A new analysis finds New York and New Jersey lost $517.5 billion and $170.1 billion, respectively, in cumulative resident income from 2013 through 2022 as people relocated to other states, the report says. The findings measure the longer-term effect of migration on state tax bases and purchasing power rather than counting only the initial year after a move.
The study, produced by Unleash Prosperity under its Vote With Your Feet project and based on Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service tax-filing data, aggregates income reported by residents after they move to capture multi-year gains and losses, according to the Fox Business report. That approach attempts to reflect how migration influences state-level tax revenue and consumer demand over time.
The pattern matters for state budgets and economic planning because sustained outflows of resident income can shrink taxable bases, reduce consumer spending and complicate funding for public services such as schools, infrastructure and public safety. These fiscal risks have prompted policy debates in affected states over tax policy, economic development and public investments in order to retain and attract residents.
Background
The Vote With Your Feet analysis covers resident-income calculations for tax years 2013 through 2022 and uses migration counts based on tax-filing years 2011-12 through 2021-22, the authors say. The project tracks how taxpayers and reported income shift among states by following where filers declare residency in successive tax years.
Unleash Prosperity, a policy group that advocates for lower taxes and economic growth, has released multiple migration studies in recent years that highlight net flows of people and income out of several high-tax states. Coverage of those findings and related budget discussions appears in our Economy Coverage.
Key findings
The report lists the largest cumulative resident-income losses and gains over the study period. Major figures include:
- New York: $517.5 billion loss in resident income, the largest among states.
- New Jersey: $170.1 billion loss, the report says, ranking among the largest losses.
- California: $370.1 billion loss.
- Illinois: $315.2 billion loss.
- Florida: a gain of just over $1 trillion in resident income.
- Texas: $290 billion gain.
The report also provides net domestic migration totals based on tax filings: over the examined tax years, New York had a net loss of about 1.757 million residents, California lost about 1.632 million, Illinois lost 881,012 and New Jersey lost 350,111. Population gainers included Florida with a net gain of about 1.591 million, Texas with 1.268 million and North Carolina with 520,615.
Methodology and limitations
The analysis follows tax filers year to year and attributes income to the state where filers report residency in each tax year. That allows gains and losses to accumulate as moved residents continue to earn income in their new states. Using tax data provides detail on incomes and migration that annual population estimates may not capture immediately.
There are limits to the method. Tax-filing data can lag true residency changes for individuals who delay updating addresses or who split time among states. The approach does not directly measure nonfilers, and it can undercount short-term moves or commuting arrangements. The report does not attribute causation to any single factor; it reports net income flows and migration counts without modeling the precise drivers for individual decisions.
Analysts and state budget officials typically treat such estimates as an informative signal rather than a definitive measure of all population or fiscal dynamics. Other influences on state revenues include economic cycles, federal policy, demographic change and state-level tax law adjustments.
Fiscal implications
Large, sustained outflows of taxable income reduce revenue flexibility for state and local governments. When a significant share of a state’s income base moves away, officials face choices: raise taxes, cut spending, use reserves or restructure services. Each option has tradeoffs for economic growth, equity and the stability of public services.
High-income taxpayers can disproportionately affect receipts because state tax systems often rely on a concentrated share of taxable income at the top of the distribution. When high earners relocate, it can produce outsized swings in revenue collections and complicate long-range budget planning.
Conversely, states that gain residents and income can see stronger revenue growth but also face pressure on infrastructure, housing, schools and public safety. Rapid population gains require investments that may temporarily raise costs for local governments while benefits to the tax base accumulate.
Reactions and policy responses
Unleash Prosperity leaders say migration to lower-tax states in the South and Sun Belt has eroded the economic heft of some northeastern and West Coast states, with consequences for long-term fiscal health and consumer markets. State officials and independent budget analysts, however, emphasize that migration is only one factor affecting revenue trends.
Policymakers seeking to address out-migration have options including tax adjustments, incentives for business investment, workforce development, and targeted spending on amenities that retain residents, such as transit, schools and public safety. Each policy choice requires balancing short-term costs against potential long-term gains in competitiveness and a stable tax base.
State responses also hinge on political priorities and fiscal circumstances. Some states have enacted tax reductions or capped growth in certain levies to stem departures, while others prioritize investments aimed at improving quality of life and economic opportunity. The effectiveness of any approach depends on local conditions and whether interventions address the factors motivating residents to move.
Analysis
The Vote With Your Feet findings underscore governance and budgetary tradeoffs for states experiencing persistent out-migration. For jurisdictions losing income, the immediate governance challenge is maintaining service levels and meeting debt obligations with a shrinking revenue base. That dynamic raises questions of accountability for officials who set tax and spending policy and for voters evaluating long-term fiscal planning.
For states gaining residents, policymakers must translate population growth into sustainable revenue and infrastructure planning. Rapid increases in demand for housing, schools and public safety can expose shortfalls in preparedness and fiscal capacity, creating pressure for more coordinated state and local planning.
Open questions remain about how much migration reflects tax policy compared with housing affordability, remote work patterns, public-safety concerns, and broader economic opportunity. Accurate diagnosis of drivers matters for crafting effective, accountable policy responses that stabilize tax bases while preserving services and competitiveness.
Lawmakers and budget directors should use multi-year projections and a range of data sources when assessing migration impacts, and be transparent about the tradeoffs inherent in tax and spending decisions. That approach will help voters hold officials accountable for the fiscal consequences of their policy choices.
