4 ms·

It won't be for long! Taxes and spending in Seattle have shot way, way up, far in excess of the recent population growth.

Analemma_ 8y ago
The insistence that Americans migrate away from high-tax areas doesn't seem to be supported by the facts. Connecticut and the Bay Area are losing population, but so are heartland states like Kansas. Seattle is the fastest-growing area in the country, but close behind is Texas. I don't think partisans on either side of this question have an empirical leg to stand on.
- maxharris 8y ago
  I lived in Seattle for three years, and I just moved away two months ago.
- kevinrpope 8y ago
  I tend to agree with you, but Seattle is in a state with 0% income tax, so just because the city’s taxes are rising doesn’t mean they’re net higher than other large cities.
  - doublerebel 8y ago
    Yes, and Texas also has no state income tax. Both are friendly places to small business.
    - Analemma_ 8y ago
      Which I think is the answer to the puzzle: the job and housing markets matter a lot more than the tax situation.
      - lend000 8y ago
        It seems like this thread proved the opposite of the point you were trying to make -- that Americans are indeed migrating to states with no state income tax?
        dgemm 8y ago
        It hasn't "proved" anything, it's just two cherry picked examples
    - mempko 8y ago
      Texas is not friendly to small business. Small businesses require customers. Texas has a lot of poor people, who typically don't shop. Seattle has a lot of well off people with disposable income. If there are no customers, low taxes don't mean much.
      - driverdan 8y ago
        Not relevant to an online tech startup. Also not even true since TX is a very large state with plenty of wealthy people.
  - Kyragem 8y ago
    Nevada 0% income tax, 30 minutes flying from the Bay Area + 300 days of sunshine
- adventured 8y ago
  Kansas isn't losing population and neither is the heartland. Both have been growing slowly and non-stop since the mid 1960s. Kansas hasn't had a single population decline, year over year, in about 50 years. Kansas: 2000: 2,694,000 2010: 2,859,000 2017: 2,913,000 These are all consistently increasing year after year: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio. Illinois is hit or miss, however it's up a million people over 20 years. Michigan is the only one that has particularly struggled. Its population remains above where it was 20 years ago; it's about 50k people (~0.5%) below its 2004 record high. Connecticut is definitely struggling, they've seen zero growth over seven or eight years, and comparatively little growth over 40 years despite being an affluent state.
  - ardme 8y ago
    I disagree with this in spirit. The rustbelt is not losing population but it is stagnating compared to rest of the nation. I'm from Ohio and I noticed something startling looking at population stats - before 1970 population was increasing at double digit rates many decades. After 1970, very low single digits (some decades less than 1% growth). In 1970 the population was 10,652,017, while in 2017 it is estimated at only 11,658,609. The population is barely replacing itself. If you look at other rust belt states you will see a similar trend, and I believe it is due to people moving away looking for work, starting in the 70s. The decline of the auto and manufacturing industries here is likely to blame. The same trends generally apply for Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky and Indiana. In Pennsylvania the trend started much earlier which maybe follows the steel industry decline. Anecdotally much more than half of the people I keep in contact with from high school and college in Ohio have moved away, myself included.
    - adventured 8y ago
      That's why I was very specific when I pointed out that the population growth has been slow. There was no confusion about rapid growth (although some of these states are growing quite solidly, Minnesota for example). The parent was clear about the claim: Kansas and similar heartland states are losing population. It's false. Over decades there's a massive difference between gaining 0.3% (or similar) population per year and losing 0.3% per year. Kansas gained 1/3 more people over 50 years. Had that gone the other direction persistently, they'd barely exist as a state today. Contrast that with Germany over that time, which has seen maybe 5% growth. Germany would have loved to have 33% growth over 50 years. Or the Baltic states, which are more comparable in size to a Kansas - zero net growth over 50 years. Now that's stagnation. Or put it into more concrete economic terms. With the additional 1/3 more people, Kansas has an extra $38 billion in annual GDP output today, a total of ~$160 billion. Had they gently gone the other way, and declined slowly over time, it would be more like $60 or $70 billion today. It's a huge difference. They have a GDP per capita higher than Sweden, so when you can organically add 1/3 more people to that, it's a very meaningful economic result.
forapurpose 8y ago
> It won't be for long! Taxes and spending in Seattle have shot way, way up There's an argument that places with lower taxes and lower government investment attract and are better for businesses. The evidence in the U.S. seems to be overwhelmingly otherwise. The states with the lowest taxes and investment are the poorest; all the great American industries, from automobiles to finance to IT to education to many others, started in high tax/investment locals, boomed there, and remain there. Perhaps investment is a good way to yield returns.
- seehafer 8y ago
  Texas would beg to differ with this assessment
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Texas would beg to differ with this assessment OK, what great U.S. industries were born, boomed, and remain in Texas? Oil doesn't count; that's a coincidence of geology and geography. I also said states with low tax and investment were relatively poor; Texas' median income is below the U.S. median (which is true of almost all the die-hard red states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income EDIT: A few edits

