Thank you, sir. My question is whether the added spending brought on by migration into our state from other states is actually covered by the increase in revenue. Years ago when my sister moved to Arizona, new residents paid $400 for an AZ driver’s license; this at a time when AZ was one of the fastest growing states in population. Whether it balanced the state’s budget or not, I have no clue. But as we are all impacted by surging development I hope these new neighbors are bearing their share of expanding our infrastructure…
Hello Phil. Good question, and the piece answers part of it. Population growth is already inside the yardstick. The $3 billion a year is spending above what more people and higher prices explain, so growth alone does not account for it. And on the revenue side, the state is not coming up short. It collected enough beyond its spending to leave $6.6 billion sitting in the General Fund.
Whether new residents bear their share is a different question, and the honest answer is that nobody publishes the math. New residents start paying sales and income tax the day they arrive. Some costs start early too. A new resident 65 or older qualifies after one year for the homestead exemption, which removes the first $50,000 of a home's value from property tax, and the state reimburses the county for what that costs. So a county gaining retirees is also adding a cost to the state's books. None of that is a complaint about the exemption. The point is the one the piece makes: no document adds up what new residents pay in against what they add in cost. I think one should.
Thank you, sir. My question is whether the added spending brought on by migration into our state from other states is actually covered by the increase in revenue. Years ago when my sister moved to Arizona, new residents paid $400 for an AZ driver’s license; this at a time when AZ was one of the fastest growing states in population. Whether it balanced the state’s budget or not, I have no clue. But as we are all impacted by surging development I hope these new neighbors are bearing their share of expanding our infrastructure…
Hello Phil. Good question, and the piece answers part of it. Population growth is already inside the yardstick. The $3 billion a year is spending above what more people and higher prices explain, so growth alone does not account for it. And on the revenue side, the state is not coming up short. It collected enough beyond its spending to leave $6.6 billion sitting in the General Fund.
Whether new residents bear their share is a different question, and the honest answer is that nobody publishes the math. New residents start paying sales and income tax the day they arrive. Some costs start early too. A new resident 65 or older qualifies after one year for the homestead exemption, which removes the first $50,000 of a home's value from property tax, and the state reimburses the county for what that costs. So a county gaining retirees is also adding a cost to the state's books. None of that is a complaint about the exemption. The point is the one the piece makes: no document adds up what new residents pay in against what they add in cost. I think one should.