New Census figures for 2007
Always interesting to look at the Census figures for each year. They just released estimates for state population change from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2007.
The most interesting column is the last one, net internal migration. 260K people left California. 190K people left New York. Other states bleeding large numbers (50K or more) of residents were Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey. Over 7 years , California has now lost 1.2M people and New York has lost 1.4M people to other states. No big surprises here.
States with >50K inflows were Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Florida falls off the list of big destination states.
The overall trend remains the same as previous years: people are fleeing places with high taxes and high costs of living to move to places with lower taxes and lower costs of living. Aside from Alaska and New Hampshire, all the states with no income tax once again saw inflows of people. In total, 301K people escaped the vile clutches of state income taxes over that year! Total population increase of these 9 states was 967K, accounting for more than a third of the overall national population increase. The no-sales-tax states also did well, although there aren't as many of them.
Another fun piece of data is always the births/deaths ratio. Of course Utah leads, but Alaska is a close second (when it's cold and dark outside, make babies?). West Virginia doesn't look so good, with almost as many deaths as births. Maine and Pennsylvania also have very low ratios. Rhode Island also doesn't do so well here, as the only state to lose population overall, thanks to an outflow of 10K people, balanced by only 3K immigrants and 3K more births than deaths.
- lordzorgon's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Ohio
We're hemorrhaging people because we never recovered from the last recession. The job market here is very poor. I think I saw that we were 48th in job creation since Bush took office. Our public universities are among the most expensive in the nation. Our public schools are among the worst performing. There isn't a whole lot going for us outside Buckeye football and our professional sports teams.
I'll note for the record that the Republicans held both houses of our legislature (with very large margins), the governorship and all elected executive officers from 2002-2006. Take that to mean whatever you want. I think it says something about one party rule more than it does specifically Republican rule.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ohio jives with LZ's post.....
Ranking #5 in states according to tax burden in this study.
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxburdens.html
The Ohio Republican party has done a pretty poor job and I think it could be a big factor in handing the WH to the Dems.
Tax Burden Rank
Tax Burden
as a Percentage
of Income
Burden
Per Capita
Per Capita
United States
-
11.0%
$4,422
$40,486
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
46
50
31
13
12
8.8%
6.6%
10.3%
10.3%
11.5%
$3,090
2,729
3,603
3,514
4,965
$35,007
41,469
34,836
31,145
43,338
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
30
8
47
38
32
10.4%
12.2%
8.8%
10.0%
10.3%
$4,509
6,756
3,804
3,962
3,615
$43,512
55,536
43,471
39,782
35,210
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
6
35
22
25
18
12.4%
10.1%
10.8%
10.7%
11.0%
$5,014
3,367
4,594
3,887
4,085
$40,455
33,274
42,428
36,169
37,068
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
15
20
17
2
23
11.2%
10.9%
11.0%
14.0%
10.8%
$4,330
3,568
3,808
5,045
5,341
$38,732
32,673
34,501
36,117
49,324
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
28
14
11
29
34
10.6%
11.2%
11.5%
10.5%
10.1%
$5,419
4,202
4,971
3,103
3,678
$51,297
37,538
43,121
29,582
36,341
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
41
9
36
49
10
9.7%
11.9%
10.1%
8.0%
11.6%
$3,353
4,549
4,127
3,504
5,991
$34,415
38,373
40,916
43,745
51,605
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
40
3
19
39
5
9.8%
13.8%
11.0%
9.9%
12.4%
$3,251
6,522
3,933
3,626
4,597
$33,163
47,176
35,705
36,635
37,020
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
45
37
24
4
26
9.0%
10.0%
10.8%
12.7%
10.7%
$3,248
3,747
4,405
5,291
3,520
$36,077
37,356
40,942
41,809
32,790
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
44
48
43
27
1
9.0%
8.5%
9.3%
10.7%
14.1%
$3,435
3,054
3,533
3,452
5,387
$38,072
35,960
38,005
32,249
38,306
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
33
16
21
7
42
10.2%
11.1%
10.9%
12.3%
9.5%
$4,460
4,604
3,401
4,736
4,340
$43,710
41,530
31,198
38,639
45,881
District of Columbia
-
12.5%
$7,873
$62,852
Burden
The tax burden........
as if having good govt and paying for it is bad.
How about calling it the tax blessing.
There are plenty of folks all around the world that would be thrilled to move to this country and pay this so called 'burden'. IN fact 'they' might even consider it a privelage to be able to pay taxes in the USA!
It is the economy, stupid.
oh for Gods sakes
just because most other countries suck does not mean we can't want better governance in here ourselves. Having higher tax burden in a state does not equate to better or more efficient government with better services. Your generic unsubstantiated platitudes is one of the reasons people on the other side don't debate you.
Tax blessing my ass. If you want more tax blessings, try France.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yeah yeah it sounds
inane to you doesn't it.
I guess using that argument only works against libs, who suggest abolishing the Patriot Act, or standing up for Human Rights. Then we hear from all the righties........ but, but, but lookit...... everyone in the world wants to move here, because America is the greatest country and all you do is criticize it.
A case of It's Okay if You Are a Republican. Give me a break.
Here's your New Year's kiss. You can kiss me a** ;-)
It is the economy, stupid.
Are people fleeing Vermont?
qui tacet consentire
Vermont....
I think you'd have to say "yes." (Found in LZ's first link.)
Vermont lost 1788 (net) people to internal migration, they only gained 649 (net) through international migration for a total loss of 1139 people (net.) It would be better to have all of these items as a % of total population, but LZ's table didn't provide that.
Same figures as a % of population....