Your numbers are way off - that’s only for the initial income tax. You also need to account for the sales tax (impacting cities and counties) and then the circu

Your numbers are way off - that’s only for the initial income tax. You also need to account for the sales tax (impacting cities and counties) and then the circulation of that wealth and the tax on that as well. Ultimately, all money in circulation eventually goes into taxes. Put another way, if I trade something and receive $100 and 10% of that must be sent to the gov. I now have $90. I take that $90 and buy something, that person now has to pay $9 to gov and they have $81.. and so on. Hopefully, people also use that money to generate new goods and thus generate more capital inflows to the state. When that happens, the state gains more wealth via taxes. That loss is likely closer to $11.25B ($150k * 75k) than $1.38B. (Note I’m not using exact numbers, just pointing out the $11.25B upper bound) That said, I do think the article is conflating. In reality: job loss, migration out of the state and generally sluggish economy is going to lead to the deficit, not just the migration.