ShareThis Page

Gov. Wolf's policies send Pennsylvanians packing

| Monday, Feb. 15, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Picture 10 people in a room. After 12 minutes, one walks out. Twelve minutes later, a second person leaves. After just two hours, the room is empty. That's how quickly Pennsylvanians are exiting the state to seek better opportunities elsewhere.

Last year alone, we lost one person to another state every 12.5 minutes—a net migration of 41,600 residents, gone. That's nearly the entire population of York, Gov. Tom Wolf's hometown. And, ironically, Wolf used his second budget address to double down on the policies that are driving people away.

Each year since 2011, Pennsylvania saw more people move out than move in. The commonwealth joined the unenviable company of high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California as states of exodus.

These are parents, children, recent college graduates, working families and bright minds ready to contribute to a prosperous society but forced to look elsewhere for opportunity.

Where are families moving? To North Carolina, Florida and Delaware—where state and local tax burdens are significantly lower.

States with the largest migration losses over the past five years — including Pennsylvania — had a higher average state and local tax burden (10.93 percent) than those with the greatest gains (8.84 percent).

The lesson is simple: People vote with their feet. Out-of-control spending and burdensome taxes change a state's future. To many, America's Keystone State is looking more like an exit door and Wolf's policies will push it ever wider.

Wolf's latest budget calls for a tax hike of $850 per family of four—that's on top of the existing state and local tax burden of more than $18,000 per family. In all, Wolf demanded an astonishing $3.6 billion in new taxes, including an 11 percent retroactive personal income tax increase. If Wolf gets his way, you'll owe higher taxes on money you've already earned.

From 1992-2014, Pennsylvania lost $11.6 billion in adjusted gross income because of domestic outmigration. That represents more than $350 million annually in lost state income tax revenue.

Meanwhile, the state's population already ranks among the nation's oldest. By 2030, the 60-plus population is expected to reach 29 percent — or 4 million.

This trend means a higher demand for government services. At the same time, Wolf's policies will drive out the very taxpayers who fund these programs.

There is an alternative. Restoring Pennsylvania to “keystone” status remains an achievable goal. But it will require Wolf and policymakers to reduce the tax burden on working people, families and job creators to create an environment that rewards — not punishes — productivity.

Nathan Benefield is vice president of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.