New Study Shows Significant Wealth Migration from Massachusetts to Florida, New Hampshire

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

Read media coverage of this report:

Boston Herald:

Taxes driving wealth out of Massachusetts and into Florida, New Hampshire: report

Editorial: Wealthy have options to avoid tax hikes 

The Boston Globe: Massachusetts is losing wealthy residents to states with no incomes taxes, such as New Hampshire and Florida

The Bond Buyer: Massachusetts sees wealth exodus

State House News ServiceRemote Work Growth Adds Dimension to Tax Debate

Bloomberg Bay State Business: Researcher Andrew Mikula from the Pioneer Institute on their new study that shows wealthy individuals leaving Massachusetts (2:13)

The Howie Carr Show (Greg Sullivan)

The Eagle Tribune Editorial

Salem News Editorial

Gloucester Daily Times Editorial

Nightside with Dan Rea

Patch: Is Your Empty Building Still Burning The Midnight Oil?

Commonwealth magazine

NH Union Leader 

WWLP 

WWLP

BOSTON – Over the last 25 years, Massachusetts has consistently lost taxable income, especially to Florida and New Hampshire, via out-migration of the wealthy, according to a new Pioneer Institute study.

In “Do The Wealthy Migrate Away From High-Tax States? A Comparison of Adjusted Gross Income Changes in Massachusetts and Florida,” Pioneer Institute Research Director Greg Sullivan and Research Assistant Andrew Mikula draw on IRS data showing aggregate migration flows by amount of adjusted gross income (AGI). The data show a persistent trend of wealth leaving high-tax states for low-tax ones, especially in the Sun Belt.

“Because of our stable tax environment and concentration of talent, Massachusetts has outperformed most states and outpaced the nation in job growth since the Great Recession,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “Yet even during that period of growth we were shedding almost a billion dollars a year to low-tax states like Florida and New Hampshire.”

The report finds that Massachusetts has experienced a net outflow of $20.7 billion in AGI between 1993 and 2018. Unsurprisingly, the biggest beneficiaries were no-income-tax states like Florida, which captured 46 percent of it, and New Hampshire, which gained 26 percent.

“We saw this trend slow down temporarily during the Great Recession, when people became less mobile,” said Sullivan. “But it’s since come roaring back, and the magnitude is staggering.”

Between 2012 and 2018, Florida, which has no income tax or capital gains tax, saw a net $89 billion AGI inflow. Fully 70 percent of that eye-opening number was attributable to taxpayers with AGI of $200,000 or more. Over 30 percent of the total growth in AGI among all Florida taxpayers from 1993 to 2018 was attributable to the state’s net increase in migration. Meanwhile, the only reason why Massachusetts’ total AGI is still growing is because of income gains among stationary residents.

Over the last couple of decades, high rates of immigration have bolstered Massachusetts’ economic health and kept its population stable. However, large rates of domestic out-migration remain a threat to the long-term economic vitality of Massachusetts and much of the rest of the Northeast.

In fact, many of the states that have lost taxable income to Massachusetts on net since 1993 are also in the Northeast, with New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey contributing the most AGI. Some Midwestern states, like Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan, lost smaller amounts. However, considering the substantial wealth migration from Massachusetts to New Hampshire and Maine, geography alone can’t explain broad trends in the flow of capital.

“The legislature needs to be very careful in the new post-pandemic environment, when talent is more mobile,” said Stergios. “Businesses look at the business climate closely – especially tax issues – when they think about location. I’d hate to see us follow in Connecticut’s footsteps toward economic decline.”

Earlier in January, the Institute released “Connecticut’s Dangerous Game,” which demonstrated how multiple rounds of tax increases aimed at high earners and corporations triggered an exodus from Connecticut of large employers and wealthy individuals.

About the Authors

Andrew Mikula is a Research Assistant at Pioneer Institute. Mr. Mikula was pre­viously a Lovett & Ruth Peters Economic Opportunity Fellow at Pioneer Institute and studied economics at Bates College.

Gregory Sullivan is Pioneer’s Research Director. Prior to joining Pioneer, Sullivan served two five-year terms as Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was a 17-year member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Greg is a Certified Fraud Investigator, and holds degrees from Harvard College, The Kennedy School of Public Administration, and the Sloan School at MIT.

About Pioneer

Pioneer’s mission is to develop and communicate dynamic ideas that advance prosperity and a vibrant civic life in Massachusetts and beyond.

Pioneer’s vision of success is a state and nation where our people can prosper and our society thrive because we enjoy world-class options in education, healthcare, transportation, and economic opportunity, and where our government is limited, accountable and transparent.

Pioneer values an America where our citizenry is well-educated and willing to test our beliefs based on facts and the free exchange of ideas, and committed to liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.

