First, state taxes are in general much less than federal taxes. High-tax states tend to have higher per capita incomes, resulting in federal grants to states that tend to move benefits from high-tax states to low-tax states. So high-tax states get better states benefits, but are penalized by the federal government’s policies.

Second, those people that move to low-tax states- they’re moving there from high-tax states. They may not realize it, but they’ve become accustomed to all the services those taxes provide. When a critical mass of such people arrive (as is starting to happen now with New Yorkers in many parts of North Carolina), these new arrivals start demanding the services they used to take for granted. Taxes rise.

If there is validity to the claim that people prefer low-tax states, it is (at least in part) either because of a form of arbitrage- some services are being offered in states while residents of other states indirectly pay for them, or because of the ability of citizens to become accustomed to services (consider them the norm) and not take them into account when deciding to move, as opposed to more easily quantified items like taxes.

While I think the above article is more accurate than some give it credit for, in a way I wish they were right that fewer people were moving here–and not just for oil jobs which is such a cliche notion, as if all we have are cows and drills–because some of those people moving will settle and then vote in the very restrictive taxes that they moved to escape.

However, it seems to me that our tax dollars don’t just disappear, anyway. They turn into salaries for government workers, contractors and teachers as well as educations for our children. Government workers take those salaries and spend them on food at grocery stores, tipping wait staff and clothing, etc. Taxes are the most effective way (or should be if we didn’t have disproportionatly low taxes on our richest citizens) of moving money from the top of the tax bracket back to the bottom where it can start moving back up again.

The big problem with the “trickle down” theory has always been that money doesn’t trickle down, it flows up. People at the bottom always give their money to the wealthy who own their mortgages, grocery stores and clothing outlets. But, only some of tha money comes back down in the form of salaries. A lot of it ends up in CD’s and overseas bank accounts which takes it out of circulation, slowing the economy. Taxes are a necessary method of moving money around.

I bid the rotting zombie remains of the LA Times bon voyage upon their impending relocation to Houston!

The value of services to taxes is an interesting metric, but needs to be broken down item by item to have any real meaning. For example, CA has huge costs paying not only for it’s many State workers, but paying extra for relatively low skilled workers that are well unionized, labor that’s overvalued compared to what can be had in states where unions are relatively toothless. This is an example where high taxes don’t translate into better or more services, just higher overhead.

Interestingly, CA is one of those states that tends to pay more into the federal system than it gets back. Western, Northeastern, and mid Northern States tend to get back less in funds than they pay out. It is curious that who pays also seems to correlate roughly with Blue and Red States politically, Red States tending to receive more than they pay, Blue States tending to pay out more than they get. Basically, Blue subsidizes Red. It’d be really interesting to find what kind of dynamic is at work there.

There are probably better ways to measure the net benefits of various state tax/benefit systems.

This smells like a libertarian-republican spin job.

For instance, the “top” schools besides CA are found here:

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_level_Elementary_Cou ntyID_0.html

And…

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_level_Middle_CountyI D_0.html

And if you look at what each state spends per pupil, found here:
http://www.epodunk.com/top10/per_pupil/index.html

You do see a general trend, there is exceptions no doubt. But the states that spend more on students seem to produce better students. This is just using that tax money wisely.

Not to echo Neal too closely or anything, but it’s remarkable the extent to which people are still surprised or “intrigued” by inefficiencies in government.

That would be better than the truth. The truth is money is being borrowed by the billions. If they only had our taxes they would have to make some big spending cuts.

How about a much more direct measure of what people want? I suggest that from time to time qualified members of the public should be allowed to pick how they’re governed – perhaps in some sort of ballot.