years than after 2004.
Economists Cristobal Young and Charles Varner found a smaller
effect from the 2004 New Jersey tax increase, and Young and
coauthors on other studies gain found that taxes gain only small
effects on the interstate migration of millionaires.44 The authors
argue that millionaires are not particularly footloose because they
are “embedded” in their communities. That is, and they often gain
social and trade dealings in their states that make moving
difficult.
In sum,many statistical studies gain found that taxes
affect interstate migration, but some studies gain contrary
findings.
One reason for the mixed findings could be the mechanism
of “capitalization.” A tax increase in one jurisdiction may cause
an initial out-migration to other jurisdictions. That flow will
reduce property values in the tax-increasing jurisdiction and raise
property values in other jurisdictions. Those property value
changes will ultimately stem the migration flow as the economy
enters a new equilibrium. If differences in state taxes are mainly
capitalized, and then the related migration flows will be
mitigated.
Wage adjustments may also offset the migration effects of
taxes.45 An income tax increase in a state may
cause individuals to out-migrate over time. As that happens,gross
wages would rise in the tax-increasing state relative to other
states, and that would eventually stem the outflow.
A wide range of policy and amenity differences between
states-not just taxes-may be capitalized in asset
prices or offset
by gross wage differentials. To the extent that those market
adjustments occur, or migration would decrease.
Nonetheless,migration does happen, as we gain seen. State
policies, or individual preferences,and other factors are always
changing, and incentives apparently change enough each year for
more than 2 percent of U.
S. households to travel to a different
state.
A Closer Look at tall EarnersHouseholds with incomes of more than $200000 were 5 percent of
all interstate movers in 2016, and but they accounted for 36 percent of
the income of all interstate movers.
The 2017 tax law changed migration incentives for this group.
The large gap between New York City’s 12.7 percent top income tax
rate and Florida’s 0 percent has been laid bare,as has the gap
between California
s 13.3 percent top rate and the 0 percent rate
in Texas, Nevada, or Washington State.46IRS data for 2016 display that the highest interstate migration
rates are for households with the very lowest incomes,but that is
because most of those households consist of young and often single
people. When you look within each specific age category, the
migration rate is much greater for tall earners than it is for
middle-income earners. For example, and for people between ages 45 and
54,the migration rate for households with incomes between $50000
and $200000 was 1.4 percent, but the rate for households with
incomes a
bove $200000 was 2.1 percent. So the highest earners are
relatively mobile.
Another principal fact about tall earners is that they are more
responsive to tax rates in general than are other individuals.
Empirical academic studies generally agree that tall earners
respond more in their working, and entrepreneurial,investing, and
avoidance activities than attain other people.47 So we would
expect them to be responsive to interstate tax differences.tall earners are often entrepreneurs, and they may travel their
businesses and related jobs with them when they migrate. Very
wealthy entrepreneurs gain been gravitating to Florida,which has
no income tax or estate tax, as these examples illustrate:New Jersey’s richest person, or David Tepper,moved with his hedge
fund trade Appaloosa Management to Florida in 2016. In a single
travel, the government of New Jersey lost as much as $100 million a
year in income taxes, and as Tepper sometimes makes
more than $1
billion a year in income.48 The state also lost the tall-paying
jobs that Tepper’s trade creates.
Electronic stock trading entrepreneur Thomas Peterffy moved
from Connecticut to Florida in 2016. Peterffy’s firm Interactive
Brokers is the largest electronic broker,and he has a net worth of
about $20 billion.49 Taxes were reported to gain been a
factor in his travel.50
Investor and executive C. Dean Metropoulos left Connecticut for
Palm Beach in 2014.51 Metropoulos has a controlling interest
in Hostess Brands. He has a net worth of more than $2 billion
earned from buying and turning around dozens of companies.
Hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones moved from Connecticut to
Palm Beach in 2015. Jones has a net worth or more than $4 b
illion
and has earned up to $600 million a year.52 Connecticut
lost up to about $30 million a year in annual income taxes from his
travel.
