Golisano changing residency to save cash

[Stoner]

Actually, I think you pretty much nailed it, though I would add that technological changes (air conditioning) played a major role in making the South livable, combined with heavy federal investment in highways and the defense establishment, which also enriched the sun belt. Those federal investments, paid for by taxes from elsewhere in the country, and the demographic Ponzi scheme of luring people from high tax states after they have completed their education without making appropriate investments in their own educational establishments both undermine any claims by Sunbelters that their "small gubmint" principles are the basis of their prosperity....

 

George Will, is that you?

[ReneRobert]

George Will, is that you?

 

 

*Adjusting my bow tie*

 

I have no idea what you are talking about, kind sir.

[nfreeman]

I haven't studied this. But the population drains in a lot of places in the Rust Belt started just after World War II. There was a big recession after the war. Millions of GIs had seen the world and came home to the GI Bill. There was a housing boom. And a baby boom. The interstate highway system flourished. For the first time most people had cars. Air travel. Television. People could see that the grass was greener somewhere else. Our society became more mobile. My theory is that all of this led to the beginning of The Flee. (And the 60s forced even more people out of the inner cities.) All of this led to higher taxes. And the vicious circle.

 

I don't think taxes all of a sudden shot up in Buffalo and New York in the 40s and 50s, forcing people to say, "Hey, (insert name of southern or western hot spot at the time) sounds like a great place to live!"

 

As usual, I could be totally full of it.

Why did all this lead to higher taxes? Because there were fewer people to pay for stuff? If there were fewer people, shouldn't public spending have been cut (since there were fewer people to consume public resources)?

 

As a historical matter, NYS didn't levy an income tax until 1919. It started at a top end of 3%, which grew to 8% during the 1920s, stayed at about that level for a while, then hit 15% in the 1960s. Florida banned the state income tax in 1924 expressly to lure people and companies to locate there. Illinois has a income tax, but it's a flat 3%. Texas doesn't have one, and people have been living there for a long time.

 

In any case, I think the chicken-egg question is besides the point. States with big (and growing) populations need to provide the same basic services -- hospitals, schools, police, roads, etc. -- to their citizens regardless of what part of the country they're in. Those services cost money. The key questions are: (i) how much money will they cost -- ie how good of a job in controlling costs does the state do and (ii) where does the money come from? The first question is an exercise in comparing levels of greed, corruption and incompetence from one state to the next (although I'm confident that NYS is near the bottom).

 

The second question is really what we're talking about, since we're looking to discuss something besides "fire lindy/quinn sucks." I think it's pretty clear the states that have thrived in the past 30 years or so are those who have made themselves more appealing economically to both individuals and companies. California and NY are suffering huge population outflows. Florida, Texas, Nevada, Tennessee (which has no income tax on wages, just dividends/cap gains) are growing by leaps and bounds.

 

When Honda or Toyota is looking to build a new plant and employ 4000 people (not counting the economic boomlet that results from all those new jobs), NYS tells them to pay fees, pay the unions, pay the government, fill out forms, get in line, and we'll discuss it in a few years. Tennessee bends over backwards and builds them access roads, plumbing, electric, gives tax waivers, etc, etc. The decision-makers look at the economics -- which go straight to the bottom line, both personally and for the company -- and the decision is easy.

 

It's not a coincidence.

[Stoner]

Why did all this lead to higher taxes? Because there were fewer people to pay for stuff? If there were fewer people, shouldn't public spending have been cut (since there were fewer people to consume public resources)?

 

Spending can't always be cut in proportion to population decline. Take a street with 500 residents. If 10 years later, there are 400 residents, the city still has to plow it, sand it, sweep it, repave it, etc. When it comes to cops and firefighters, there should be a decline in their numbers as the population goes down, but it really can't be proportional. You still have the same number of buildings to protect, empty or not. And consider all the suburbanites who work in said declining city center. They put stress on local emergency management. Government can be leaner, yes. Who's the politician who is working toward consolidating Erie County government? But he is up against the status quo. Government rarely gives back power, or steps back from the public trough.

 

I think it's common sense that fewer taxpayers=higher taxes.

[billsrcursed]

Considering Golisano's total wealth, what do these taxes amount to? Carp can do the math ("Do the math" I command thee), but it's probably like the average worker dropping a 20 dollar bill on a pizza and tip (if it's a cool -- I mean frightening -- delivery guy).

 

Seriously, I wouldn't move to Florida for love nor money. Humidity, insects and large people showing their nether regions. Hell on Earth.

 

 

That's one of the more ignorant statements I've read about Florida lately. Not original, but ignorant nonetheless.

