Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read that, but I also wonder if it is people just moving to NYC metro communities in NJ, CT and even into PA that still commute into NYC for work. While I know people have left, I wonder if this is factored in, along with other factors like billionaires using a Florida address(i.e.-Golisano), retirees(look at the states that gained) and if this is a net loss.
My second, third and fourth impression are much the same.
Taxes aren't really the issue here, a transfer of wealth is. So long that Florida, South Carolina and Arizona are growing rapidly, there is no incentive to raise taxes and no need - the newcomers pay enough in new home purchase taxes and fees, developers pay large fees themselves, sales taxes are high and property taxes are typically on land that wasn't producing much property tax as a farm or field a decade before anyway, so it's all new money to the state. Coupled with the fact that the federal government will pay a large share of Medicare costs and a large part of the population will never pull a Florida-vested pension plan, the state coffers make out quite well.
As to NY, California, Illinois and most other older, established states? They can cut their taxes (and drastically cut services), cut pensions, and probably exacerbate flight by increasing layoffs and unemployment, decreasing services, pushing more people out.
No, better to hold ground with higher wages and await the inevitable crash(es) of what's to come. Nevada and Florida were hard-hit by the housing bubbles, growth has slowed. Growth-dependent Sunbelt states are opting for large fees for services affecting a few here and there - a tyranny of the majority in a very undemocratic form, but ruffling few feathers along the way so long that individual fees are limited in scope and never make headlines as an overarching trend. Above all else, don't raise taxes - their sacred mantra. Now Northeast and Midwest states are no longer shrinking outright (only Michigan still contracting, though slowing considerably), Growth is anemic - mostly by immigration and natural rise, but also seeing more migration from other regions. With a little time, it will pick up. How much can Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte continue to double every 30 years without costly transit improvements, increased services and such?
A big AMEN to the above post from NYisontop. I just moved from NC to NY and the difference in what I get for my tax dollars is huge!! I had to pay for private school in NC as public education was not very good and it still wasn't as good as the public education my children are getting in NY. In addition since I have a farm not a house my property taxes are not all that different from what they were in NC. (Of course I live Upstate...) I LEFT NC because the services were not good- for a retiree in a gated community the equation may be different but for me I SAVED money by moving to NY by the time you factor in the costs of education and hay - quality hay is very expensive in the South east as it is shipped in from (wait for t) New York!
My second, third and fourth impression are much the same.
Taxes aren't really the issue here, a transfer of wealth is. So long that Florida, South Carolina and Arizona are growing rapidly, there is no incentive to raise taxes and no need - the newcomers pay enough in new home purchase taxes and fees, developers pay large fees themselves, sales taxes are high and property taxes are typically on land that wasn't producing much property tax as a farm or field a decade before anyway, so it's all new money to the state. Coupled with the fact that the federal government will pay a large share of Medicare costs and a large part of the population will never pull a Florida-vested pension plan, the state coffers make out quite well.
As to NY, California, Illinois and most other older, established states? They can cut their taxes (and drastically cut services), cut pensions, and probably exacerbate flight by increasing layoffs and unemployment, decreasing services, pushing more people out.
No, better to hold ground with higher wages and await the inevitable crash(es) of what's to come. Nevada and Florida were hard-hit by the housing bubbles, growth has slowed. Growth-dependent Sunbelt states are opting for large fees for services affecting a few here and there - a tyranny of the majority in a very undemocratic form, but ruffling few feathers along the way so long that individual fees are limited in scope and never make headlines as an overarching trend. Above all else, don't raise taxes - their sacred mantra. Now Northeast and Midwest states are no longer shrinking outright (only Michigan still contracting, though slowing considerably), Growth is anemic - mostly by immigration and natural rise, but also seeing more migration from other regions. With a little time, it will pick up. How much can Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte continue to double every 30 years without costly transit improvements, increased services and such?
I'd say at this point the Sunbelt isn't growing, for a lot of reasons. The real estate crash certainly slowed things done. By the 1990s, NAFTA and the WTO meant that industries that moved to the Sunbelt had a lot of overseas competition that made things even cheaper than the Sunbelt. NC was hit hard by the recession, so was Florida.
In terms of costly transit improvements, already happening in some Sunbelt cities such as Atlanta and Houston.
A big AMEN to the above post from NYisontop. I just moved from NC to NY and the difference in what I get for my tax dollars is huge!! I had to pay for private school in NC as public education was not very good and it still wasn't as good as the public education my children are getting in NY.
Good point. Services are good in a place like New York, because they are paid for by tax dollars. That's why we pay taxes, for facilities like roads, schools, airports, for services like mental health, unemployment, etc.
Taxes aren't really the issue here, a transfer of wealth is. So long that Florida, South Carolina and Arizona are growing rapidly, there is no incentive to raise taxes and no need - the newcomers pay enough in new home purchase taxes and fees, developers pay large fees themselves, sales taxes are high and property taxes are typically on land that wasn't producing much property tax as a farm or field a decade before anyway, so it's all new money to the state. Coupled with the fact that the federal government will pay a large share of Medicare costs and a large part of the population will never pull a Florida-vested pension plan, the state coffers make out quite well.
