NY And NJ, Lose $690B As Residents Flee High Taxes

I’ll explain the new report’s findings, put the $690 billion loss in plain terms, quote the report’s authors directly, describe the political and economic forces driving residents out of New York and New Jersey, and note the likely long-term consequences for those states and the places receiving migrants.

The latest analysis claiming New York and New Jersey lost roughly $690 billion in resident income over a decade is a warning sign for anyone watching fiscal health and population trends. The report attributes the loss to people moving away and taking their earnings and consumption with them, a pattern that worsens state budgets and local economies. Those who argue for higher taxes and expanded government should reckon with the economic damage measured here. The numbers are big enough to reshape policy debates about mobility, taxation, and urban governance.

A new analysis finds that the states of New York and New Jersey have lost billions of dollars from their tax base amid an exodus of residents in recent years.

Unleash Prosperity released a report on Tuesday that found New York lost $517.5 billion in resident incomes from 2013 to 2022, while New Jersey lost $170.1 billion in that period, according to data from the Census Bureau and IRS. 

The report covers cumulative gains and losses in each state’s resident income, as a mover takes their income to another state for subsequent years – not just the first year after their move. The report was first covered by the New York Post.

Put simply, the report isn’t just counting year-one moves. It tries to estimate the lifetime income those residents would have generated in-state if they had stayed. When you stack years of lost incomes together, you end up with figures that rival major budget items and long-term investment streams. That’s why governors and lawmakers should pay attention: the problem compounds.

“New York and New Jersey combined have lost two-thirds of a trillion dollars in net income and purchasing power over the last decade due to moving vans departing these states,” Steve Moore, economist and co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, told FOX Business.

“This has been one of the greatest wealth losses for one region in American history. New Jersey and New York are being bled to death by low tax states in the South,” Moore added.

The report’s co-founder, Steve Moore, frames the loss as historic and tied directly to interstate competition on taxes and costs. That argument fits a broader conservative view: people vote with their feet when fiscal and service conditions deteriorate. High earners, professionals, and small business owners often have the flexibility to move to friendlier tax climates.

Across the country, lower-tax states in the Sun Belt and elsewhere have been picking up the migrants and the economic activity they bring. Those states gain immediate payroll and spending, and they also inherit long-term contributions to housing markets, school funding, and local tax bases. For New York and New Jersey, the departure of these residents leaves fewer taxpayers shouldering costs for pensions, public safety, infrastructure, and social services.

The migration dynamic changes politics, too, not just balance sheets. When a state loses significant chunks of taxable income and productive workers, the political incentives shift toward policies that try to extract more from a shrinking base rather than grow it. That can lead to a cycle of higher taxes, poorer services, and more departures. It is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that is hard to reverse without dramatic policy shifts.

There is also a cultural and electoral angle worth noting: migrants do not always shed their voting patterns when they move. If a large share of people leaving are those who supported big-government policies, they might carry those preferences to their new states. That raises questions about whether the political calculus of destination states will change as well, and whether incoming populations will influence future state-level policy choices.

Critics of progressive urban policies point to this report as evidence that aggressive taxation and expansive government programs have real costs. Supporters of those policies will push back, arguing that public investments and stronger safety nets have benefits that are harder to quantify. The debate needs to center on which approach fosters stable, growing communities that keep—or attract—the taxpayers who fund public services.

Whatever side you take, the takeaway is straightforward: losing two-thirds of a trillion dollars in potential resident income over a decade is not a minor budget blip. It is a structural shift that should prompt clear-headed policy responses focused on competitiveness, safety, and fiscal sanity. If those priorities are ignored, the cycle of decline for stressed regions will likely continue.

Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.