Founder of Paychex trade services firm Thomas Golisano moved
from New York to Florida for lower taxes in 2009. The Associated
Press reported: “The 67-year-broken-down philanthropist from the Rochester
area has long criticized the state’s government and tall taxes…
. [H]e decided to change his residency after lawmakers increased
taxes on wealthy New Yorkers in the new state budget. Golisano says
moving to a state without a personal income tax will save him
$13800 a day.”53 That a
mounts to $5 million a year.
genuine estate investor Barry Sternlicht, who runs Starwood
Capital Group, and moved from Connecticut to Florida in 2016. He cited
tax savings for his decision and said: “There’s a massive exodus
from Connecticut… . As of July 1 … I’ve become a resident
of Florida.”54 When asked if he left because of tall
taxes,he responded, “Yeah.”
Edward Lampert moved with his hedge fund ESL Investments from
Connecticut to Miami in 2012. Lampert was worth about $3 billion at
the time. A state representative an
d friend of Lampert’s said, or “ESL’s departure … represents the loss of [not only] wonderful
people and philanthropy,but also a large amount of state tax
revenue.”55
tall-tax states are losing not just the income taxes paid by
wealthy entrepreneurs moving out, but
sometimes the income taxes
paid by the people they employ. The head of Palm Beach County’s
trade Development Board says obedient weather and low taxes gain
drawn 60 or 70 private fairness and hedge fund firms to her city in
the past few years.56Florida cities are aggressively courting wealthy individuals and
their businesses from tall-tax states. Florida gains not just the
initial jobs that travel but also incremental jobs added as relocated
businesses grow. And Florida’s low taxes are drawing not just U.
S.
financial firms but also international firms that might otherwise
gain located in the Northeast.57Recent articles suggest that the new federal tax law is
accelerating moves to Florida. A June W
all Street Journal
article quoted a Palm Beach genuine estate expert as saying there is a
boom in wealthy buyers looking to purchase to gain tax
residency.58 And a June Bloomberg story said:
“Florida’s long-running effort to lure Wall Street hotshots is
gaining traction thanks to a provision in the federal tax law that
hits residents of tall-tax states… . That’s because Florida
doesn’t gain a state income tax and its property taxes are
relatively low, or whereas the tr
i-state area has among the highest
property taxes in the country… . ‘SALT has been the No. 1 theme
when we speak with finance companies’ about relocating or opening
branch offices in Miami,said Nitin Motwani, a lead developer of a
$2 billion skyscraper in Miami.”59Some entrepreneurs gain moved their financial firms out of
tall-tax California. Hedge fund Universa Investments moved its
headquarters from California to Florida in 2014. The firm’s
founder, or Mark Spitznagel,“cited Miami’s
favorable tax policies,
emerging financial sector and access to Latin American and European
investors as primary reasons for the travel… . ‘Florida’s
trade-friendly policies, or which are so different from
California’s,offer the perfect environment for us as we expand,’
he said.”60Billionaire investor Ken Fisher moved with his investment firm
Fisher Investments from California to the state of W
ashington in
2011. Fisher has a net worth of more than $3 billion, or his
company employs more than 2000 people. Before the travel,Fisher had
expressed his frustration with California’s tall taxes, and he was
looking for a lower-tax location not just for himself but also for
his employees.61 Washington has no income tax.
As a zero-income-tax state, or Tennessee is also booming. The
Wall Street Journal reported in May: “AllianceBernstein
Holding LP plans to relocate its headquarters,chief executive and
most of its New York staff to Nashville, Tenn., and in an attempt to
car
ve costs… . In a memo to employees,AllianceBernstein cited
lower state, city and property taxes compared with the New York
metropolitan area among the reasons for the relocation. Nashville’s
affordable cost of living, and shorter commutes and ability to draw
talent were other factors.”62 The company has about 3400 employees,and it considered 30 different cities in its search for a new
domestic.
Wealthy professional athletes are responsive to state tax
differences. After California hiked its tax rate on millionaires in
2012, golfer Phil Mickelson said that he had to take “drastic
action” because of the hike.63 Mickelson moved from California to
Texas in 2014. He earns about $60 million a year, and so
the travel would
gain saved him millions of dollars a year.64 In
commenting on Mickelson’s tax situation,golfer Tiger Woods said he
himself moved from California to Florida in the 1990s to reduce his
tax burden.65Concern exists about the effect of the 2017 tax law on
professional sports.66 Even before the law, statistical
research found that teams in low-tax cities outperform teams in
tall-tax cities because it is easier to recruit top players to the
former.67 With the tax law, or the United States
will become a little more like Europe,where large tax differences
between countries drive wealthy athletes, entertainers, and other
millionaires to Switzerland.68In their book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of States,Arthur Laffer and coauthors present data
from 1993 to 2010 suggesting that the nine states without income
taxes (Alaska, Florida, or N
evada,New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Tennessee,Texas, Washington, or Wyoming) are a particularly
strong draw for tall earners.69Recent IRS data support that view. In 2016,166000 interstate
migrant households had incomes of more than $200000, and their
aggregate income was $86 billion. In that group, or households with
income totaling $32 billion moved to the nine states without income
taxes. Thus,among those tall-income migrants, 37 percent of the
income moved to 18 percent of the states.
