6 ms·

IRS map tracking the migration of Americans and their income across states

17 points by mbgaxyz 9y ago

yuliyp 9y ago
I'm unsure of what this is measuring. Is it wealth? Is it income? Also, it's unclear it measures what it seeks to measure. Imagine a (poor) rural area and a (rich) urban area. Let's assume there's 0 net migration, but 100 people move in each direction every year. This looks like a migration of wealth given the methodology shown, but it's actually noise. Thus the point the author seems to be driving "look how bad California is at having pro-wealth policies" may be flawed. Any wealthy area is going to look redder than any poor area (unless there's also a net migration of people too). Reading the rest of the site it's clear he's just trying to push an agenda, though. He's not asking critical questions, just using words like "unimpeachable".
- petre 9y ago
  It measures capital flowing from the high tax (CA, NY) to the low tax states (TX, FL, WA).
  - Osiris 9y ago
    That may be one factor but certainly only one of many. Look at the mid-west. Kansas is a very low tax state and yet they are seeing capital fleeing the state.
  - asveikau 9y ago
    I clicked on California and it gave me a per-county view, and it seems like a bunch of counties (which pay the same California taxes) are green. I clicked San Francisco county and it seems like it's gaining money from other high tax areas (Santa Clara, New York, Chicago, DC, and Boston, in that order) and it's losing money to other, more suburban Bay Area counties. I don't see any low tax state mentioned in that view. As I click through on other states I'm familiar with or have lived in, the trend I'm seeing is that populated areas are all red. That makes me think about the comment here about retirements or regional income differences. There is some population-based skewing here.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cozzyd 9y ago
Not familiar with the author's agenda, but: 1) is this just showing retirement patterns? (I.e make lots of money in a state with higher income /cost of living then move somewhere cheaper/warmer once you stop making money? The reverse probably doesn't happen?) 2) Is this just mapping relative state incomes? I think people moving between states randomly would produce this pattern given income differences. I'm also not sure what the point is from a policy perspective. Even if the pattern is true doesn't necessarily mean that states should change their policies.
- tzs 9y ago
  > is this just showing retirement patterns? That's certainly a part of it, but there seems to be quite a bit more going on. For example, look at King County, Washington (Seattle's county). It has the biggest gain from Los Angeles County, CA. No way is that from people in Los Angeles deciding that Seattle is where they want to retire. The next biggest gain for King Country is from Leon County, FL (the country of Tallahassee). That too seems unlikely to have a significant retirement component. That's closely followed by Cook County, IL, which may actually be dismal enough climate-wise that someone might retire from there to Seattle. Rounding out the top 5 for King County are Santa Clara and San Mateo in CA, both which seem unlikely to be due to retirement. The biggest losses from King County are the four nearest counties that are on Puget Sound (Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, and Island), and the southernmost Washington county, Clark, which is on the Oregon border across from Portland. These probably aren't retirements. I wonder how much of the Clark thing is people who have realized that if they live there they can easily shop in Portland (no sales tax) while living in Washington (no income tax)? Looking across Puget Sound to Kitsap, we do some some signs of retirement. Of the top 5 Kitsap had losses to, there are three adjacent counties, one that is one away, and Maricopa County, AZ. That last one is probably retirement.
  - cozzyd 9y ago
    Yeah, this is a strange pattern at the metro level. Same seems to hold true for my county (Cook County). I wonder if somehow the web site is counting income generated by commuters from collar counties as income lost by the main city. EDIT: No, I'm wrong. The statistics are starting in 1992, so mostly it's just showing the growth of suburbs. It's more obvious if you click on population mode.
hinkley 9y ago
Another informatic with no legend. :|
abusoufiyan 9y ago
I mean, all this is a fancy way of saying "I made a map where high income tax counties and states are red and low income tax states and counties are green."
- tzs 9y ago
  Try clicking on states and looking at the information that is then shown on the left. Try the same for counties within a state. That's where you get the interesting information.
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    I did, it just shows a ticker of AGI lost / gained per second. But that's still just a calculation of how much income tax a particular state / county has...
    - tzs 9y ago
      Look below the ticker, where it shows a table of the top 5 states or counties (depending on if you are looking at a state or a county) the current state or county gained from, and the amounts from each, and below that a similar table for losses.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
I can't stand sites like these. A clear agenda, but rather than come out Nd say it, wrap it up in a collection of misleading graphs and stats. The clear agenda is to push for cutting taxes no matter what. But it takes a relatively intelligent person a few mins to investigate the site to show that it's roughly nothing more than listing high income state in red and low income in green. If CA is twice as wealthy as AL, and two families swap states, then you'll have net money flowing out. And it's not accidental the coloring of red and green to implicitly associate one with good and bad. It of course flipped to support his agenda. He should instead reverse the colors and ask the question, "Which state is growing / producing the most wealthy people? And sharing that wealth throughout the country?" It's of course, CA/NY/DC/MA/... All those places he wants to try to paint poorly.

