States losing the largest number of wealthy people.

@Soothfast said
There are many factors that play into this. First, however, I suggest examining which states are the "taker" states and which the "giver" states. A "taker" state is one which receives more federal tax dollars than it pays out, whereas a "giver" state suffers the reverse condition.

Look here:
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/12/states-money-federal-government
https://usafa ...[text shortened]... eir own, which is not fair, because through their negligence they enjoy "free stuff" from Uncle Sam.

CA also subsidizes these States by taking in their homeless.

@Soothfast said
There are many factors that play into this. First, however, I suggest examining which states are the "taker" states and which the "giver" states. A "taker" state is one which receives more federal tax dollars than it pays out, whereas a "giver" state suffers the reverse condition.

Look here:
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/12/states-money-federal-government
https://usafa ...[text shortened]... eir own, which is not fair, because through their negligence they enjoy "free stuff" from Uncle Sam.

This unbelievable. Classic changing my post to a DIfferent Issue!! My post is about wealthy people leaving the states. It is not about which states are givers or takers. Even if the blue states contribute more federally, that doesn't contradict what I said. Both things can be true. You address your issue without responding to mine. This is as boring as it gets.

@AverageJoe1 said
This unbelievable. Classic changing my post to a DIfferent Issue!! My post is about wealthy people leaving the states. It is not about which states are givers or takers. Even if the blue states contribute more federally, that doesn't contradict what I said. Both things can be true. You address your issue without responding to mine. This is as boring as it gets.

It's quite literally the same issue.

@wildgrass said
It's quite literally the same issue.

I am saying migration of wealthy individuals , you are saying net federal tax flows between states.
These two issues are related, but they are not the same. I am sorry..
Those can both be true at the same

A state can be a net contributor and still be losing wealthy residents at the same time. Those don’t contradict each other.

So I’ll ask again: do you agree that there’s a trend of high earners moving out of states like California and New York, or not?”

An analogy would be that a company being profitable is the same as employees quitting the company……….
Both are happening, but they are not the same thing.

@AverageJoe1 said
I am saying migration of wealthy individuals , you are saying net federal tax flows between states.
These two issues are related, but they are not the same. I am sorry..
Those can both be true at the same

A state can be a net contributor and still be losing wealthy residents at the same time. Those don’t contradict each other.

So I’ll ask again: do you agree that ...[text shortened]... ame as employees quitting the company……….
Both are happening, but they are not the same thing.

You were arguing that the rich people were leaving because blue states want their tax money. But you say it's a different issue that red states are parasites of the tax dollars produced in blue states?

The migration is happening, from one place to another place. When you want to get wealthy, you move to a blue state because the economies are way better. Once you are wealthy, you move to a red state because your tax bill will be lower. The reason why is because red states mooch off the federal government instead of collecting income tax. These are the same issue.

Politicians from both red and blue states want your money, they just collect it in different ways and from different sources. Red states take from blue states.

@wildgrass said
You were arguing that the rich people were leaving because blue states want their tax money. But you say it's a different issue that red states are parasites of the tax dollars produced in blue states?

The migration is happening, from one place to another place. When you want to get wealthy, you move to a blue state because the economies are way better. Once you are weal ...[text shortened]... they just collect it in different ways and from different sources. Red states take from blue states.

You’re actually making a different argument now.

I’m not arguing why people move yet….im pointing out that high-income individuals are leaving high-tax states.

Even in your explanation, you admit the pattern: people build wealth in places like California or New York, then leave for lower-tax states. That’s exactly the trend I’m talking about.

Whether you think red states are ‘mooching’ or not is a SEPARATE DEBATE about federal policy. It is not whether that migration is happening.

So we agree on the movemen. Now the real question is: do taxes play a significant role in driving it, or not?”

Whew.

@AverageJoe1 said
You’re actually making a different argument now.

I’m not arguing why people move yet….im pointing out that high-income individuals are leaving high-tax states.

Even in your explanation, you admit the pattern: people build wealth in places like California or New York, then leave for lower-tax states. That’s exactly the trend I’m talking about.

Whether you think re ...[text shortened]... ovemen. Now the real question is: do taxes play a significant role in driving it, or not?”

Whew.

Moving and leaving and migrating are all the same thing.

Obviously the tax policies and the weather are factors in why people move places. There's no way that's your question. There's nothing to debate at all without discussing the factors that allow states like Texas and Florida to become tax shelter states for wealth, and the overall economic disparities between the states that are drivers of the economy (New York and California) and the states that are passengers in the economy (Florida).

@AverageJoe1 said
This unbelievable. Classic changing my post to a DIfferent Issue!! My post is about wealthy people leaving the states. It is not about which states are givers or takers. Even if the blue states contribute more federally, that doesn't contradict what I said. Both things can be true. You address your issue without responding to mine. This is as boring as it gets.

Clearly you authored this thread to "show up" states with higher taxes as being somehow less desirable to live in. You don't stop at pointing out which states are losing higher-income individuals, but go on to point out a correlation with higher taxes. As usual, you examine the issue in the narrowest possible manner, without consideration to other factors. But it is clear that you are in favor of states having lower taxes, and assign no value whatsoever to what states with higher taxes actually do with the funds.

I'm here to point out that the low-tax states are not really what you seem to make them out to be: efficient, self-sufficient, and generally nice places to live. Such states, it turns out, are heavily subsidized by the federal government. They are moocher states that rely on federal assistance, with the perks they enjoy coming at the expense of states like California and New York that you hold in naked contempt.

And still, I've only pointed out one factor in play. I could point out other factors, such as the relatively high environmental degradation and pollution that pervades low-tax states (taking more from Nature than giving to it), or the poorer average academic performance of students in those states (siphoning from the future well-being of kids for the immediate gratification of lower taxes for wealthy carpetbaggers), but my time is limited.

@Soothfast said
Clearly you authored this thread to "show up" states with higher taxes as being somehow less desirable to live in. You don't stop at pointing out which states are losing higher-income individuals, but go on to point out a correlation with higher taxes. As usual, you examine the issue in the narrowest possible manner, without consideration to other factors. But it is clear t ...[text shortened]... s for the immediate gratification of lower taxes for wealthy carpetbaggers), but my time is limited.

Yeah. Clearly, I authored it to prove dependence by you'all on the successful.
Anyway, the liberal states are going after the rich for money, not unlike the gangster who, when asked why he robs banks, said 'that's where the money is.'
So, congrats, you will be famous just like a parasite gangster.

Can y'all truly not take care of yourselves? Type 'self reliance' 3 times.

@AverageJoe1 said
Yeah. Clearly, I authored it to prove dependence by you'all on the successful.
Anyway, the liberal states are going after the rich for money, not unlike the gangster who, when asked why he robs banks, said 'that's where the money is.'
So, congrats, you will be famous just like a parasite gangster.

Can y'all truly not take care of yourselves? Type 'self reliance' 3 times.

Begging your pardon, but, my entire point was to show how certain US states and individuals whom you characterized as being self-sufficient are, in fact, parasites on the sly. To see such connections, however, you must look beyond surface appearances and think more than one move ahead.

@Soothfast said
Begging your pardon, but, my entire point was to show how certain US states and individuals whom you characterized as being self-sufficient are, in fact, parasites on the sly. To see such connections, however, you must look beyond surface appearances and think more than one move ahead.

You are not thinking one step ahead, you are moving to a different topic.
But, are you saying that people who are earning money in high tax states and then moving to lower ones should not be ALLOWED to do so?
It is a given that is happening, which is my topic. So, what do you say about that? Wouldn't you? I have, myself.
Do you think tax differences play a role in that movement, or not?