• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leaving New York: Population loss steepest in U.S.

I like New York. I like the fact that I can hop on a train, go south and be in New York City in an hour, or hop in my car, go north and be in the mountains in 2 hours. It's the best of both worlds. I'm in my 60s but I still find New York City to be a blast, a fun place to go.

I like the Diversity too. There's all sorts of restaurants around here from every nationality in the world, a lot of them have very good food.. I like food. Lol
 
The problem is that many who leave end up trying to change their new state to be more like the one they left. I’d really prefer they just stay put.

That's what happened to Colorado. Once a solid mostly conservative state, now just another gimmee state.

Other countries citizens are worse. Why would someone fleeing a country come here waving the flag of the s**thole they are fleeing?
 
You know nothing about me, so your opinion is worthless.

Yeah, who knew complaining about a state was such moral failing because y’know, nobody ever bitches about Texas.
 
The problem is that many who leave end up trying to change their new state to be more like the one they left. I’d really prefer they just stay put.

That makes me think of an ol’ song that used to play on the radio, the only vid I can find of it is this dude lipsincing. Still good. :)

 
I see where Illinois is number two in losing population. Here is the latest estimates on how loss or gain in population will effect congressional redistricting.

States Gaining Districts (6 or 7)

Arizona +1 (from 9 to 10)
Colorado +1 (from 7 to 8)
Florida +2 (from 27 to 29)
Montana even or +1 (from At-large to 2)
North Carolina +1 (from 13 to 14)
Oregon +1 (from 5 to 6)
Texas +3 (from 36 to 39)


States Losing Districts (9)

Alabama -1 (from 7 to 6)
Illinois -1 or -2 (from 18 to 17 or 16)
Michigan -1 (from 14 to 13)
Minnesota -1 or even (from 8 to 7 or none)
New York -1 (from 27 to 26)
Ohio -1 (from 16 to 15)
Pennsylvania -1 (from 18 to 17)
Rhode Island -1 (from 2 to 1)
West Virginia -1 (from 3 to 2)

California is nearing the cusp of losing a seat as well.

https://www.insightsassociation.org...or-lose-congressional-seats-after-2020-census

Weather may be playing a part as most of the states predicted to lose a district or maybe two are all cold weather states except Alabama, California is on the cusp of possibly losing one. Cold weather states gaining, Montana and Colorado. But yes, taxes has a lot to do with it also.

We've had a large influx of folks from the Northeast fleeing their heavy taxed states, they get to Georgia and then with their politics try to turn Georgia into another heavily taxed state that they just fled. Now that is what I call being down right stupid.

Georgia already has a 6% state income tax. That means that it's higher than in Massachusetts.
 
Georgia already has a 6% state income tax. That means that it's higher than in Massachusetts.

That's the top rate which very few pay. There is also millions of different deductions. I also haven't had to pay a red cent to Georgia on state taxes since I've been retired.
 
That makes me think of an ol’ song that used to play on the radio, the only vid I can find of it is this dude lipsincing. Still good. :)



You know, it seems like everyone on this board who doesn't live on one of the coasts is eager to bash both of them.
They bash California, talk about what they think is best for California to do, they bash New York, endless suggestions for how New York can clean up their problems, they talk about secession (especially Texas) and they talk about how they don't want people from either coast interfering in how they live "down heah", and they love to talk about how the federal government isn't welcome.

It's all good, I say. I vote for secession, first by economics, then in earnest if that doesn't solve the problem.
First let's let New York, DC, California, Washington, Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and all the other blue states keep all their money at home and solve their own issues. Stop sending money down South and out into the hinterlands, every time it floods or every time a tornado or a hurricane flattens everything.
Financial secession, let these red states solve their own problems and let them be as separate from the federal government as possible. No more federal funds for anything whatsoever.