Get Updates on Our Economic Opportunity Research

Related Content

The Great Mismatch: The graduated income tax proposal’s gravely flawed escalation factor

The state constitutional amendment proposed by the Service Employees International Union and the Massachusetts Teachers Association to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual income above $1 million purports to use cost-of-living-based bracket adjustments as a safeguard that will ensure only millionaires will pay. But historic income growth trends suggest that bracket creep will cause many non-millionaires to be subject to the surtax over time, according to this report, "The Great Mismatch: The graduated income tax proposal’s gravely flawed escalation factor."

Pioneer Institute, The Immigrant Learning Center Co-Produce New Weekly Podcast

Pioneer Institute is pleased to announce the launch of JobMakers, a new weekly podcast that explores the world of risk-taking immigrants who create new products, services, and jobs in New England and across the United States. JobMakers is produced in collaboration with The Immigrant Learning Center (ILC) of Malden, MA.

New Study Warns Graduated Income Tax Will Harm Many Massachusetts Retirees

If passed, a constitutional amendment to impose a graduated income tax would raid the retirement plans of Massachusetts residents by pushing their owners into higher tax brackets on the sales of homes and businesses, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, entitled “The Graduated Income Tax Trap: A retirement tax on small business owners,” aims to help the public fully understand the impact of the proposed new tax.

The Graduated Income Tax Trap: A retirement tax on small business owners

This report finds that, if passed, a constitutional amendment to impose a graduated income tax would raid the retirement plans of Massachusetts residents by pushing their owners into higher tax brackets on the sales of homes and businesses. The study aims to help the public fully understand the impact of the proposed new tax. 

Study: Graduated Income Tax Proponents Rely on Analyses That Exclude the Vast Majority Of “Millionaires” to Argue Their Case

Advocates for a state constitutional amendment that would apply a 4 percent surtax to households with annual earnings of more than $1 million rely heavily on the assumption that these proposed taxes will have little impact on the mobility of high earners. They cite analyses by Cornell University Associate Professor Cristobal Young, which exclude the vast majority of millionaires, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Missing the Mark on Wealth Migration: Past Studies Drastically Undercounted Millionaires

Advocates of a constitutional amendment that would apply a 4 percent tax on all annual individual income over $1 million argue that similar taxes in other states have had little impact on the migration of millionaires, citing the research of Cornell University Associate Professor Cristobal Young, which suggests that “millionaires’ taxes” enacted in other states similar to the one being proposed in Massachusetts have had little impact on millionaire mobility. This paper demonstrates that he drastically undercounts millionaires, and outlines several ways in which he and tax advocates underestimate the number of people who will at some point in their lives be subject to a so-called millionaire’s tax and tax flight trends.

Report Contrasts State Government and Private Sector Employment Changes During Pandemic

Massachusetts state government employment has been virtually flat during COVID-19 even as employment in the state’s private sector workforce remains nearly 10 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, “Public vs. Private Employment in Massachusetts: A Tale of Two Pandemics,” questions whether it makes sense to shield public agencies from last year’s recession at the expense of taxpayers.

Public vs. Private Employment in Massachusetts: A Tale of Two Pandemics

This report finds that Massachusetts state government employment has been virtually flat during COVID-19 even as employment in the state’s private sector workforce remains nearly 10 percent below pre-pandemic levels, and questions whether it makes sense to shield public agencies from last year’s recession at the expense of taxpayers.

Study Finds Massachusetts Graduated Income Tax May Be a “Blank Check” and Not Increase Funding for Designated Priorities

Advocates claim a proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly $2 billion per year for education and transportation, but similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly discretionary rather than targeted spending, according to a new policy brief published by Pioneer Institute. That same result or worse is possible in Massachusetts because during the 2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected — not just one, but two — proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to these purposes.

Lessons for Massachusetts from California’s “blank check” tax on high earners

Advocates claim a proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly $2 billion per year for education and transportation, but similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly discretionary rather than targeted spending. That same result or worse is possible in Massachusetts because during the 2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected — not just one, but two — proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to these purposes. After a 2012 tax hike in California aimed to increase education investments, the state legislature dedicated little more than the minimum required by law to education and redirected the majority of the funds to general government operations. The result was a soaring state payroll.

Report: Proposed Graduated Income Tax Might Not Increase State Education and Transportation Spending

While supporters of a state constitutional amendment that would impose a 4 percent tax rate hike on annual income over $1 million claim additional revenue from the surtax will fund public education and transportation needs, the amendment in no way assures that there will be new spending on these priorities. In fact, without violating the amendment, total state education and transportation funding could stay the same or even fall, according to a new review published by Pioneer Institute.

The Graduated Income Tax Amendment – A Shell Game?

This report shows that while supporters of a state constitutional amendment that would impose a 4 percent tax rate hike on annual income over $1 million claim additional revenue from the surtax will fund public education and transportation needs, the amendment in no way assures that there will be new spending on these priorities. In fact, without violating the amendment, total state education and transportation funding could stay the same or even fall.