Really? Then explain why there is net migration from California to the midwest? Why are people from BC and Ontario moving to Alberta? Why are people leaving New York in droves, while colder states are the recipients of net internal migration?
I didn’t know the US had annexed BC, Ontario and Alberta. If you’d like to provide citations for the relevant questions you pose, I’ll be happy to address them.
I’m not sure how it’s relevant that BC, Ontario, and Alberta are not located in the US, if it demonstrates how individuals move where the tax burden is lowest despite poorer weather. However, I wasn’t aware that Alberta has significantly worse weather than British Colombia or Ontario, although its taxes are certainly lower.
Well: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_migration.html
Between 2000 and 2008 New York lost more of its population than any other state. Colder climates don’t seem to be receiving the lion’s share of the of migrants, however – a plurality goes to Florida; Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia account for over 50% of migrants out of NY. The tax burden is quite low in Florida, but high-to-middling in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, the remaining of the top five. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/335.html)
Haven’t we seen the Chris Christie movie before? He’s basically Rudy Giuliani w/o the mistress. I think people recognize that someone like him can be effective in many circumstances, but the overall animus they attract is a lead balloon that drags them down the longer they are in office.
Giuliani seemed like a great candidate too, until he realized that you can’t run for president while acting like an aloof dictator, and having a record that does not match your rhetoric. Christie talks about financial responsibility, but he removed the pension contribution from Governor Corzine’s final budget. He talks about shared sacrifice, but refused to re-authorize a lapsed income-tax surcharge on residents earning more than $1 million a year. That’s not even mentioning the shadiness surrounding his time as a US Attorney, the tunnel fiasco, or the race to the top paperwork snafu. Ultimately, he paints himself as a reformer while engaging in the same horse trading and corruption that others do.
More problematic, as a republican, he has to kiss the ass of many small town voters to get the nom. I don’t see him doing that. I can’t see him going to Iowa and NH, shaking hands, and pretending to be engaged and affable. I’ve heard people in those states say they wouldn’t vote for someone who doesn’t come a personally shake their hand, or call them on the phone. Do you really see him doing that? Retail campaigning wasn’t Giuliani’s strength, and it isn’t his either. They both seem to act like autocrats who do not suffer fools or exercise much humility or grace. Regardless of their effectiveness, voters on both sides hate that. It’s brought down Adrian Fenty (DC Mayor), Giuliani (the Senate run, and presidential run), and countless others. As much as people pretend they want someone effective, they mostly want someone they like. I have rarely heard anyone say they actually like Christie. They may think he’s doing a good job, but they almost always say he’s a dick. Somebody like that never lasts long in politics.
Even if he were nominated, he has pissed on so many heavy democratic, deep-pocketed donors and institutions that will pull out all the stops to ensure that he fails. The GOP establishment knows that, and as much as they may want someone like Christie, it would be too risky to nominate him. Just like it would have been to nominate Hillary.
Because the cost of living, of which taxes are a small (but important) part, is exorbitant, and only getting worse. I grew up in NJ, and most of my immediate family still lives there. The problem is expensive housing due to high demand, proximity to major economic city centers, high population density, and high income disparity. Taxes pay a relatively minor role. I would imagine most of the places you are going to cite have the same problem. A house is the most expensive purchase most people will ever make. When you are paying a premium that cannot be made up by an increase in salary, you start to question whether the sacrifice is worth is. Many in NJ made those sacrifices because they have kids in school, and they wanted to take advantage of the good schools in the area. After their kids graduate, they leave. That’s why the NJ is shedding those residents, and places with worse schools systems (Texas, Georgia, Arizona) are gaining them. When the median housing price is often twice what it is in other states on the East coast with better weather, why would anyone continue to pay a premium for so little.
Also note that comparing places with higher population density and higher population, to those with lower density and population based on percentage growth isn’t an apt comparison. It’s like when we compare GDP growth in the US, and China. You can grow a lot faster when you start from the bottom. California’s 1% population growth from 08-09 represents 365,960 people. New Jersey’s .5% growth represents 43,322 people. Utah’s 2.1% growth represent 57,262 people. The raw numbers illustrate that the trend you see is not really that remarkable.
More importantly, taxes are just not that big an issue for most people. Yes, tax rates can inhibit or promote growth, but the differences between states in the same region are often not an huge incentive relative to other costs. Why don’t you do this test. Take a poll of the number of people who know exactly what their current tax burden percentage wise is, and how much it has changed in recent years. I doubt very few can give you those numbers; they just know it’s always too damn high.