Blue State Map 2020.jpg
 
You know, it seems like everyone on this board who doesn't live on one of the coasts is eager to bash both of them.
They bash California, talk about what they think is best for California to do, they bash New York, endless suggestions for how New York can clean up their problems, they talk about secession (especially Texas) and they talk about how they don't want people from either coast interfering in how they live "down heah", and they love to talk about how the federal government isn't welcome.

It's all good, I say. I vote for secession, first by economics, then in earnest if that doesn't solve the problem.
First let's let New York, DC, California, Washington, Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and all the other blue states keep all their money at home and solve their own issues. Stop sending money down South and out into the hinterlands, every time it floods or every time a tornado or a hurricane flattens everything.
Financial secession, let these red states solve their own problems and let them be as separate from the federal government as possible. No more federal funds for anything whatsoever.

View attachment 67246538

Texas is one of the few conservative states that pays more into the federal coffers than it takes out. Just a bit of trivia. :)
 
That's the top rate which very few pay. There is also millions of different deductions. I also haven't had to pay a red cent to Georgia on state taxes since I've been retired.

GEORGIA

Tax Bracket (Single) [2] Tax Bracket (Couple) [3] Marginal Tax Rate
$0+ $0+ 1.00%
$750+ $1,000+ 2.00%
$2,250+ $3,000+ 3.00%
$3,750+ $5,000+ 4.00%
$5,250+ $7,000+ 5.00%
$7,000+ $10,000+ 6.00%
 
New York's population continues to decline faster than any state, according to new data released Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

ALBANY – New York's population continues to decline faster than any state, according to new data released Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The report found New York was just one of nine states to see a decrease in population, losing an estimated 48,510 residents between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018.

https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/l...in-us/71-f050bb1b-c1a8-4038-b37f-88356f2f8daa



And Cuomo blames it on the weather! :lamo :lamo


Cuomo said their decisions were “climate based” or “based on personal reasons.”

“There are more jobs than ever. Our taxes are lower than ever,” he told reporters after a speech at the Business Council of New York State’s annual conference at Lake George. “People were leaving upstate New York because they had to. … That is no longer the case. Somebody wants to move to Florida because they want to move to Florida. God bless them. They want to fish. They want warm weather.”
https://wskg.org/news/why-are-people-leaving-new-york-cuomo-blames-the-weather/

What a freaking idiot! How he can say our taxes are lower than ever with a straight face is hysterical.

Oh dear, the old baby boomers are retiring and going to Florida to vote Democrat in record numbers. The horror.
 
Texas is one of the few conservative states that pays more into the federal coffers than it takes out. Just a bit of trivia. :)

Yes I know, in the last ten years they have, or at least most of the last ten years. Good for them.
And they also have their own independent electrical grid. Again, good for them, provided they are no longer allowed to commit acts of war against California, like they did during the 2000/2001 Summer of Enron blackouts.
That cost the State of California somewhere between 40 and 50 billion dollars.

Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Florida, Lousiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee are all or mostly all in the takers column however. Maybe Texas needs to be the capital of their new republic, and they can take care of all their brethren.
 
That's the top rate which very few pay. There is also millions of different deductions. I also haven't had to pay a red cent to Georgia on state taxes since I've been retired.

Then I take it you have no difficulty understanding how very few ever paid the top marginal income tax rate of 92% when the New Deal was in effect. It was there to inspire wealthy people to reinvest their money for the good of the country, and when they did, they were able to avoid that outrageously high rate.

The Tax Foundation:
"Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s"

The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.

There were plenty of filthy rich people walking around in the New Deal era.
I remember meeting my very first millionaire when I was a kid. (circa 1961)
His name was Jessie York and he owned a manufacturing company that made the finest sheets and pillows money could buy back then.
He owned a very large yacht called "The Four Queens", a couple of Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari and he had a home "in the City - NYC" and a luxury villa out in Atlantic Beach, Long Island, and he and his family were friends with my uncle, a somewhat famous marlin and tuna fisherman.