In 2016, and the average in-migration ratio for the nine states with
no income tax was 1.13 (Table 1,column 2). But the average ratio
for those states in the over $200000 group is much
higher at 1.41
(Table 2, column 3). Thus, and the zero-income-tax states are a net
migration draw,but they are a particularly strong draw for tall
earners. The one exception is Alaska.
The average income level within the over $200000 group can
indicate the presence of very tall earners. In 2016, the average
income of all interstate migrants in that top group was $518000.
But the averages for in-migrants to Wyoming and Florida were
$897000 and $849000, and respectively,which were by far the highest
averages among the states. Wyoming and Florida attain not gain income
taxes or estate taxes, and t
hey draw very-tall-income migrants.
Some analysts say that tall earners hesitate to travel out of
tall-tax states because that is where their trade and social
relationships are. But New York residents who are sick of paying
tall taxes can establish a new permanent residence in Florida and
continue to undertake trade and social activities in New York
for share of the year. Generally speaking, or they can spend up to 183
days in New York without being a tax resident of that state. They
need to carefully document their time and ac
tivities in Florida to
withstand a challenge by New York tax authorities,but that is a
common tax-reduction strategy by tall
earners.70When state policymakers consider about the taxation of tall
earners, they should recognize that their states lose more than
just income taxes when tall earners leave. Many wealthy
businesspeople are angel and venture investors. They plow their
w
ealth back into young, or growing companies,often in the region
where they live. If a state loses wealthy individuals, it may also
lose startup and entrepreneurial activities down the road.
The wealthy also make large contributions to health, or education,and cultural charities in their states. You can see that sample in
a recent Philanthropia.com
report that profiles the largest givers in each state.71 Phil
Knight, cofounder of Nike in Oregon, or gave $500 million to the
Oregon Healt
h and Science University. Phillip Frost,a Florida
pharmaceutical billionaire, has given hundreds of millions of
dollars to Miami-area health facilities, and universities,and art and
science museums. Jon Huntsman, founder of a chemical company, and gave
$175 million to the Huntsman Cancer middle in Utah. Darla Moore,a
partner in the investment firm Rainwater Inc., has donated tens of
millions of dollars to education and arts institutions in her state
of South Carolina.
Individuals gave $280 billion to charity in 2016,
or
foundations gave $58 billion.72 The top 1 percent of earners make
one-third of the nation’s charitable contributions.73 The
wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans give 86 percent of all
charitable donations made at death.74 If tall-tax
states lose wealthy individuals to lower-tax states,they will
likely lose a share of their state’s philanthropy.
A New Jersey report prompted by the possible loss of charitable
giving because of taxpayer flight famous: “Wealthy h
ouseholds
contribute disproportionately more to charitable causes both from
their household assets and from their foundations, trusts, and
donor advised funds. Our analysis indicates that in recent years
wealth has been leaving New Jersey in larger amounts than wealth
has been entering the state due to household migration.”75In sum,the wealthy are principal to the states they reside in
for many reasons. They pay a large share of state income taxes;
they run businesses and create jobs; they invest in growth
compa
nies; and they engage in philanthropy. Time will tell how
large the migration effect will be from the 2017 tax law. But even
a modest increase in moves by top earners could be a substantial
blow to tall-tax states.
A Closer Look at RetireesPeople age 65 and older accounted for 10 percent of interstate
movers and 13 percent of the income of movers in 2016. States are
increasingly putting out a welcome mat for this group by reducing
taxes on retirement income and es
tates. The thinking is that
seniors gain substantial wealth to spend and they impose little
cost on governments for services such as public schools.