 

That's like me making general comments about NY'ers being rude, foul-mouthed self-loathers..... wait.... :ph34r:

 

Not all of Florida is like that, except for the Humidity, which in case you haven't been outside in the Summer time in Buffalo, isn't that much worse than WNY. In fact, I was up 2 summers ago and couldn't wait to get back to Florida because the humidity in Buffalo was SO bad. Daytona-Orlando region is actually quite nice. Great economy, good people, nice neighborhoods (mostly).... the downsides would be food and of course, Hurricanes/tropical storms. It's not a bunch of naked old people scurrying around trying to avoid flesh eating bugs......that's West Palm Beach!

[nfreeman]

Spending can't always be cut in proportion to population decline. Take a street with 500 residents. If 10 years later, there are 400 residents, the city still has to plow it, sand it, sweep it, repave it, etc. When it comes to cops and firefighters, there should be a decline in their numbers as the population goes down, but it really can't be proportional. You still have the same number of buildings to protect, empty or not. And consider all the suburbanites who work in said declining city center. They put stress on local emergency management. Government can be leaner, yes. Who's the politician who is working toward consolidating Erie County government? But he is up against the status quo. Government rarely gives back power, or steps back from the public trough.

 

I think it's common sense that fewer taxpayers=higher taxes.

While your point is valid about not being able to cut costs directly in proportion to population decline, the fewer taxpayers=higher taxes just doesn't follow. There are low-population states with high taxes and low-population states with low taxes. Same goes for high-population states.

 

The core principle, however, remains that high taxes drive people away. In NYS, for example, your theory about post-war air conditioning and better roads, not high taxes, causing population decline isn't borne out by the facts -- NYS' population rose from about 10MM in the 1920s to 18MM in 1970 -- at which point (right when the state income tax peaked, by the way) it leveled off and actually shrank a bit.

 

I certainly agree that government rarely gives up power or money.

[Stoner]

While your point is valid about not being able to cut costs directly in proportion to population decline, the fewer taxpayers=higher taxes just doesn't follow. There are low-population states with high taxes and low-population states with low taxes. Same goes for high-population states.

 

The core principle, however, remains that high taxes drive people away. In NYS, for example, your theory about post-war air conditioning and better roads, not high taxes, causing population decline isn't borne out by the facts -- NYS' population rose from about 10MM in the 1920s to 18MM in 1970 -- at which point (right when the state income tax peaked, by the way) it leveled off and actually shrank a bit.

 

I certainly agree that government rarely gives up power or money.

 

I think there a lot of factors that explain Buffalo's population loss. The city's population peaked in 1950 or so. You can look at a bunch of Rust Belt cities and see the same trend. Something more than taxes must explain at least the initial impetus for people moving.

 

My argument was that when population goes down, taxes go up, because there are fewer taxpayers to share the burden that doesn't pack up and move to Raleigh. Not that in places where population is already low that taxes are necessarily high.

 

Man, the BS is flowing now. :) It's a very interesting subject that would be, uh, interesting to study. Our perceptions always get changed by the facts. As for money being the determining factor in human behavior, I dunno. Maybe the desire for a more fulfilling career, better schools for the kids, a safer neighborhood or even the weather explains a lot of the Buffalo diaspora.

[ReneRobert]

First if all, it was I who mentioned roads and air conditioning... and if you do not think that such factors have played a major role in the growth of the sun belt, then you know nothing about the history of the second half of the 20th Century.

 

Second of all, the blanket statement that high taxes=population decline is contradicted by the population numbers of New York City, where people pay not only state but also local income taxes.

 

Of course, you will say, other factors keep people in NYC. I would not disagree. But reflexively blaming high taxes is a myopic way to understand social and population change.

 

 

While your point is valid about not being able to cut costs directly in proportion to population decline, the fewer taxpayers=higher taxes just doesn't follow. There are low-population states with high taxes and low-population states with low taxes. Same goes for high-population states.

 

The core principle, however, remains that high taxes drive people away. In NYS, for example, your theory about post-war air conditioning and better roads, not high taxes, causing population decline isn't borne out by the facts -- NYS' population rose from about 10MM in the 1920s to 18MM in 1970 -- at which point (right when the state income tax peaked, by the way) it leveled off and actually shrank a bit.

 

I certainly agree that government rarely gives up power or money.

[gregkash]

1. Well, he's not running against Paterson, then.

 

2. Florida taxes = Florida schools. No, I'm not interested in an argument about politics.

 

having gone to high school in NY and in FL, i can tell you, NY Schools are by far the superior schools.

[nfreeman]

First if all, it was I who mentioned roads and air conditioning... and if you do not think that such factors have played a major role in the growth of the sun belt, then you know nothing about the history of the second half of the 20th Century.

 

Second of all, the blanket statement that high taxes=population decline is contradicted by the population numbers of New York City, where people pay not only state but also local income taxes.

 

Of course, you will say, other factors keep people in NYC. I would not disagree. But reflexively blaming high taxes is a myopic way to understand social and population change.