17 points by mbgaxyz 9y ago

I'm unsure of what this is measuring. Is it wealth? Is it income? Also, it's unclear it measures what it seeks to measure. Imagine a (poor) rural area and a (rich) urban area. Let's assume there's 0 net migration, but 100 people move in each direction every year. This looks like a migration of wealth given the methodology shown, but it's actually noise. Thus the point the author seems to be driving "look how bad California is at having pro-wealth policies" may be flawed. Any wealthy area is going to look redder than any poor area (unless there's also a net migration of people too). Reading the rest of the site it's clear he's just trying to push an agenda, though. He's not asking critical questions, just using words like "unimpeachable".

petre 9y ago
It measures capital flowing from the high tax (CA, NY) to the low tax states (TX, FL, WA).
- Osiris 9y ago
  That may be one factor but certainly only one of many. Look at the mid-west. Kansas is a very low tax state and yet they are seeing capital fleeing the state.
- asveikau 9y ago
  I clicked on California and it gave me a per-county view, and it seems like a bunch of counties (which pay the same California taxes) are green. I clicked San Francisco county and it seems like it's gaining money from other high tax areas (Santa Clara, New York, Chicago, DC, and Boston, in that order) and it's losing money to other, more suburban Bay Area counties. I don't see any low tax state mentioned in that view. As I click through on other states I'm familiar with or have lived in, the trend I'm seeing is that populated areas are all red. That makes me think about the comment here about retirements or regional income differences. There is some population-based skewing here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cozzyd 9y ago

Not familiar with the author's agenda, but: 1) is this just showing retirement patterns? (I.e make lots of money in a state with higher income /cost of living then move somewhere cheaper/warmer once you stop making money? The reverse probably doesn't happen?) 2) Is this just mapping relative state incomes? I think people moving between states randomly would produce this pattern given income differences. I'm also not sure what the point is from a policy perspective. Even if the pattern is true doesn't necessarily mean that states should change their policies.

tzs 9y ago
> is this just showing retirement patterns? That's certainly a part of it, but there seems to be quite a bit more going on. For example, look at King County, Washington (Seattle's county). It has the biggest gain from Los Angeles County, CA. No way is that from people in Los Angeles deciding that Seattle is where they want to retire. The next biggest gain for King Country is from Leon County, FL (the country of Tallahassee). That too seems unlikely to have a significant retirement component. That's closely followed by Cook County, IL, which may actually be dismal enough climate-wise that someone might retire from there to Seattle. Rounding out the top 5 for King County are Santa Clara and San Mateo in CA, both which seem unlikely to be due to retirement. The biggest losses from King County are the four nearest counties that are on Puget Sound (Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, and Island), and the southernmost Washington county, Clark, which is on the Oregon border across from Portland. These probably aren't retirements. I wonder how much of the Clark thing is people who have realized that if they live there they can easily shop in Portland (no sales tax) while living in Washington (no income tax)? Looking across Puget Sound to Kitsap, we do some some signs of retirement. Of the top 5 Kitsap had losses to, there are three adjacent counties, one that is one away, and Maricopa County, AZ. That last one is probably retirement.
- cozzyd 9y ago
  Yeah, this is a strange pattern at the metro level. Same seems to hold true for my county (Cook County). I wonder if somehow the web site is counting income generated by commuters from collar counties as income lost by the main city. EDIT: No, I'm wrong. The statistics are starting in 1992, so mostly it's just showing the growth of suburbs. It's more obvious if you click on population mode.

hinkley 9y ago

Another informatic with no legend. :|

abusoufiyan 9y ago

I mean, all this is a fancy way of saying "I made a map where high income tax counties and states are red and low income tax states and counties are green."

tzs 9y ago
Try clicking on states and looking at the information that is then shown on the left. Try the same for counties within a state. That's where you get the interesting information.
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  I did, it just shows a ticker of AGI lost / gained per second. But that's still just a calculation of how much income tax a particular state / county has...
  - tzs 9y ago
    Look below the ticker, where it shows a table of the top 5 states or counties (depending on if you are looking at a state or a county) the current state or county gained from, and the amounts from each, and below that a similar table for losses.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

I can't stand sites like these. A clear agenda, but rather than come out Nd say it, wrap it up in a collection of misleading graphs and stats. The clear agenda is to push for cutting taxes no matter what. But it takes a relatively intelligent person a few mins to investigate the site to show that it's roughly nothing more than listing high income state in red and low income in green. If CA is twice as wealthy as AL, and two families swap states, then you'll have net money flowing out. And it's not accidental the coloring of red and green to implicitly associate one with good and bad. It of course flipped to support his agenda. He should instead reverse the colors and ask the question, "Which state is growing / producing the most wealthy people? And sharing that wealth throughout the country?" It's of course, CA/NY/DC/MA/... All those places he wants to try to paint poorly.