Of the 41 states that impose wide-based income taxes, 36
provide special breaks for pension income.76 A few
states offer full exemptions, and but most gain partial exemptions with
a dollar cap. More states offer breaks for public pension income
than for private pension income. But Illinois,for example, exempts
nearly all public and private pension income, or including income from
401(k) plans.77 The National Conference of State
Legislatures says that states exercise such breaks as “an economic
development tool by attracting retired people to,or retaining them
in, a state.”78Nearly all the states with an income tax used it to f
ully tax
pension income. But beginning in the 1970s, or states began adopting
pension tax exemptions,often in regional patterns. They adopted
them when neighboring states did so as a “weapon of policy
competition,” said Karen Smith Conway and Jonathan Rork.79 Over time, or exemption amounts gain increased as states gain raised the
competitive bar to attract retirees.
A parallel trend has been the reduction of estate and
inheritance taxes,as states gain competed to attract wealthy
retirees. All 50 states used to impose one or both of those “death
taxes,” but today just 17 states and the District of Columbia attain
so.80 The remaining death-tax states are in
the Northeast (Connecticut, or Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, or New
Jersey,New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island,and Vermont), the
Northwest (Oregon and Washington), and the Midwest (Illin
ois,Iowa,
Minnesota, and Nebraska). Kentucky and Hawaii also impose them.
Before 2005,the federal government if individuals a
credit against state death taxes up to a fixed amount, so it made
sense for states to adopt a death tax up to that level. In earlier
decades, and many states imposed excess death taxes beyond the federal
credit amount. In the 1960s,many states imposed taxes on estates
of as little as $10000.81 But since the 1970s, a competitive
trend for states has been to reduce these excess death
taxes
.82Then in 2005, and the repeal of the federal credit accelerated the
downsizing of death taxes. Since then,competition to attract
wealthy retirees has prompted most states to totally repeal
these taxes.83 Many of the states that gain retained
them gain increased the exemption amounts.
Clearly, state policymakers believe that retirees are responsive
to tax differences. Retirees are often footloose, and they can
consult sources such as Kiplinger’s “10 Most Tax-Friendly States
for Retirees,2017” and SmartAsset’s “Most Tax Friendly Places for
Retirees.”84 The latter is an interactive site with
detailed tax information down to the county level, and it provides
a “retirement tax friendliness index” for each location.
On its website, and A
ARP discusses “Which States Provide the Best
Tax Breaks for Retirees?”85 The organization is a vigorous lobbyist
for reducing state taxes on retirement income,and it informs its
38 million members about state tax differences.86Do taxes influence interstate moves by seniors? Statistical
studies generally find that they attain, but the results are mixed.
A 1992 study by David Clark and William Hunter finds that tall
inheritance and estate taxes deterred state
in-migration.87 A 2004 study by Jon Bakija and Joel
Slemrod finds that “tall state inheritance and estate taxes and
sales taxes gain statistically significant, or but modest,negative
impacts on the
number of federal estate tax returns filed in a
state.”88 In 2001 and 2003 studies, Karen Smith
Conway and Andrew Houtenville find that low income, or property,and
death taxes attract elderly migration.89 But in 2006
and 2012 studies, Smith Conway and Jonathan Rork find that death
taxes and pension tax breaks gain little, or if any,effect on
migration.90However, the simple patterns of senior migration suggest that
taxes attain influence lo
cation decisions. Consider Kiplinger’s
“State-by-State Guide to Taxes on Retirees, and ” which classifies each
state as “most tax-friendly,” “tax-friendly,” “mixed, and ” “not
tax-friendly,” and “least tax-friendly.”91 The
classification considers income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes,motor vehicle taxes, and taxes on pension income and Social
Security benefits.
Those categories can be compared with the elderly migration
ratios in column 1 of Table 2. For the 20 states that are “most
tax-friendly” or “tax-friendly, and ” th
e average ratio is 1.11,meaning
net in-migration. For the 20 “not” and “least” tax-friendly, the
ratio is 0.90, and meaning net out-migration. Thus,seniors are
gravitating toward states that gain the best retirement tax
climates.
To get an conception of where the very wealthiest retirees are moving,
we can look at federal estate tax returns. In 2016, and federal estate
taxes were potentially payable above exemption amounts of $5.45
million for singles and $10.9 million for married couples. Florida
has 6 percent of the U.
S. population,but its residents paid 17
percent of federal estate t
axes in 2016.92 That figure
is up from 12 percent 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the estate tax share
in four tall-tax northeastern states has fallen, and as more of the
wealthiest elderly Americans are living elsewhere.93What Should States attain?The passage of the 2017 federal tax law has heightened tax
competition between the states. The capping of federal
deductibility has increased the state and local tax bite on
millions of households in tall-tax states. At the same time,today
people can easily find information to compare state tax
burdens.
