\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/28/the-states-that-are-seeing-a-boom-in-population-and-the-states-that-arent/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 So....to summarize people are leaving highly taxed areas for lower taxes areas. And of course throw in the token shot at DC continuing to grow under our bloated federal government as the exception. Who would have guessed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 So....to summarize people are leaving highly taxed areas for lower taxes areas. And of course throw in the token shot at DC continuing to grow under our bloated federal government as the exception. Who would have guessed..... The problem here is that the socialist party of birddog elects state and local officials who raise taxes on everyone in the name of social justice. These constituents, too stupid to realize they caused all the high taxes, move to a state with lower taxes, where they proceed to again elect state and local officials who raise taxes on everyone in the name of social justice. For a party that likes to think it's intellectually superior, it's all evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The problem here is that the socialist party of birddog elects state and local officials who raise taxes on everyone in the name of social justice. These constituents, too stupid to realize they caused all the high taxes, move to a state with lower taxes, where they proceed to again elect state and local officials who raise taxes on everyone in the name of social justice. For a party that likes to think it's intellectually superior, it's all evidence to the contrary. I've talked to people in traditionally low tax, conservative areas (in particular Texas and carolinas) where many of the native type people are getting mad that people are specifically moving to or retiring to from the notheast. The problem is the people moving specifically choose those states for their lower taxes and cost of living. Then they fail to realize the reason WHY they have lower taxes and then begin attempting to bring their typical liberal/union attitudes to these new areas and want everyone to believe how they believe. Except they fail to see the irony in their behavior and decisions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I've talked to people in traditionally low tax, conservative areas (in particular Texas and carolinas) where many of the native type people are getting mad that people are specifically moving to or retiring to from the notheast. The problem is the people moving specifically choose those states for their lower taxes and cost of living. Then they fail to realize the reason WHY they have lower taxes and then begin attempting to bring their typical liberal/union attitudes to these new areas and want everyone to believe how they believe. Except they fail to see the irony in their behavior and decisions.... This is very much the case in Texas, and especially in Austin. Lots of people coming in from California, as well as a lot of tech companies moving here. Austin was already a very liberal city though, so it's not we're experiencing a cultural shift of any kind. Everything is getting very expensive, though it's mainly because property values are skyrocketing. It's a textbook example of what a liberal city is really like - gentrification of several low-income neighborhoods are driving the residents further away, and we now have one of the greatest levels of income disparity in the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 This is very much the case in Texas, and especially in Austin. Lots of people coming in from California, as well as a lot of tech companies moving here. Austin was already a very liberal city though, so it's not we're experiencing a cultural shift of any kind. Everything is getting very expensive, though it's mainly because property values are skyrocketing. It's a textbook example of what a liberal city is really like - gentrification of several low-income neighborhoods are driving the residents further away, and we now have one of the greatest levels of income disparity in the nation. Sounds like DC too. Though it's wacky fun listening to people living in gentrified neighborhoods B word about the class disparity caused by gentrification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Sounds like DC too. Though it's wacky fun listening to people living in gentrified neighborhoods B word about the class disparity caused by gentrification. Here in SF they want to do away with suburbs and have everyone live in the city. I'm not sure why though. I guess they think that people that work in SF are too hip to live in the...gasp.....suburbs. Edited December 30, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Here in SF they want to do away with suburbs hand have everyone live in the city. I'm not sure why though. I guess they think that people that work in SF are too hip to live in the...gasp.....suburbs. I just read something about that. The logic was "The city is nicer, and greater demand will drive down housing costs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I just read something about that. The logic was "The city is nicer, and greater demand will drive down housing costs." Huh?? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Huh?? Seriously? It's Bernie Sanders math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I just read something about that. The logic was "The city is nicer, and greater demand will drive down housing costs." Envision a vertical supply line of houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Though it's wacky fun listening to people living in gentrified neighborhoods B word about the class disparity caused by gentrification. Same for Austin, and there's not enough Republicans here to blame it on. They're positively bewildered. The real fun will start when they begin for force low-income affordable housing into places like West Lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Here in SF they want to do away with suburbs and have everyone live in the city. I'm not sure why though. I guess they think that people that work in SF are too hip to live in the...gasp.....suburbs. Does that mean more people moving into the city limits or expanding the geographic size of what is the city? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Does that mean more people moving into the city limits or expanding the geographic size of what is the city? More moving to the city. As a peninsula SF is hard to expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 So....to summarize people are leaving highly taxed areas for lower taxes areas. And of course throw in the token shot at DC continuing to grow under our bloated federal government as the exception. Who would have guessed..... Kentucky, Alabama and Wyoming have high taxes? Actually Wyoming has the lowest taxes and still lost population. New Mexico also has low taxes and lost population. Sorry, but you analysis does not hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Kentucky, Alabama and Wyoming have high taxes? Actually Wyoming has the lowest taxes and still lost population. New Mexico also has low taxes and lost population. Sorry, but you analysis does not hold water. Cool good job cherry picking the outliers. Look at the trend, it will show that the majority of people are leaving areas of high taxes for areas of lower taxation. Except for Washington DC which the progressives have continued to steadily grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Cool good job cherry picking the outliers. Look at the trend, it will show that the majority of people are leaving areas of high taxes for areas of lower taxation. Except for Washington DC which the progressives have continued to steadily grow. If it weren't for cherry-picking outliers, he'd have nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) More moving to the city. As a peninsula SF is hard to expand. There are some liberal pols that want to move toward "regionalism" policies to force people in near suburbs to be subject to big city taxes and rules. Their belief is that suburbanites enjoy or work in cities and then go home to their cushy suburban homes and don't pay their fair share to support city schools and other city financial obligations. Broadening the definition of the city would allow them to get access to more suburban money. I thought possibly that this was what you might be referring to. The ex-governor here in Illinois wanted to impose a progressive property tax based on a combination of property value and owner income because he said it simply isn't right that higher wage earners not pay more in property taxes. Rahm is basically doing that in the city by raising property taxes but only on property worth more than $250K. Not surprised to see that Illinois is one of the leader states of defectors. My wife and I will be outta here in a few years. Edited December 30, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 There are some liberal pols that want to move toward "regionalism" policies to force people in near suburbs to be subject to big city taxes and rules. Their belief is that suburbanites enjoy or work in cities and then go home to their cushy suburban homes and don't pay their fair share to support city schools and other city financial obligations. Broadening the definition of the city would allow them to get access to more suburban money. I thought possibly that this was what you might be referring to. The ex-governor here in Illinois wanted to impose a progressive property tax based on a combination of property value and owner income because he said it simply isn't right that higher wage earners not pay more in property taxes. Rahm is basically doing that in the city by raising property taxes but only on property worth more than $250K. Not surprised to see that Illinois is one of the leader states of defectors. My wife and I will be outta here in a few years. I think that's part of their plan. So because we've chosen not to live in the filthy noisy city we should be punished financially? So the cities are not bringing in enough taxes from all the businesses that are there and all the $$ the tourists spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Cool good job cherry picking the outliers. Look at the trend, it will show that the majority of people are leaving areas of high taxes for areas of lower taxation. Except for Washington DC which the progressives have continued to steadily grow. One third of the states are "outliers?" Stop sniffing glue. You have any other evidence to support your ideologically crafted theory? The map kind of supports the theory that older rust belt Americans are moving to the south. But that wouldn't support your partisan beliefs, huh? Now California would be an outliner there, but, of course, its also attracting immigrants and actually saw a population increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts