Posted on 10/10/2007 7:18:50 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9
TRENTON, NJ (AP) -- New Jersey's accelerating population loss is starting to have significant economic and fiscal consequences for the state
[SNIP]
The report found the state lost 231,565 people between 2002 and 2006, including 72,547 people last year. The latter was the fourth highest loss in the nation behind only California, Louisiana and New York.
Meanwhile, North Carolina grew by 807,000 people over the four-year period, displacing New Jersey last year as the nation's 10th most populous state, the report stated.
When lost income and sales taxes from the people who left New Jersey are considered, the population drain is estimated to have cost the state $680 million in tax revenue last year, the report found.
[SNIP]
From 2000 to 2005, the largest net outflow of New Jersey taxpayers was to Florida (124,584 people), Pennsylvania (42,459 people) and North Carolina (29,803 people), their report found.
It found the state had a positive net inflow of taxpayers from New York (148,538 people).
[SNIP]
(Excerpt) Read more at wcbs880.com ...
Private banking was a booming business when I was living in Miami 1999-2002. Anyone I knew in that business, however, brought their book with them from either South America or the Northeast. There is a good reason why South Florida has more banks per capita (or did as of the early part of this decade).
Tell that to Sally Field!
For years NJ has had huge influxes from Brooklyn and Staten Island. They think NJ is "the boonies." I have a couple of friends who did just that so I know.
The problem is a lot of the ones leaving are Democrats themselves.
That’s a rather offensive comparison. Have you ever been to New Jersey?
What is it you find offensive?
“A lot has to do with an ageing population and retirement as well as taxation.”
Yeah and persons over the age of 65 own approximately 70% of all the wealth in the country.
Your statement is correct for the most part however in NJ there are republicans aplenty, especially on the local level, who are just as bad.
I still have family in the town I grew up in and this town has been controlled by republicans forever. They just had one of the largest property tax increases in history. Of course it is all supposed to go towards education but we here on FR know that what this really means is that most of the cash will disappear into the black hole known as the NEA. The superintendent of schools, the school business administrator and others will get huge raises. If there is anything left it may go towards a down payment on a new scoreboard for the baseball field or some other worthless project.
The bottom line is that the voting public elected the school board members who did not hide the fact that they needed more money for “education” and they all won re-election. People really do get the government they deserve.
That happens and, unfortunately, the migrants take the systems they are fleeing with them, thus the term californication as used by older residents in Colorado and Idaho.
Can a knowledgeable person help me out with this:
Yes - they lost a lot of people and collect less in taxes
BUT
Doesn’t that also mean that fewer folks need services?
Sorry if this is naive. I got a D in the one economics course I took in college. Went to the pub instead...
People aren't quite as stupid as politicians think they are.
And what do you propose we do about that?
Sounds like a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, and possibly unconstitutional. No state can restrict or punish people for moving about freely in this country.
As does Massachusetts. I read an article a few years ago in the NY Post regarding this. If I remember the numbers correctly Derek Jeter had to pay about $8,000 in MA state taxes during a three game visit to Beantown. Ouch!
I don’t have a problem with people over the age of 65 having 70% of the wealth, they worked for it, I do have a problem when they plead poverty, claim to be living on dog food and picking up soda cans to pay for their medication and want to take the remaining 30% from people under the age of 65.
I will ask you the same question. What do you propose we do about it?
And ruining the red states in the process.
Funny how people don’t realize this little fact.
You mean like the prescription drug program? By 2030, we will have twice as many retirees as we have today, i.e., there will be 70 million. They represent a powerful voting bloc. We actually do need to do something about the entitlement programs, which are going belly up within a decade.
I just said it was fine that they have what they have, old people do need to quit lobbying for more welfare benefits like medicare part d that only serve to redistribute wealth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.