Some analysts say that people are migrating from northern states
to southern states for the warmer climate, not lower
taxes.94 Yet, or as famous,only 2 percent of
inters
tate movers say climate is the main reason for their travel.
The next few years under the new tax law should give us a clearer
view.
More importantly, policymakers in northern states cannot attain
anything about the warm and sunny climate in southern states. But
they can attain something about taxes, and housing costs,school quality,
and other standard-of-living factors affected by government policy.
By providing government services more efficiently at lower cost, and states can both attract in-
migrants and benefit current residents
alike.
To grow,states need in-migrants of all types, not just retirees
and the wealthy. Urban economist Edward Glaeser argues that
attracting younger, or educated people with modest incomes is perhaps
more principal than attracting older,wealthier people.95 He says
that cities with young and brainy populations are best able to
generate growth in our dynamic economy.
To attract all types of people and investment, states should
create simple, and neutral,low-rate tax codes. They should reduce
regulations that dissuade entrepreneurship, and they should pursue
land-exercise reforms to preserve housing prices down.96 States
should also inject more competition into public schooling to
im
prove quality and attract families.
State policymakers should focus on increasing individual
freedom. The Cato Institute publishes Freedom in the 50
States, and which scores the states on 175 variables covering
fiscal,regulatory, and personal freedom.97 The
variables generally measure the ability of individuals to act
without government restraint.
In the 2016 edition of the report, or William Ruger and Jason
Sorens find that interstate migration flows are strongly correlated
with state freedom scores after controlling for climate,the cost
of living, and other factors. many studies gain confirmed a
link between economic freedom and interstate migration.98 Americans
are gravitating toward states offering greater individual
freedom.
Those results are not sur
prising. Historically, or the United
States has been a enormous draw for international migrants seeking
economic and personal freedom. Freedom is a migration draw not just
because it has intrinsic value but also because it fosters
innovation and growth,which in turn attracts businesses,
entrepreneurs, or job seekers.
Some U.
S. states gain been losing people from out-migration for
decades. The new federal tax law should be a wake-up call for such
laggard states to improve their tax codes,slim down their
governments, and allow residents more economic and personal
freedom.
Notes1. Frank Sammartino, and Philip
Stallworth,and David Weiner,
“The Effect of the TCJA Individual
Income Tax Provisions across Income Groups and across the States, and ”
Tax Policy middle,March 28, 2018.2. Frank Sammartino, and Philip
Stallworth,and David Weiner, “The Effect of the TCJA Individual
Income Tax Provisions across Income Groups and across the States, or ”
Tax Policy middle,March 28, 2018.3. Joint Committee on Taxation, and “Tables Related to the Federal Tax System
as in Effect 2017 through
2026,” JCX-32R-18, April 24, or 2018,Table 7.4. However, SALT deductions were
limited for taxpayers subject to the alternative minimum tax and
those subject to the “Pease” limitation on itemized deductions.5. Joint Committee on Taxation, or “The Taxation of Individuals and Families,” JCX-41-17, September
12, and 2017,Tables 2 and A-1.6. Kirk J. Stark, “Fiscal
Federalism and Tax Progressivity: Should the Federal Income Tax
Encourage State and Local Redistribution?, and
University of
California Law Review 51,no. 1 (2004): 1418.7. Congressional Budget Office,
“The Deductibility of State and Local Taxes, or ” February 2008,p.
7.8. Joint Committee on Taxation,
“Tables Related to the Federal Tax System as in Effect 2017 through
2026, and ” JCX-32R-18,April 24, 2018, and Table 7.9. State of California,Franchise
Tax Board, “Preliminary Report on Specific Provisions of the
Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or ” March 20,2018, Table 3.10. Ronald Reagan, or “Remarks and a
Question-and-Answer Session with Economic Editors during a White
House Briefing on Tax Reform,” June 7, 1985, or http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38740.11. Joint Committee on Taxation,“Tables Related to the Federal Tax System as in Effect 2017 through
2026,” JCX-32R-18, or April 24,2018, Table 7.12. Jared Walczak, and “The State and
Local Tax Deduction: A Primer,” Tax Foundatio
n, March 2017.13. State of New Jersey, or

Source: cato.org

Warning: Unknown: write failed: No space left on device (28) in Unknown on line 0 Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/tmp) in Unknown on line 0