Of course roads and a/c played a role. But here's the bottom line: if you are a company deciding where to situate a new factory or corporate HQ, or if you are wealthy and deciding where to live, the tax load plays a huge role -- probably the deciding role in the corporate context -- in the decision. That's just the truth, and it's why Buffalo, Rochester and all of NYS outside of NYC are dying on the vine.

 

As far as NYC, it's worth noting that Greenwich, CT has become a haven for fund managers solely because of the reduced tax load relative to NYC.

 

having gone to high school in NY and in FL, i can tell you, NY Schools are by far the superior schools.

How many high schools in each state did you attend? Not trying to be obnoxious, but your personal experience can't possibly prove anything about 2 states with 18MM people each.

[darksabre]

How many high schools in each state did you attend? Not trying to be obnoxious, but your personal experience can't possibly prove anything about 2 states with 18MM people each.

 

It doesn't matter, the truth is that most northern schools are simply better. I have cousins that go to regular public schools in Georgia and they learn English in ebonics, which is absurd. There might be good schools in FLA and the south, no one is discounting that. But the chance of receiving a better education in northern states is much higher, which is something that you'd be hard pressed to get me to admit, because I believe that education in NYS is less beneficial than it once was. When I think about how my parents were subject to the track system in NY, I feel like my education was considerably dumbed down compared to what they experienced in the 60's. I feel like high school was far too easy and that had I been legitimately pushed to be a better student, I would have been. But schools now are all about graduation rates; lowering standards. My education suffered at the hands of people who felt I didn't need to be challenged. Screw the modern education system; it is a failure of the modern era of "everyone should be able to succeed". I should have been hammered on as a high schooler; I was a slacker and still managed to be an honors student. I should never have been such.

 

An education on modern America is not what it once was.

[BuffalOhio]

Thirteen thousand eight hundred dollers A DAY in income tax. A DAY!

 

"New York has the highest combined local and state taxes in the nation."

 

That is why the state is dying.

[SwampD]

Thirteen thousand eight hundred dollers A DAY in income tax. A DAY!

 

"New York has the highest combined local and state taxes in the nation."

 

That is why the state is dying.

I think New Jersey has actually taken over the number one spot the last couple of years. I have a friend that pays 12 grand a year in property taxes, and STILL has to pay for his own garbage removal.

 

Taxes aren't the problem. Lower paying, industrial jobs moving to India and Malaysia are. Paying someone $50/month instead of $50 an hour, with benefits, is much more attractive to the corporate guy who sits in his 47th floor office in New York. What does he care about WNY?...he still calls it Upstate NY. If you have the money you'll pay the taxes.

[nfreeman]

It doesn't matter, the truth is that most northern schools are simply better. I have cousins that go to regular public schools in Georgia and they learn English in ebonics, which is absurd. There might be good schools in FLA and the south, no one is discounting that. But the chance of receiving a better education in northern states is much higher, which is something that you'd be hard pressed to get me to admit, because I believe that education in NYS is less beneficial than it once was. When I think about how my parents were subject to the track system in NY, I feel like my education was considerably dumbed down compared to what they experienced in the 60's. I feel like high school was far too easy and that had I been legitimately pushed to be a better student, I would have been. But schools now are all about graduation rates; lowering standards. My education suffered at the hands of people who felt I didn't need to be challenged. Screw the modern education system; it is a failure of the modern era of "everyone should be able to succeed". I should have been hammered on as a high schooler; I was a slacker and still managed to be an honors student. I should never have been such.

 

An education on modern America is not what it once was.

While I certainly agree that American public education has declined in quality substantially over the past generation, the bolded statement is simply nonsense. The public schools in DC are well known for, every year, leading the nation in per-pupil spending and still coming in dead last in student achievement. Schools vary greatly from one town to the next in every state. This is because most facets of public education (including funding) are controlled locally.

 

I think New Jersey has actually taken over the number one spot the last couple of years. I have a friend that pays 12 grand a year in property taxes, and STILL has to pay for his own garbage removal.

 

Taxes aren't the problem. Lower paying, industrial jobs moving to India and Malaysia are. Paying someone $50/month instead of $50 an hour, with benefits, is much more attractive to the corporate guy who sits in his 47th floor office in New York. What does he care about WNY?...he still calls it Upstate NY. If you have the money you'll pay the taxes.

Doesn't Golisano have the money?

[red]

yet somehow, the same idiot politicians who ARE RESPONSIBLE for the rate of taxation and hikes in NY keep getting re-elected; as if they had performed admirably to date.

 

NY is the ultimate welfare state in the nation.

 

On the positive side, now we know that Golisano has an additional $5 million per season to spend on the Sabres roster.

