“Overall, many of the most affluent states are the ones hemorrhaging high-income earners the most rapidly. As in overall migration, New York sets the standard, with the highest outmigration of high income earners (defined as annual income over $200,000) relative to in-migrants (attraction ratio: 53). New York is followed closely by Illinois, the District of Columbia and New Jersey, which are all losing the over-$200,000-a-year crowd at a faster pace than California.”
One of the great things about America is our freedom to vote with our feet. Don’t like the policies of your local community? Move to the next one. Is your State acting like it owns you (or that your money belongs to them FIRST)? Well, lots of people are making it rather clear which states are acting like that – interesting study on State out-migrations (reformatted, emphasis mine)
To measure the states that are most attractive to Americans on the move, we developed an “attraction” ratio that measures the number of domestic in-migrants per 100 out-migrants. A state that has a rating of 100 would be perfectly balanced between those leaving and coming. Overall, the biggest winner — both in absolute numbers and in our ranking — is Texas. In 2014 the Lone Star State posted a remarkable 156 attraction ratio, gaining 229,000 more migrants than it lost, roughly twice as many as went to No. 3 Florida, which clocked an impressive 126.7 attraction ratio.
Most of the top gainers of domestic migrants are low-tax, low-regulation states, including No. 2 South Carolina, with an attraction ratio of 127.3, as well as No. 5 North Dakota, and No. 7 Nevada. These states generally have lower housing costs than the states losing the most migrants. . . .
High costs go a long way to explain which states are losing the most migrants. At the top, or rather, the bottom of the list is
Read more
And their end goal? Certainly not what the Founders envisioned. If anything, Progressivism is all about regression – putting back into place governments that ruled from above instead of cherishing Individual Rights. Land of the Free? Not in Progressivism where individuals will be subsidiary to the State – just like before our Revolution:
For nothing says Freedom like a government that IS telling you exactly how you will live – after all, unlimited means no boundaries for it (whereas the Founders were all about limiting its power) and if it can take your money simply to give it to others, what else CAN’T it do TO you?