I recognize that billionaire talking point. It's the argument behind the Laffer curve.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/issue-brief/what-a-new-laffer-c...

FTA: For years, policymakers and economists have debated the shape and peak of the Laffer curve, a theoretical model suggesting that if top tax rates increase beyond a certain point—called the revenue-maximizing rate—they will yield negative marginal revenue.

A new paper from economists at the Joint Committee on Taxation finds that the Laffer curve is flatter than previous theories have suggested, meaning the revenue-maximizing “rate” might be a broad range rather than a single point.

Lawmakers looking to raise taxes might find it difficult to raise substantial revenue from top rate increases; however, broadening the base, examining untaxed sectors, and reducing the tax gap represent promising pathways to closing the gap between revenue and spending.

---

I'm glad they highlighted that instead of increasing the tax rate, broaden the tax base. For example, if they treated borrow-spend-die as income. We could keep a lower tax rate. The same argument could be made for eliminating the estate tax. Treat inheritances as income for tax purposes.

The type of people who move from CA to WY for the tax benefits are the type of people who pay more taxes than they use in government services (even with very low tax rates). That means WY can offer more government services to the rest of its residents, making it more hospitable.

It is a fiscal detriment to CA and NY though.

> lower tax rates make places less 'hospitable' in the long run

When Washington was a low tax state, it spawned Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, T Mobile, Expedia, etc.

That’s not true. For example, Washington State has no corporate tax: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-corporate-inc.... But companies aren’t exactly flocking there. Florida meanwhile is seeing a huge boom, but its corporate taxes are around the middle of the pack. California has always had pretty high marginal tax rates, even back in the 1970s when it was a solid red state. It used that money to do things like make big investments in higher education.

Being hospitable is more about whether the state makes it a pain in the ass to do business.

Personally I'd much rather live in the places where wealth is created, instead of the resorts where wealthy people retire to enjoy a life of leisure

Those states will eventually either kill the golden goose or make themselves unattractive for the next big industry. California for most of the 20th century was a place where the government was well managed and efficient, wasn’t afraid to make big investments in infrastructure and education, and made it easy to build stuff without too much hassle. Texas and Florida kind of fit that niche today, but both are a shadow of what California used to be.

") and different states are good at giving them a hospitable place to live"

Every state offers wealthy people a good place to live - the suggestion that somehow this is a trade off is very wrong.

This has a lot to do with taxes.

California imports it's current entrepreneurs because it chased the previous generations of them away. I was a fourth generation Californian, was...

I know one literally one person in my highschool graduating class who stayed behind. Sure the older generation are still left for the most part, still not admitting they did anything to cause the situation, but the young and ambitious have all left.

Think about that the fact that the entire population of a place has basically been replaced in under a generation, and with people who are chasing dollars and clout not people who are building communities. (And no this isn't about immigrants, Cali was always full of people from everywhere, it's about the personality that it attracts now.)

We all left and built other communities and business elsewhere because the place quite clearly told us we were not wanted there.

I'm not sure why people keep repeating fabricated GDP like it's some measure of success, especially when its completly measured on non-tangible products like the California economy.

Cali compared to Cali 40/50/100 years ago is wasteland and it pisses me off every day.

> e.g., Wyoming

Wyoming is an interesting case with Higher Ed. It's actually the legislature that runs UW. There isn't a regent board or some such thing. Hence, with many other priorities, the Cowboys don't get that much time in the minds of their bosses.

It's one of the many many wrinkles that come along with the many college football issues these days. Any formation of a players union or draft or much of any real professionalization of the sport has to go through so many different governance formations (regents, governors, the Catholic Church, etc). As such, the many issues with college ball are likely to continue for a long time and fester.

If you're wealthy enough or can pay cash for a modest property, you self insure. The only folks who cannot afford it are those who need a mortgage (requiring hazard/hurricane insurance) and cannot carry the monthly payment for the mortgage, taxes, and insurance (which can be upwards of $3k-$4k/month at current real estate price levels, even with a generous down payment).

Its a bad investment for your average homeowner considering forward curve of equity return and carrying costs, but its the cost of lifestyle if you're wealthy.

I borrowed privately in 2006 to pay off the last 20 K of my 50 K mortgage. Then dropped my insurance which was asking 5K a year - previously about 1 K. I am betting most wealthy folks build resilient structures and carry minimal insurance. If you can cover the costs easily, why pay for the administration and profit of the insurance companies. -- South Florida here. Direct hits from Francis and Jeane, Wilma was milder, but a spun off tornado took the roof off my business.

> Florida has astronomical home insurance rates due to hurricanes.

That puzzles me because people have figured out how to build hurricane proof homes there, and it's neither hard nor expensive.

It's sunny. As people get older they want the warmer weather. It's the retirement area of the US.

I'm a snow person that could not imagine life without 4 seasons, but as I get older I'm starting to 'get it' a bit.

It also doesn't take a lot of people for those transfers to show up in big numbers.

Florida is always #1 because it's the preferred destination of retirees. Old people have more money.

I was under the impression a big part of it relates to Florida bankruptcy law allowing individuals to discharge debts without losing a significant amount of their assets.

See: https://www.floridabar.org/public/consumer/pamphlet008/

At a glance, it looks like Chapter 7 bankruptcy is what I was remembering. There are significant exemptions for property, and the more recent amendments to the law to protect against abuse by wealthy individuals are laughably based on income.

It looks pretty easy to buy up a bunch of property in Florida, live there for two years to become eligible for the property exemptions, then declare Chapter 7 to wipe away outstanding debts with minimal-to-no losses.

Of course, respondents are free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something. My initial thought was based on hearsay, and my interpretation was based off quick skimming :)

FL is the same timezone as NY, and closer to fly to, and a non-trivial percent have moved only in terms of tax residency, not in terms of how they live their life. In practice "wealth moved to Florida" in these cases is "wealthy people have a home there as part of their overall portfolio of properties."

For a cohort of people who are on the road for work 25% of the time and/or own 2-5 homes, the concept of primary residence is mostly just a legal term. Can they sign a tax return to NYS/NYC tax authorities that they spent 183 days outside the state/city? Lots of people cheat on their taxes.

Therefore there's a wide spectrum of gray in terms of rich NYers "moving to Florida".

First guy I talked to at an NYC tech conference yesterday gave me a business card with his Miami work address (and NYC phone number..) after spending 5 minutes talking about how lived in the same NYC hood.

I know several NYers at/near retirement who plan to: sell NYC primary residence, buy a residence in Florida (change IDs, etc), then after 1 year of seasoning rent back a place in NYC they plan to spend as close to the 182 days/year in NYC that keeps them in tax compliance.