 

*paid for by the committee to terminate Larry Quinn*

[red]

Spending can't always be cut in proportion to population decline. Take a street with 500 residents. If 10 years later, there are 400 residents, the city still has to plow it, sand it, sweep it, repave it, etc. When it comes to cops and firefighters, there should be a decline in their numbers as the population goes down, but it really can't be proportional. You still have the same number of buildings to protect, empty or not. And consider all the suburbanites who work in said declining city center. They put stress on local emergency management. Government can be leaner, yes. Who's the politician who is working toward consolidating Erie County government? But he is up against the status quo. Government rarely gives back power, or steps back from the public trough.

 

I think it's common sense that fewer taxpayers=higher taxes.

 

not really.

 

brian higgins is perhaps the only politician in the WNY area that actually does anything that benefits the area- and therefore the ONLY one worthy of being brought back. The movement to reduce the size of the Erie County Government in proportion to its declining population was started by an attorney.

 

His name escapes me, but he has lead a movement that when I left WNY was gaining steam. You are correct when you say that his agenda is completely uphill.

 

But what does not make sense is how there is not outrage over these elected fools (who keep getting re-elected by the local populace). There are simply millions of dollars every year going into the bloated coffers of the excessive WNY government. Millions that could be used towards development. The attorney in charge of informing the public of this gross negligence is rarely heard of, and has some really great ideas for shrinking government. I mean, when compared to cities like NY, Buffalo has even MORE politicians per area/ capita than NY City!!!

 

Erie Co should be consolidated. Police and Fire personnel should all fall under 1 jurisdiction- not the dozens or so small villages and towns and their ordinances. 1 county, 1 police force and 1 fire department. Gut the political landscape, and match taxation to population.

 

Any baffoon who thinks that carpetbagging Hillary did anything for WNY needs to take a long walk off a short pier...

 

*paid for by the committee to tar and feather Larry Quinn*

[R_Dudley]

I take this just more as a political move on his part. Now he can take that 5 million and use it for campaigns for whoever he decides to run against the current establishment.

 

 

Thirteen thousand eight hundred dollers A DAY in income tax. A DAY!

 

"New York has the highest combined local and state taxes in the nation."

 

That is why the state is dying.

 

Not enough grabbed what was stated by a nobody. This guy has run for Governoer 2x and knows a little bit about politics. He also kept a residence and owns 2 businesses still in the state. This is a really good move to bring free publicity/attention to an agenda which IMHO is what BuffaloOhio said. The status quo 'more taxation to cover the existing mess' is not going to solve the problem. I for one think it's a great move on his part for it brings some attention to the problem.

[nfreeman]

Coincidentally, here's a good article about this issue from today's WSJ: check it out.

 

A few quotes:

from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

 

Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

 

soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

 

Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

 

[New Hampshire] has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York.

 

 

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could read the data and look at what's happened in WNY and not agree that higher taxes drive out population and jobs. But it's a free country.

[Stoner]

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could read the data and look at what's happened in WNY and not agree that higher taxes drive out population and jobs. But it's a free country.

 

Who are you arguing with? The question was what STARTED the exodus.

[spndnchz]

I like charts

 

 

I'd bet if you looked at it, one of the reasons is us young people. How many college students, attending college out of state, actually come back? I don't know how to look at census', but I'd bet if you could find them you'd see the young demographic being reduced year after year in NYS.

[jad1]

Considering Golisano's total wealth, what do these taxes amount to? Carp can do the math ("Do the math" I command thee), but it's probably like the average worker dropping a 20 dollar bill on a pizza and tip (if it's a cool -- I mean frightening -- delivery guy).

 

Seriously, I wouldn't move to Florida for love nor money. Humidity, insects and large people showing their nether regions. Hell on Earth.

 

I live in Florida, and have seen insects and felt the humidity (it's really not that all bad). Howver, if you could direct me to the people showing their nether regions, I'd appreciate it. :rolleyes:

[Eleven]

I'm not either, but I will note that schools receive a much greater percentage of their funding from local property taxes than from state income taxes. So the point that lower state income taxes gets you crappier schools (if that is what you were saying) is not valid.

 

 

I was waiting for a citable source, and here it is: http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/675186.html

 

It's not just the income taxes (which do partly fund education, as you note); the property tax cap isn't going to hurt Mr. G one bit.

[nfreeman]

Who are you arguing with? The question was what STARTED the exodus.

Well, a number of posters have taken issue with the premise that higher taxes drive people off, so I was arguing with them in the first instance. But as to your chicken-and-egg point, I think you were saying that the post-war road-building boom plus growth in a/c was more of a driver than taxes. My response to that was that NYS' population grew from 10MM to 18MM in the postwar period -- so it grew by 80% despite the roads and a/c -- but then leveled off and shrank a bit once taxes peaked at 15%, and is continuing to shrink now since taxes are so high relative to other states.

 

I think we've beaten this one about to death. Who thinks Quinn sucks?