I was awestruck by the size of his house and his boat, but the Yorks seemed like very happy people, and they wanted for nothing. Most people in Atlantic Beach were well off, and still are today.
 
Last edited:
Then I take it you have no difficulty understanding how very few ever paid the top marginal income tax rate of 92% when the New Deal was in effect. It was there to inspire wealthy people to reinvest their money for the good of the country, and when they did, they were able to avoid that outrageously high rate.

The Tax Foundation:
"Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s"



There were plenty of filthy rich people walking around in the New Deal era.
I remember meeting my very first millionaire when I was a kid. (circa 1961)
His name was Jessie York and he owned a manufacturing company that made the finest sheets and pillows money could buy back then.
He owned a very large yacht called "The Four Queens", a couple of Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari and he had a home "in the City - NYC" and a luxury villa out in Atlantic Beach, Long Island, and he and his family were friends with my uncle, a somewhat famous marlin and tuna fisherman.

I was awestruck by the size of his house and his boat, but the Yorks seemed like very happy people, and they wanted for nothing. Most people in Atlantic Beach were well off, and still are today.

LOL No CEO took salaries that were 300 times what his workers made in the 1950's either. That was the purpose of the high rates. The fact that nearly nobody paid them meant they were working as planned. It is not a coincidence that workers wages kept pace with rising profits back then either. The extra money had to go somewhere.

ceo-compensation-ratio-2016.png
 
Last edited:
LOL What a crock of ****. No CEO took salaries that were 300 times what his workers made in the 1950's either. That was the purpose of the high rates. Th fact that nearly nobody paid them meant they were working as planned.

No, that's what I was getting at.
Despite the ridiculously high marginal tax rates, somehow people like the Yorks and the Hills managed to live like kings and queens, with multiple homes and resort villas, fancy cars, furs, yachts, you name it.

I would watch The Beverly Hillbillies on TV and it struck me that the beach house the Yorks lived in was maybe twice the size of the mansion Jed Clampett lived in, and that was their BEACH HOUSE. The home they had in New York City proper was almost a damn royal castle, overlooking the Hudson River.

My uncle was one of the inspirations for shows like "Wicked Tuna". In fact, the producers begged him to be part of it but by that time he was in his seventies and although he still loved to go out on the water and land thousand pound tuna, he wasn't interested in working on a TV show. When he passed away, the producers and quite a few of the cast members were at his funeral. The Yorks and Hills loved him because they were in awe of his ability.

OscarAmoroso1.jpg

And they made sure he was well compensated for the adventures that he took them on, wrestling with what he liked to call "turbo-charged footballs". If Uncle Oscar was captain of your boat, you were going to bring home some impressive trophies.
 
No, that's what I was getting at.
Despite the ridiculously high marginal tax rates, somehow people like the Yorks and the Hills managed to live like kings and queens, with multiple homes and resort villas, fancy cars, furs, yachts, you name it.

I would watch The Beverly Hillbillies on TV and it struck me that the beach house the Yorks lived in was maybe twice the size of the mansion Jed Clampett lived in, and that was their BEACH HOUSE. The home they had in New York City proper was almost a damn royal castle, overlooking the Hudson River.

My uncle was one of the inspirations for shows like "Wicked Tuna". In fact, the producers begged him to be part of it but by that time he was in his seventies and although he still loved to go out on the water and land thousand pound tuna, he wasn't interested in working on a TV show. When he passed away, the producers and quite a few of the cast members were at his funeral. The Yorks and Hills loved him because they were in awe of his ability.

View attachment 67246543

And they made sure he was well compensated for the adventures that he took them on, wrestling with what he liked to call "turbo-charged footballs". If Uncle Oscar was captain of your boat, you were going to bring home some impressive trophies.

Yes I remember there was old money but the very wealthy were much less numerous and kept a low profile. It was all about the middle class and their ever rising purchasing power brought phenomenal growth in the economy. And then Reagan brought us the yuppies and the job "creators" became the Gods.
 
Back
Top Bottom