I'm not sure this article is accurate. I started here: https://mises.org/blog/california-illinois-and-new-york-keep-losing-people-other-states https://mises.or

I'm not sure this article is accurate. I started here: https://mises.org/blog/california-illinois-and-new-york-keep-losing-people-other-states https://mises.org/blog/california-illinois-and-new-york-keep... >This is why places with highly progressive income taxes – >such as New York and California – still thrive as centres >for talent and elite economic success. It it tax policy, or is it the thriving academic|tech|financial mass that accumulated due to historical events, an attractive climate, and defense related spending? I'm pretty sure its not tax policy. >Migration is a young person’s game, and moving >overwhelmingly occurs when people are starting >their careers. By the time people hit their early forties, PhDs, college grads and high >school drop-outs all show the same low rate of migration. Is it primarily young people migrating? I ask because two generations of cold climate dwellers have migrated to Florida, Arizona, North Carolin and California. This has left many of their former states with high taxes and declining populations. And according to the Tax Foundation: "Between 1999 and 2010, high-tax New York, New Jersey, and California lost about 1.2 million individual taxpayers and more than $97 billion of personal income. This does not include the corporate losses. Meanwhile, low-tax Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota –not known for their magnificent climates – gained about 172 thousand individual taxpayers and $15 billion of personal income during the same period, again not including corporate losses. People are moving to these states and their money is following. Certainly this trend is not a coincidence."