States Without Income Taxes Gain Representatives
By Randall Holcombe • Wednesday December 22, 2010 10:27 AM PDT • 9 Comments
Seven states have no personal income taxes. As a result of the 2010 census, four of them are among the eight states that will gain Representatives in the US House.
Florida, Nevada, Texas, and Washington will all gain at least one Representative. The remaining three no income tax states are low-population states that only have one Representative: Alaska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Ten states lost Representatives as a result of the census, and all of them have a personal income tax.
More than half of the states without personal income taxes will be gaining Representatives, while all of the states losing Representatives have income taxes. Is this a coincidence? Certainly there are other factors that come into play, but this is likely a significant factor. It appears that when people “vote with their feet,” they like to move to states without income taxes.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Taxation 
“It appears that when people “vote with their feet,” they like to move to states without income taxes.”
If that was true, then why didn’t the other three experience growth? It seems more likely that when people “vote with their feet” they move to states with better climates.
Jeremy In Kansas | Dec 22, 2010 | Reply
From the Census Bureau: US population growth from the 2000 census to the 2010 census: 9.1%. Wyoming population growth: 10.2%. Alaska population growth: 11.4%. South Dakota population growth: 7.6%.
So, seven states have no personal income tax, and six of the seven had population growth above the national average. I don’t know what “better” climates means, Jeremy, but if it means warmer climates, Alaska and Wyoming are both colder than Kansas, which had a 4.8% population growth over the decade. The laggard in the no income tax group, South Dakota, saw substantially more population growth than Kansas, Nebraska (5.0%), and North Dakota (0.7%), which makes an interesting comparison.
Randall Holcombe | Dec 22, 2010 | Reply
I don’t think that percentages support your argument, because there aren’t many people in those states to begin with. If what you are saying is true (people move to no tax states) then Wyoming, Alaska, and South Dakota should have grown much more than they did. I just looked at the Census data, and they didn’t grow very much at all. Only 212,479 people total between those three states. Kansas alone grew by 164,700 people and Nebraska 115,078. When you look at the real data instead of percentages your argument falls apart. People are moving to states with better climates, regardless of tax laws.
Jeremy In Kansas | Dec 23, 2010 | Reply
Mark Perry broke the results out according to right-to-work vs. forced unionization.
Bill | Dec 23, 2010 | Reply
I moved to Wyoming in 1998, and the number one reason for my move was to get away from high taxes in California and enjoy no tax in Wyoming. For years I lived on what would have been my California tax money, and put my entire paycheck in the bank. There were other factors involved as well—none of which had anything to do with a better climate. If fact, our high winds and austere landscape discourage people from coming and staying.
Additional reasons for my move to Wyoming included central location in the country, a place with no history so I could make a fresh start in life, within driving distance of a large population center (Denver), overall lowest tax burden in the country, airports close by, a great respect for individual freedom and conservative values, low crime rates, variable weather, and a change of seasons.
What attracted me most to Wyoming was what they didn’t have—population, crime, pollution, high cost of living, congestion, and government. I didn’t care (and still don’t) about the modest offering here in the Cowboy State. Our slower pace of life and high winds don’t appeal to many people, and that’s just fine with me. Let the other tax free states fill up, while Wyoming’s increase in population moves along at a glacial pace.
Clair Schwan | Dec 28, 2010 | Reply
The wife was determined to move from South Dakota, where we had friends, I had a steady job that was not threatened with imminent layoffs (healthcare), and we were not so intimately involved with a church as to have our “Christian brethren” nosing into our business. I had more work upcoming in spring that would have been all cash. And my own business was beginning to get off the ground.
Now we live in an incotax province of the United State. Only friends are in the churches SHE chose, which are full of government and corporate dependents (half live on Socialist Security, rest have government “jobs” or work for conrporations. One of the “elders” has already been questioning my oldest son about why he does not have a socialist party membership number (SS#).
South Dakota would issue driver licenses to those to whom the SSA has never issued a SS#. Now to get a DL without a SS# requires a statement from SSA that the applicant is not eligible to be issued a SS#. How to get that? Well, he has no birth certificate, so SSA won’t issue a SS# to him. Will this work? Don’t know yet.
Mac | Dec 29, 2010 | Reply
New Hampshire does not have a state income tax [if that is what is meant by a "personal income tax"].
I moved from Cali-tax-ifornia to New Hampshire to get away from the abysmal tax system there. [I don't miss all the 'sunshine' - and love the snow and rain] we have everything ‘seasonally’ that Cali-tax-ifornia has and more – only in smaller amounts.
New Hampshire has the “FREE STATE PROJECT” which is trying to create a ‘showcase’ state with small govt and minimal taxes. Check it out!
dann | Dec 29, 2010 | Reply
Climate AND no taxes...
PatriotOne | Dec 29, 2010 | Reply
Seven states have no personal income taxes. As a result of the 2010 census, four of them are among the eight states that will gain.
—————
James Hood
Best Savings Rate | Jan 5, 2011 | Reply