Agree with the overall point -- but some of what you say isn't accurate, mainly because you're grouping multiple states together.
In the sunbelt developers do not always pay "large fees", not relative to the costs of providing infrastructure. My impression is that transplants to the sunbelt typically boost the sunbelt's private sector wealth (individual landowners, mainly), while actually burdening our public sector with infrastructure costs.
Quote:
As to NY, California, Illinois and most other older, established states? They can cut their taxes (and drastically cut services), cut pensions, and probably exacerbate flight by increasing layoffs and unemployment, decreasing services, pushing more people out.
I'm pretty sure that South Carolina predates New York, California, and Illinois -- but you were saying ..
Quote:
No, better to hold ground with higher wages and await the inevitable crash(es) of what's to come. Nevada and Florida were hard-hit by the housing bubbles, growth has slowed. Growth-dependent Sunbelt states are opting for large fees for services affecting a few here and there - a tyranny of the majority in a very undemocratic form, but ruffling few feathers along the way so long that individual fees are limited in scope and never make headlines as an overarching trend. Above all else, don't raise taxes - their sacred mantra.
Well no kidding; I mean why should sunbelt developers be given free reign to shift costs onto the backs of the existing state , county, and muni taxpayers? Why not have new residents pay their fair share of water, sewer, roads, and schools whenever a house is built? There is nothing "Tyrannical" about this.
Also, I'm perplexed by this comment that the sunbelt in particular is "Growth-dependent." We certainly do have high levels of population growth, but I see no evidence that we're dependent upon it.
Quote:
Now Northeast and Midwest states are no longer shrinking outright (only Michigan still contracting, though slowing considerably), Growth is anemic - mostly by immigration and natural rise, but also seeing more migration from other regions. With a little time, it will pick up. How much can Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte continue to double every 30 years without costly transit improvements, increased services and such?
For the record, I think those cities are like hell-on-earth -- but the answer is that they're mostly limited by drinking water capacity, as we've seen in Atlanta. (Phoenix may be in trouble, though.)
As to mass transit -- these sunbelt metros have developed small, independent nodes of office and industrial space that are decentralized away from the city center. Mass transit is pointless there because unlike pre-automobile cities (NYC for instance), not everyone is attempting to commute to the central business district on a daily basis.
But -- one last point -- I would like to point out the limitations of this study. All they know is the census-based migration of population. They do not know the actual wealth or income of the migrating people. So it is one thing if NY State is losing its high-earners or high-net worth individuals - it is something entirely different if NY State is simply pushing out its unemployed, or anyone who is a net cost to NY State. The study makes no distinction about WHO is leaving.
^ When the poster is saying established states like those mentioned, I believe they are referring to growing earlier or establishing themselves in terms of economic/population growth and development.
I'd say at this point the Sunbelt isn't growing, for a lot of reasons. The real estate crash certainly slowed things done. By the 1990s, NAFTA and the WTO meant that industries that moved to the Sunbelt had a lot of overseas competition that made things even cheaper than the Sunbelt. NC was hit hard by the recession, so was Florida.
In terms of costly transit improvements, already happening in some Sunbelt cities such as Atlanta and Houston.
The Sunbelt isn't growing? That's the first time I've heard that. The real estate crash is over down South, in most areas, and NC has bounced back. It has to be looked at region by region; parts of NC just like parts of NY that are more desirable areas to live are bouncing back faster. Raleigh and Charlotte are doing well- just drive down and take a look. The eastern part of NC, which has turned almost completely to industrial hog farming for income, is not doing well. They hire the absolute least educated, poorest immigrants and pay them near-slave wages. Much can be found on the internet about this. Also, northeastern NC, which is a mostly poor, black area with no major cities or good agriculture land, is also not doing well.
Also, in piedmont NC, in areas (just like NY) that have seen furniture making and textiles leave the US, have high unemployment. Appalachian NC was never very well off, and likely never will be (unless they discover natural gas there).
This may skew the unemployment numbers, but looking honestly at the Sunbelt, in the places that people want to live (Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Greenville, Austin, Nashville, etc) the Sunbelt is gaining population (at the loss of NY & NJ) at a still rapid pace. It does not appear to be reversing. New Yorkers need to accept that and not spin this news. Its happening, and it should be looked at why and how it can at least partially be reversed.
That said, I think Upstate will remain a niche area for people to move to and live. It won't grow like anywhere down South. It will cater to people who prefer a "northeastern" lifestyle, be it weather related, more small town, less "Hollywood", slower paced, with historical attributes still in place. I know many, many friends who live in VT and NH (and Upstate) who could never, ever live in the South. But I do think that NY has a lot of work to do, to ensure that even 1-2% annual Upstate growth remains possible. Lower taxes, consolidating services, and rebuilding infrastructure are critical, IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