Analemma_ 8y ago

The insistence that Americans migrate away from high-tax areas doesn't seem to be supported by the facts. Connecticut and the Bay Area are losing population, but so are heartland states like Kansas. Seattle is the fastest-growing area in the country, but close behind is Texas. I don't think partisans on either side of this question have an empirical leg to stand on.

maxharris 8y ago
I lived in Seattle for three years, and I just moved away two months ago.
kevinrpope 8y ago
I tend to agree with you, but Seattle is in a state with 0% income tax, so just because the city’s taxes are rising doesn’t mean they’re net higher than other large cities.
- doublerebel 8y ago
  Yes, and Texas also has no state income tax. Both are friendly places to small business.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    Which I think is the answer to the puzzle: the job and housing markets matter a lot more than the tax situation.
    - lend000 8y ago
      It seems like this thread proved the opposite of the point you were trying to make -- that Americans are indeed migrating to states with no state income tax?
      - dgemm 8y ago
        It hasn't "proved" anything, it's just two cherry picked examples
  - mempko 8y ago
    Texas is not friendly to small business. Small businesses require customers. Texas has a lot of poor people, who typically don't shop. Seattle has a lot of well off people with disposable income. If there are no customers, low taxes don't mean much.
    - driverdan 8y ago
      Not relevant to an online tech startup. Also not even true since TX is a very large state with plenty of wealthy people.
- Kyragem 8y ago
  Nevada 0% income tax, 30 minutes flying from the Bay Area + 300 days of sunshine
adventured 8y ago
Kansas isn't losing population and neither is the heartland. Both have been growing slowly and non-stop since the mid 1960s. Kansas hasn't had a single population decline, year over year, in about 50 years. Kansas: 2000: 2,694,000 2010: 2,859,000 2017: 2,913,000 These are all consistently increasing year after year: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio. Illinois is hit or miss, however it's up a million people over 20 years. Michigan is the only one that has particularly struggled. Its population remains above where it was 20 years ago; it's about 50k people (~0.5%) below its 2004 record high. Connecticut is definitely struggling, they've seen zero growth over seven or eight years, and comparatively little growth over 40 years despite being an affluent state.
- ardme 8y ago
  I disagree with this in spirit. The rustbelt is not losing population but it is stagnating compared to rest of the nation. I'm from Ohio and I noticed something startling looking at population stats - before 1970 population was increasing at double digit rates many decades. After 1970, very low single digits (some decades less than 1% growth). In 1970 the population was 10,652,017, while in 2017 it is estimated at only 11,658,609. The population is barely replacing itself. If you look at other rust belt states you will see a similar trend, and I believe it is due to people moving away looking for work, starting in the 70s. The decline of the auto and manufacturing industries here is likely to blame. The same trends generally apply for Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky and Indiana. In Pennsylvania the trend started much earlier which maybe follows the steel industry decline. Anecdotally much more than half of the people I keep in contact with from high school and college in Ohio have moved away, myself included.
  - adventured 8y ago
    That's why I was very specific when I pointed out that the population growth has been slow. There was no confusion about rapid growth (although some of these states are growing quite solidly, Minnesota for example). The parent was clear about the claim: Kansas and similar heartland states are losing population. It's false. Over decades there's a massive difference between gaining 0.3% (or similar) population per year and losing 0.3% per year. Kansas gained 1/3 more people over 50 years. Had that gone the other direction persistently, they'd barely exist as a state today. Contrast that with Germany over that time, which has seen maybe 5% growth. Germany would have loved to have 33% growth over 50 years. Or the Baltic states, which are more comparable in size to a Kansas - zero net growth over 50 years. Now that's stagnation. Or put it into more concrete economic terms. With the additional 1/3 more people, Kansas has an extra $38 billion in annual GDP output today, a total of ~$160 billion. Had they gently gone the other way, and declined slowly over time, it would be more like $60 or $70 billion today. It's a huge difference. They have a GDP per capita higher than Sweden, so when you can organically add 1/3 more people to that, it's a very meaningful economic result.

forapurpose 8y ago

> It won't be for long! Taxes and spending in Seattle have shot way, way up There's an argument that places with lower taxes and lower government investment attract and are better for businesses. The evidence in the U.S. seems to be overwhelmingly otherwise. The states with the lowest taxes and investment are the poorest; all the great American industries, from automobiles to finance to IT to education to many others, started in high tax/investment locals, boomed there, and remain there. Perhaps investment is a good way to yield returns.

seehafer 8y ago
Texas would beg to differ with this assessment
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Texas would beg to differ with this assessment OK, what great U.S. industries were born, boomed, and remain in Texas? Oil doesn't count; that's a coincidence of geology and geography. I also said states with low tax and investment were relatively poor; Texas' median income is below the U.S. median (which is true of almost all the die-hard red states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income EDIT: A few edits